And I all I got was this reasonable, semi-literate paragraph of topical pseudo-references to spaghetti, shame, and car oil. I know when I say oil, you might be tempted to say snake, snake of course leads to grass, you see where I'm going with this.

Everything eventually reaches a state of habituation.

My kids think I am strange and they're not wrong. I guess the sum total of my life adds up to a large prime number.

What are the chances?

I want the message of my life to be that it is OK to be unique. It's OK to write a joke that only you will laugh at. It's OK to make art without thinking about your audience. A performance should be "for the audience," but the writing process should never be.

As a writer, the last thing I am, is afraid of AI. The misunderstanding, really, at least, in my mind, comes from the idea that the process of writing is, or ever could be, as easy as a set of inputs, an automated transformation layer, and a final output. Even with that so-called 'retrieval augmented generation' it still only offers a pretty low level form of written communication. Of course, the models in question have probably been trained on millions or billions of pages from some of the greatest minds of recent centuries, but without a deep understanding of context, and how a given voice in literature relates to his or her own subject matter, it's still a very unrefined and scattershot business of creating new prose via LLM. Even mediocre writers with a reasonable amount of experience, will have a better final product and a much easier path to said final product, then the considerable amount of work in post production that would have to happen if one was to integrate new copy via something like Gemini, chatGPT, or Claude. At least for now.

On the other hand, I can see how these tools have already become goto necessities for a lot of digital workers in more of an administrative capacity: writing business notes, creating brochure copy, event promo copy; all of these things are a much better fit for LLM generated text. But the idea that novelists, who are experts in their craft, or poets, or speech writers will be replaced - we keep our lead by raising the bar. We (writers) will be replaced only when society stops caring about quality. That may happen, of course, but I still believe that great ideas tend to win over time.

We break the models by creating associations they don't understand.

We tie God to the devil, to the moon, to the rain, and the binary brain just cannot track the spontaneity, the agility. What does a computer understand of color? of musical notes? the voices of children?