This article left me with a profound sadness. Not only was it paint-by-numbers, it managed to downplay its own alarm, undercutting the point of reading the art

This article left me with a profound sadness. Not only was it paint-by-numbers, it managed to downplay its own alarm, undercutting the point of reading the article in the first place: for if AI is so 'dreary', then why are we dancing like water drops on a hot skillet? The overall point of this piece seemed to be an attempt by a 'harrumph' (a term a friend of mine coined for out-of-touch English department creatures) to steer the conversation about AI back towards something the author actually knows something about. It reminded me of WWI generals, sending wave after wave of calvary towards death, unable to ken that horses now had nothing to do with warfare. Harrumphs gotta harrumph. In doing so, they will miss out on the now-vanishing window to actually say something meaningful and novel about this terrifying new world into which we have awoken. It's a shame, because much vital conversation must occur. Immediately. Instanter. Now. The material analysis (that AI represents wealth concentration) is surely correct, but also well beside the point. We need to move the conversation along to UBI, social housing, and counselling for the hundreds of millions of white-collar workers who no longer have marketable skills.