I won't try to posit whether this post was AI-generated or not and I do not think it matters. That focus is a defense mechanism for handling an uncomfortable id

I won't try to posit whether this post was AI-generated or not and I do not think it matters. That focus is a defense mechanism for handling an uncomfortable idea. The idea is this: the commodification of intelligence requires the codification of domain expertise to function reliably, and proper governance to scale. Taste, in my opinion, is a fill-in for absent function and lack of utility. Systems function; they don't require taste. Taste is why PG put Sam Altman where he did — not a system of merit, not evidence. Taste is why DJT can do no wrong in the eyes of his base. It is unprovable and has no true measure, and that is exactly why it gets leaned on so heavily: it lets you claim superiority no matter what slop your system produces. You say the box moved taste up a level. Out of the making and into decision layer. That relocation is a smell. Your unfalsifiable thing conveniently gets moved to the one place it still can't be checked, at precisely the moment the making became checkable. Just like: Iran/Strait of Hormus, AI curing diseases and all of the other bold promises made by people who claim to be "taste makers" but in the end its all the same. Bullshit! Because thats what taste is a euphemism for in this context. Convincing others that you are correct in some way with no actual proof to back it up. The vector here should not be "taste"; it's tolerances: written down, measured, enforced. The judgment gets encoded into a spec, and the spec is what survives the person who had it. That is codification; not "taste".