> The product's changing so fast that our demo videos usually get outdated fast.

That's a pretty weak reason to not make them. You'll never make a demo by that logic.

At least for me, it always comes down to overcoming the inertia to start and procrastination. Otherwise, in my mind, I am always running what needs to be done, in what order, how soon, etc.

The tasks that don't get completed on time are usually the ones that I perceive as low value, even though they need to be done in my current corporate environment. Also some tasks that first look important or urgent eventually can become unneeded in the end; so the problem might be one of correct prioritization of tasks.

My best success of getting things done is with time boxing and literally setting Outlook meetings with myself with a clear task definition as its subject.

> However, shouldn't the aim be towards empowering an individual towards the human condition that they desire? Of course, within the constraints of the allocated resources that society can provide. That search to enable self-actualization and purpose for people can inherently come with tasks that are... well boring.

> Sending an email that is critical to fostering an important business connection can sometimes be a chore. But it's important. People with ADHD especially struggle with this, as they thrive on brains that crave stimulation. Many live very unsatisfying lives (higher rates of unemployment, depression, divorce) as a result of this.

I agree but the solution in my mind is not more technology, because then these same people will have to learn how to use an AI system or interact with it. Even if it makes it easier for them, it will mean a reduced cognitive load so that technology and impose an even greater load later one. Sending an email would not even be an issue if we did not have email. Therefore, while you are correct within the confines of our high-tech society, I reject high-tech society outright because it is a progression of attainments of local maximae, themselves which are decreasing.

> In many cases, it can feel as if you're a prisoner to your mind. You don't feel like you have the agency to live the life you want. And why? Because of some executive function deficits? Why not use technology as a way to externalize these cognitive management malfunctions?

Because you do not free yourself from being a prisoner. If I had to use an AI tool, I would still feel like a prisoner because it's even less autonomy. People don't want to be coddled with more and more technological augmentation, they want a life with more time to do the things they love that does not involve technology -- of course, it might not seem so at first because they are addicted to it.

For example, in pretty much EVERY job I've seen these days that pays a decent wage, you have to live in a city, be trapped in a cage behind a screen, and do things that are abhorrent (furthering consumerism, or making unsustainable economic growth easier).

I am against virtually ALL modern technological development and I think we need to radically change our society to be more aligned with more sustainability, not invent more technology to get to the next local maximum.

> Also "writing a shopping list for a party" can be boring (or at least I might definitely enjoy some external support), it doesn't turn me into a cog of the "system", or does it?

It is a step in that direction. It is one tiny step to making you less dependent on others. Yes, that single step may not seem like much, but over time, it transforms the social act of a party further towards being a commodity. More resources and more energy are put to use so that you are less likely to ask another person for help. And then there's the matter of having to interact more and more with technology, and spend less time without it, which itself transforms you into a person more habitauted to interact technologically.

Perhaps the next step will be a party where some of the participants are AI, or where some of your friends join by virtual reality. Or perhaps some of them will have an AI assistant that will help them complete their sentences so that they don't have to be fully present, or it will help them show the pictures they took, lots of which have been AI augmented.

The point is that all these small steps lead to the greater mechanization of the human being, which destroys the possibility of more genuine relationships and community.

> When, in all of recorded history, has this not been humanity’s sole purpose?

First, by specifying recorded history, you introduce a bias: technology itself is responsible for the ability to record history. Second, there are oral and even written descriptions of tribes who do not have this as their sole purpose. As described in the book "An American Indian Mind in a Linear World" and many others, some tribes focused on relationships to the world rather than the-world-as-a-resource.

In some times, technological development was not the focus of humanity, such as in these tribes where a constant level of basic technology was maintained.

There is simply no reason to believe that the endless development of technology is necessary, especially since there are counterexamples to sustainable societies that don't require endless technological growth.

Both really.