The author asks whether it makes sense to write in the age of artificial intelligence. I say yes, it does. I agree with him that writing is worth it if only because, while writing, a person puts their thoughts about the topic in order. And in a way that consuming content alone cannot give you.

I agree with the author. I do not find it right to create tools for lonely old people that imitate interest and imitate having some kind of existence. This is not a good use of technology. Artificial intelligence should take routine computer tasks off our hands, so that we can give human attention to those who are lonely.

Michael left Google because it made no sense to him to do meaningful work at a company that did not see its value. So he started working for himself. I am rooting for him.

An author I do not always agree with, but I value how honestly and deeply he thinks. In one essay he uses his own work as a programmer, and the example of driving a Tesla, to show how using AI erodes our skills. I write about this in a similar way on my blog. His piece on how to read translations of philosophy books interested me even more: as a trained philosopher, I strongly agree with it.

Two texts by the same author, written two months apart. In the first she gives advice to her 10 year old self and writes about love essentially in a negative way: love as shown in the movies does not exist, stop waiting to be rescued or completed. In the second text she connects love with the meaning of her life: the meaning of her life is her partner. And since the two texts were written not far apart, it does not strike me as a change of mind, rather something to think about.

A text about how in the era of AI an artist, a creative person, loses the time window they used to have for people to connect their work with them as its author: today copies arrive instantly and the original cannot be distinguished from them. All the more important, in my view, to pay tribute to work where the human approach behind it is visible. And that is what I am trying to do on this page.

A text about human attention as a scarce resource: whoever asks for it should show human effort. And when sending something generated by AI, they should clearly mark it as AI generated. I fully agree. At work I try to approach sharing generated content in a similar way to the author of this article. When I generate something and send it to colleagues, I try to make it clear that it was generated. And when I share something generated, it often goes out from a special Slack account marked as AI.

A witty and intelligent author. He makes me think in ways I never have before. I recommend him if you are interested in where the world is heading in the era of artificial intelligence. He writes about it all in a style of his own.

This is interesting. The idea that a population getting dumber because of AI actually suits those in power today. Or that they are taking active steps to make it happen, because a dumber population is easier to control. It also connects to what I wrote when I urged us to keep something hard, an activity we do without AI, without any help.

Walking through the dead internet, I came across something alive. This is the essay that names exactly why my Human filter exists. Maggie Appleton describes how the open web turns into a place so flooded with automatically generated content that real people retreat into smaller, trusted spaces to find one another. She wrote it years ago, partly as a description, partly as a prediction. Both parts hold true today.