In a recent LinkedIn post, Alison McCauley explores a persistent pattern in technological adoption: increased efficiency often leads to more work, not less leisure. McCauley highlights the phenomenon known as the Jevons Paradox, which suggests that as technology makes tasks more efficient, we tend to increase our consumption or workload rather than reducing it.
McCauley uses historical examples to illustrate this point, noting how innovations intended to save time have historically been repurposed. She writes:
“Every time we’ve invented a tool to save time, we’ve used that time for more work. Could AI be different? Only with great intention.”
The post recounts how the washing machine, while freeing up time from manual labor, raised cleanliness standards and allowed individuals to take on other tasks. Similarly, spreadsheets enabled more complex financial analysis, which in turn became expected. Even email, intended to streamline communication, now consumes a significant portion of many workers’ days.
AI and the Intensification of Work
McCauley points to recent data and research that suggest artificial intelligence is following a similar trajectory. She references a Wall Street Journal article citing data from ActivTrak, which studied the work habits of over 164,000 workers. This study found that AI, rather than reducing overall workload, has intensified it.
As McCauley explains, the freed-up capacity is immediately reallocated:
“Across 164,000 workers, AI didn’t lighten the load. It intensified it. As ActivTrak’s Gabriela Mauch put it, freed-up capacity ‘immediately gets repurposed into doing other work.'”
This observation is further supported by recent pieces in the Harvard Business Review, which McCauley notes also indicate that AI tends to increase output expectations rather than decrease working intensity.
Reimagining the ‘Return’ on AI Investment
Despite this historical trend, McCauley proposes a shift in how we approach the time and capacity that AI can create. She suggests treating the time generated by AI as a valuable resource, akin to capital, that should be intentionally reinvested.
Expanding the Definition of ‘Return’
Furthermore, McCauley argues for an expanded definition of what constitutes a worthwhile ‘return’ on this investment. Beyond mere productivity gains, she advocates for a broader view that encompasses personal fulfillment, deeper connections, and an improved quality of life.
McCauley poses a series of introspective questions designed to encourage individuals and organizations to think deliberately about how to best utilize the potential efficiencies offered by AI:
- “If AI frees up time in your life, what would you want that time to build, and create, and do?”
- “Where in your life would more time actually make things better? (meaningfully better!)”
- “What work in your life gives you energy that you rarely have enough time for, or could go deeper on if you weren’t constantly racing the clock?”
- “Is there something you’ve wanted to pursue that could create more opportunity for you or your family, but never had the space to develop?”
McCauley emphasizes that this intentional approach is crucial, moving beyond ingrained habits and societal expectations.
“This is a time for intention, not just relying on our habits and ‘shoulds'”
Ultimately, McCauley’s post serves as a call to action, urging readers to consciously decide how the efficiencies brought by AI will shape their work and lives, rather than allowing old patterns to dictate the outcome.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Alison McCauley on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on March 11, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →