Writing as an act of rebellion (Despite the AI psychosis)

The central argument is that human writing and deliberate craftsmanship become more valuable, not less, as AI-generated material spreads. The writer draws on the television series Pluribus, in which an alien consciousness knows everything humans have produced yet wants to read a book newly written by a human character. That contrast suggests that AI’s ability to absorb existing work does not equal the capacity to create something genuinely new. The same concern applies to software: a harsh Jepsen evaluation of the AI-coded ParticleDB found serious failures, and the writer expects an AI-written Postgres implementation to suffer similar problems. These examples support a call to keep learning and improving rather than treating AI output as finished or reliable.

The piece also argues that software should be made as close to perfect as possible, even though human developers cannot achieve perfection consistently. This standard is worth pursuing, and handmade writing, books, and programs can stand out amid automated production. The writer rejects audience size as a measure of creative value: having only a few readers is still worthwhile if writing builds skills in English, programming, and poetry. Likes, views, and flattering responses can exploit the brain’s attraction to rewards, much like doomscrolling or sugar, and steer creators toward easy, attention-seeking choices. The proposed response is to ignore those metrics and keep studying and refining one’s craft, regardless of pressure from technology companies or prevailing enthusiasm for AI.