Can you speak more to the psychoactive and cognition impacts to you in specifics?
Very interested.
I am a regular coffee drinker, mostly limited to very early morning (e.g. 5-7 am). Also consume celsius here and there when I want to minimize stomach disruption in the morning (e.g. I am about to run).
But have also used THC in the past (no longer, major anxiety inducer for me). Alcohol like so many people. And more recently went on an assisted MDMA/ketamine therapy journey that continues to amaze me in its impact (in all good ways).
Asking as I am reducing caffeine slowly right now and curious what folks are seeing as differences on/off in real terms.
I've been a decaf drinker for close to a decade now, maybe my experience is interesting to you:
I have better mood, presence of mind and working memory in the morning, especially compared to caffeinated peers. I'm also a lot more aware of when I've woken up from a bad night's sleep (see paragraph 5).
I have much less mid-day dysregulation/impulses compared to caffeinated peers. No predictable afternoon slump either – but a rich lunch will always leave me foggy, lol. If it's the weekend, I'll often join my young kid for the afternoon nap and fall asleep in minutes – the 30-45 min nap usually feels amazing.
Coffee really feels to me now like the psychoactive substance it is. I've had anxiety issues for other reasons in recent years, and today a cup of caffeinated coffee will often trigger a good level of anxiety if I'm not physically active during the peak. The physical symptoms of both are very similar. If I'm moving about, it usually feels good, like something hyped me up, but the sensation comes on its own instead.
Anxiety greatly changes my sleep needs, and caffeine and alcohol both hid these sensations in the past, enough that I suspect I didn't have the interoception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoception) to consciously notice and adjust in the past, which would leave me stuck or spiraling in terms of maintenance/recovery, probably for weeks at a time.
In recent days (pretty low anxiety! knock on wood) I have sleep that's almost 2hrs shorter per night, waking up naturally. That came very progressively (sleep quality), then very suddenly (lower needs). Also a great gain, though I also aged a decade and that must contribute as well.
Note that I faded out caffeine by progressively substituting for decaf. No headaches this way (from a peak of ~4 cups a day, I would say?). It sounds like you're doing the same, which I really recommend! There's no need to self-flagellate on top of what's usually a major habit adjustment.
The psychoactive effects of caffeine are massive after you detox for a few weeks. I had a full cup after not having caffeine for a month and the effect was massive. Near euphoria, constant task switching, some anxiety, etc. I personally felt the effect was much stronger than weed has ever felt for me and comparable to having 5+ drinks of alcohol.
But the effect quickly drops to almost nothing very rapidly. I started having caffeine 3 out of 7 days because having a low caffeine tolerance was too annoying. One coke, tea, chocolate would completely destroy my sleep.
I take a 30 min bike ride midday, not a hard ride, just get on the bike and start peddling, I'll now do a leisurely 6-8 mi.
My cognition in my 40s is now better than it was at 26, at 37 before I started this routine I thought my engineering career was over, the post lunch crash, the mental tiredness, just terrible.
The fact that we build our brain work spaces so distant from physical movement is bad for our mental health, our soles, our souls, and doing untold economic damage to our country (the u.s. in my case.), I tried lunch walks for years and it's just too fucking boring, cycling is great, after work I rollerblade and it's so mentally engaging and distinct it obliterates the after work fog.
I had heart/chest pains from Lisdextroamphetamine (ADHD meds) that went away when I stopped drinking coffee. And I drunk very little, just one half cup in the morning.
Much less anxious now too, but that's more likely due to ADHD meds.
Even on the "milder" Methylphenidate you can experince clenching jaw, grinding teeth and a chafed tongue when consuming coffee, tea and even dark chocolate.
I’ve avoided arena shows for decades because they’re usually super-expensive and a less satisfying experience. Back in the 90s when I made a comment in the Discipline Global Mobile website about deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it, Robert Fripp himself reposted it in his online diary approvingly. I think I’m willing to go a bit higher than that on both these days (I’ll see a show in a large theater which I’m guessing is around 1–2000 seats and inflation and higher income has raised my threshold on what I’ll spend on tickets), but generally I find smaller venues to be the most satisfying to see live music. Plus, this is going to be more obscure or early-career acts so you get to be hipper than thou when you see them.
When I was a teenager in the 90's I managed to score tickets to what was probably one of Pink Floyd's last tours. If I recall correctly, a ticket cost $40, which was pretty steep for a kid with only a paper route. Still, I was very excited--it was my first concert without my parents--but the experience was terrible.
The show was in a stadium. The sound was terrible. Everyone around me was smoking pot. I was so far away that the musicians were barely visible. The only consolation was that Pink Floyd had a great lights show and a big movie screen behind them showing flying pigs and things like that.
I went to one more stadium show after that--The Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage--and it was somehow worse. The sound was deafening but also unintelligible.
There are many musicians I would love to see, but the big show experience is awful. Fortunately, I have since seen many, many shows in smaller venues. I fondly remember watching Low play in a candlelit (!!) venue with audience members sitting/laying (!!!) on the floor. Way, way better, and definitely hipper than thou.
Feel exactly the same way. I start going to shows in the late 90s - once in high school. All small venues.
I started going to more shows in college (mostly jam) and then even more as an adult with just a smidge more money.
Two shows stick out as particularly bad:
1. Dave Matthews Band - Fenway Park. There is no way to correct all of the oddities (and charm) of the place. The sound was terrible. I enjoyed the show anyways, but it was the worst sound quality I had seen for $90.
2. Phish - Fenway Park. Sound terrible too. From what I saw, the Phish show is folks listening to the music and folks doing whatever-else to the music. I enjoyed being with friends and people watching but nothing else. Luckily, scalped tickets were cheaper once the show started.
In contrast, went to many shows at Cambridge House of Blues, Boston's Paradise Rock Club, and many other similarly sized venues. Best sound, best experiences.
Lucky now to live near the Capitol Theatre in Port Chester NY - a true gem among all the other venues around.
The one great stadium experience I had was seeing Billy Joel on his River of Dreams tour. I had seats behind the stage about six rows back. Billy Joel did about half the show with his piano lifted up in place of the drums and Liberty Devitto moved to where the piano had been, so suddenly, most of the people had the behind the stage seats and I was in row six. But other stadium/outdoor amphiteatre shows I’ve been to (Genesis, Peter Gabriel, The Who) have been kind of underwhelming affairs.
> deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it
I've reached a similar conclusion. I've broken my rule a few times, but just about all of them just reinforced my belief in my rule.
Here I tend to aim for venues where the tickets are $25-35. I'll order a couple and invite someone. I've had some of my best concert experiences this way, surpassing the large concerts I've been to by orders of magnitude.
I also find that in most cases, the sound is much better at smaller venues. That is, there are good spots and bad spots, but you can easily move around to a good spot and then it's really good. The large 2000+ venues I've been to have never had good sound, just decent at best.
The best shows I've been to the last 10 years have been at Reggie's in Chicago. Cheap, not too crowded, and lesser known but really talented bands. Reggie's hasn't changed over the years much - in the best kind of way.
Recently think that Ben's writing is more complex and verbose than ever, but I agree with your point entirely. He is writing it, not AI. I don't listen to his voiceovers but think of the articles as narrated by a captivating in-person presenter/lecturer.
> One suspicion I have is that your one-pager was passed through AI because it was too terse to serve the job of aiding the general reader in obtaining an understanding of the topic for themselves.
One idea for you: provide a reference to an explainer with more context, examples, etc. The original one-pager might be instructions. Do A, then B, then C, without context for the purpose of not confusing the consumer with other information.
Not sure about your car but the car I have with augmented cruise requires hands on wheel. Turns off otherwise. (Volvo XC90)
I agree that there are situations where what I do as a trained driver is different from augmented cruise.
A good example (or perhaps I'm wrong) is this: in a lane, car pulls into lane in front of me and between the car further ahead. Now I don't have enough space in between me and that new entrant. But instead of using brakes (unless eggregious), I bleed speed until I make space I want. Augmented cruise doesn't do that - it hits brakes.
So, from behind, I think it looks like I'm using my brakes a lot more than I am when on augmented cruise. And excessive brake use distracts the driver behind me.
I was watching the Tesla display on my way back home from LaGuardia airport last week (passenger, not driver).
No accidents or close calls, but it was obvious that I might be focused on 1 or 2 things in that very busy and chaotic environment whereas the car (FSD or otherwise) sees more than 2 things and possibly avoids something on my behalf.
I’m in left lane on highway. Tesla ahead of me but quite a ways away.
I realize as I’m driving that the Tesla is moving quite slow for the left lane driving. And before you say it, yes there are lots of people speeding in highway left lanes too.
So - I passed on the right rather than tailgate. Look over and see a guy leaning back in his seat. No hands on wheel. Could’ve been asleep. And driving 10-15 mph slower than you’d expect in that lane.
To your point about using it FSD the way you do, makes total sense to me. Which implies you would also cruise at the right speed depending on the lane you are in, unlike my example.
One of my major complaints about FSD is the 'speed profiles'. You used to be able to set a target speed directly. Now, you can only select a profile. You're either going the exact speed limit, 2-3mph over, or essentially 'with the flow of traffic' which can lead to speeding +15 over the limit.
Didn't know about that feature. Thanks for the illumination. On verge of going full electric and looking at BMW, Lucid, Porsche, Rivian, Tesla.
I wonder what's taught to new drivers about this sort of situation. My intuitive feeling (driving for almost 30 years) is you drive with the flow of traffic when traffic is present. I don't see too many left lane drivers glued to speed limits, but it's obvious when someone is a fast or slow.
It's worth noting that older Tesla's pre-2024, are stuck on an old version of FSD due to compute limitations. Recent FSD, generally, does not hang out in the left lane and is very good at recognizing when vehicles approach from the rear. It will move to the right lane to allow them to pass.
I won't comment on whether it's acceptable to speed or not. I don't think that's the point.
Most highways I drive on exhibit a predictable pattern. Slower folks in right lane. Faster folks in left lane. Maybe those slower folks are at the speed limit, or above, or below. Left lane folks somewhat faster.
Should everyone obey the speed limit? Sure! Hard to argue that point.
My observation was a Tesla driving at - let's call it "right lane speed" in the left lane. Maybe slower. Slow enough that you'd soon see a predictable back-up behind the car - some tailgating, brake usage, etc. The stuff that in my view leads to more accidents, swerving, and phantom traffic that occurs when people pile on each other, use brakes excessively, and end up slowing to a crawl.
FWIW: The "is speeding acceptable" question is somewhat resolved by police. I rarely see people pulled over for speeding within the flow of traffic, vs. somewhat swerving in/out or just driving much faster than everyone.
Don't remember the last time I saw an officer pick a car out of a normally flowing left lane to issue just that one driver a ticket.
Favorited. I was talking to someone (non-dev) yesterday who prototypes with Claude and then goes back/forth with the lead engineer to clean it up and make it production worthy (or at least more robust). I like that model.
Two years ago, I was enjoying a drink with my wife, her friend, a very senior female VC partner, and another friend.
Somehow we talked AI in some depth, and the VC at one point said (about AI): “I don’t know what our kids are going to do for work. I don’t know what jobs there will be to do.”
That same VC invests in AI companies and by what I heard about her, has done phenomenally well.
I think about that exchange all the time. Worried about your own kids but acting against their interests. It unsettled me, and Kyle’s excellent articles brought that back to a boiling point in my mind.
Assuming “phenomenally well” means what it says, the conversation would have suddenly gotten a lot more real if she had said that more precisely: “I don’t know what your kids are going to do for work.”
In the other hand, shouldn't it be the objective of humanity to not HAVE to work for the most basic survival and to fit into society?
Not that we're in any way in that path, of course, with the people making the working machines also accumulating all the wealth. But still, there's something intrinsically good about automation, even when the system is not suited for it.
I don't want to be rude, but I find it ironic that your comment about cognitive work is a copypasted tweet that doesn't even make sense in this context.
I'm precisely talking about automating work so people can write, and draw, and whatever.
But in another world doesn’t automation just produce yet another set of things to do? Perhaps i am doing this all wrong but in my world more automation has never produced less work unless I conveniently told no one and therefore filled “free” time how i wanted.
You're sending mixed messages here. Automation is going to put us all out of jobs, or automation isn't going to produce less work and so we'll still have lots to do?
Personally, I think until real AGI, the current LLMs will automate a lot of tasks, but the market will adapt and humans still end up with about the same percentage of employment and wages.
My original post was about her comment. It seemed like she was both concerned about the presence of jobs for kids while also investing in the very thing possibly taking away those jobs. The contrast was unsettling.
My own take is very much “wait and see and make sure to stay aware/skill up”
My automation point is just that at least in my career (20 years), my workload has rarely gone down even with plenty of automation around.
There's plenty of things you can be simultaneously worried and optimistic about, and I find this is constantly true of parenting.
I will encourage my kid to gain independence, but of course I'm worried about it! The fact that there is uncertainty in her independence and that I can imagine bad outcomes does not mean I'm working against her interest by encouraging it.
"I don't know what jobs there will be to do" is a statement of uncertainty, and, given how you are relaying it, there must have been fear there as well. But it doesn't seem like it's a statement that the world will be worse. You can be fearful and hopeful at the same time, and fear tends to be the stronger of the two, and come out more strongly, again especially in parenting I find, even if you find the hopeful outcomes more likely.
I really hope they increase taxes and stop letting VC firms gamble with pension funds. These people shouldn't have their current jobs already, and you're telling me they're also dictating how technology is being shaped in the country as well?
At the beginning of the industrial revolution we didn't know what people would do for work but we eventually figured it out. Human demands are effectively infinite so there will always be work for other humans to satisfy those demands. The transition period may be disruptive.
Sounds like she's acting in their best interests to me. Her kids will find something to do - the same things everyone else will find to do. There's just going to be a lot less working-for-a-living, and it's going to be glorious.
Hm. Well, certainly one way to look at it. I don’t feel confident that we have a clear idea in either direction. That’s one reason I found the statement peculiar - sort of a rooted fear in no jobs.
Perhaps but it’s more the concept/contrast presented that stuck with me more than the persona. That said - that VC isn’t alone along with many other capital allocators.
False Consciousness was the old marxist term for this inadvertent working against your own ultimate self-interest. It's rife in capitalism. If you look closely you'll see it everywhere.
(note that even the "her kids will be ok" isn't true at the limit. If wealth concentrates sufficiently enough it will lead to societal collapse)
But, what if people putting their energy into ensuring society adapts with the technology safely and positively would be better than focusing on finding ways to capitalize off of whatever happens to occur instead?
I'm not saying one person can do that alone, but if we collectively believe we should focus on capitalization instead, then there's no one present to influence a more constructive, pro-social, sustainable course for society.
So I don't think it's ridiculous to think it's acting against their interests. Money won't get your kids very far if the thing that made you wealthy also pulled the rug from under them. There needs to be more of a strategy than capital.
Very interested.
I am a regular coffee drinker, mostly limited to very early morning (e.g. 5-7 am). Also consume celsius here and there when I want to minimize stomach disruption in the morning (e.g. I am about to run).
But have also used THC in the past (no longer, major anxiety inducer for me). Alcohol like so many people. And more recently went on an assisted MDMA/ketamine therapy journey that continues to amaze me in its impact (in all good ways).
Asking as I am reducing caffeine slowly right now and curious what folks are seeing as differences on/off in real terms.
reply