>Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective unfortunately the hard topics and the topics that matter are the questions that matter most are often

>Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective unfortunately the hard topics and the topics that matter are the questions that matter most are often qualitative. Measurable answers are easy. Nobody cares about those things because it's obvious. Has ChatGPT replaced any jobs for programmers right at this moment? Overall no. But why argue a point everybody already knows? Will chatgpt replace you in the future as the technology develops? Is it a precursor to the machine that will replace you? Qualitative trend-lines point to an unknown artificial entity that does replace all of us. It is useful to speculate and extend the trendline in that direction. You may wish to shield yourself to reality and only look at things with quantitative numbers and lengths that are measurable by rulers but the shield is an illusion what you are doing is blindness. Natural selection and natural history is built from qualitative understanding. Without subjective analysis on qualitative data we would not be able to understand natural selection from the macro perspective. You would be ignorant of the concept of evolution and natural selection and not much different than a creationist. Obviously you aren't like that, you're just using a tactic to win a discussion. Always use hard data works when it works. But ultimately this strategy has failed.