> Hell, I've seen knowing how to use the Windows file explorer at a very low level of competence put a person in the top five percent by computer ability in an

> Hell, I've seen knowing how to use the Windows file explorer at a very low level of competence put a person in the top five percent by computer ability in an office. Within the last couple years. This is a really interesting point, phrased in a way that I wouldn't have thought to vocalize but that resonates with me. Tool-based and infrastructure-based changes that vastly improve efficiency and output based on competency with the tools/infrastructure are common; there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that is nevertheless uncommon for people to grab and use. Assuming current AI generation improves in exactly the way its proponents are expecting (which is it's own separate conversation), it is still probably worth spending a little time trying to figure out whether it's a tool that will actually see mass adoption or whether it'll end up in the same category as many of the other excellent tools that exist today that have remained inaccessible or unattractive to most people. Some tools do get mass adoption and people become competent with them at a mass-level. But only some, and it doesn't seem to strictly map to the quality of the tool. I'm not sure I can easily tell/predict the difference and where a theoretical future AI would fall; I would need to think about it more. But I just wanted to chime in and say that it's a good insight.