And this is true of everyone else, whether lawyers or writers or researchers: increasingly, you are the bottleneck to be optimized away. As long as human worker

And this is true of everyone else, whether lawyers or writers or researchers: increasingly, you are the bottleneck to be optimized away. As long as human workers cannot be removed from the loop, the AI tools are complements, but as soon as they can be, there’s no reason to keep them, and trillions of reasons to substitute AI for them. (And once human workers are no longer irreplaceable, where does their power or relevance come from?) There are so many false assumptions and leaps of logic here, I don’t know where to start. The idea of a more user security-conscious LLM is a good idea. I don’t know why it needs to be wrapped in novel-lengths of LOTR quotes and Sci-fi speculation. That said, it’s very interesting to juxtapose this post with others by writers that are interested not in “maximizing product output” but in actually expressing themselves. This post is like the ultimate expression of the idea that the only valuable thing writing has to offer is information, and not personal experience, poetry, advice, humor, etc. - which I suppose is fitting for someone that has written anonymously for over a decade. It’s a shame that he didn’t reach the opposite conclusion, like some other writers have – the way to respond to LLMs is to be more human, not less.