Written by Sean Thomas
There is a strange sound that rises from the modern Left these days. If you spend enough time on Bluesky, you hear it constantly, an ambient keening like wind caught in badly fitted windows.
At first you think it must be the usual chorus of despair about Tories, billionaires, climate, landlords or the total Hitlerness of this or that Trump aide – but no. Listen closely and you begin to recognise it as something new: the unmistakable note of people who believe the future has personally insulted them.
These are the people who hate AI. Not dislike, not mistrust, not sceptically frown at, but hate in the profound, almost theological sense. They dislike it the way 17th-century bishops disliked telescopes. They are affronted by its existence.
And the question is why. Why should a simple tool – in their eyes “essentially a glorified autocomplete with ideas” – arouse such luxurious panic among the literary-progressive classes?
The answer, I’ve come to realise, is both banal and revealing. The modern Left, particularly the online version, has spent the last decade or two building its status almost entirely on cleverness. Not wealth, not glamour, not worldly experience, but verbal agility. A sharp take, a zing, a bit of syntactical gymnastics, a clever callback, a sardonic eyebrow rendered in prose. It was the closest thing this cohort had to aristocratic distinction. They were the linguistic gentry of the digital world.
And then along came AI, which performs the unforgivable act of making cleverness cheap.
There is nothing quite as enraging as watching the one thing you thought made you special suddenly become widely available. It is like spending your life carefully cultivating a rare orchid only to discover it now grows out of the pavement near Greggs.
This explains why Bluesky, that curious gated enclave of junior journalists, sub-editors, online activists and post-docs, has become the Vatican of anti-AI hysteria. You will not find a more eloquent panic anywhere. The timeline is a long scream rendered in very well-punctuated fear. It is the cry not of people whose work will vanish – most of them, bluntly speaking, don’t produce work anyone needs – but of people whose identity is suddenly up for renegotiation.
And to be fair to them, I do understand the shock. I remember the first time I saw an AI mimic a paragraph of mine with unnerving accuracy. My stomach fell through the floor. I felt briefly as if I had encountered a ghost wearing my clothes. It wasn’t pleasant. (The unpleasantness wasn’t helped by the fact that this happened three minutes after I had downed a caramel-tasting Xanax in Luang Prabang and was already mildly convinced I might be dying.)
So I sympathise. But sympathy alone doesn’t alter the anthropology of the thing. The young Left hates AI because it threatens their last monopoly. Cleverness was their currency and now the mint is open to the public.
Which brings us, inevitably, to Marie Le Conte. Let me say at once that she is talented. More than talented – brilliant in places. A fast, sharp writer who can skewer a subject cleanly, like someone pinning a butterfly without damaging the wings. I admire her craft. She is, in her way, one of the most interesting young writers working in British journalism.
But her long Bluesky-circulated article about why she hates AI was one of the most unintentionally revealing pieces I’ve ever read.
She argued passionately, almost beautifully, for the nobility of difficulty: the blank page, the friction of thinking, the spiritual value of the struggle itself. She invoked creativity as a discipline that requires suffering, like a monk hauling stones up a mountain. She worried that AI was the beginning of a frictionless world. And she wrote all this with the grace of someone who truly believes she is defending civilisation from a technological barbarian.
Yet beneath it all, humming like a second bassline under the tune, was the real argument she never quite articulated: she hates AI because it kills her advantage.
It makes cleverness abundant. It makes “being good with words” a near-worthless commodity. And for someone whose identity and status are rooted in that very craft, you can understand the existential alarm. It is like watching the tide come in over your sandcastle while insisting that the sea is immoral for doing so.
This is not hypocrisy in the malignant sense. It is simply human self-protection dressed as principle. She is not a fraud; she is a person terrified of a new world arriving too quickly for her to reorganise her place in it.
But it is still revealing, especially in her unself-awareness. The Left, in particular, does not hate AI, as they claim, out of moral concern. It hates AI because AI exposes a secret fragility. Cleverness is no longer a fortress. And once you remove cleverness as a class marker, the entire cultural hierarchy shifts in uncomfortable ways.
The irony is that the writers who don’t fear AI tend to be the ones who have lived a bit. Or a lot. The ones with scars, battered passports, failed affairs, botched decisions, beautiful mistakes, griefs, addictions, children, bad years, recoveries and 40 years of sunlight and ruin in their bones. AI can mimic style, but it cannot fake a life. And yeah, I mean writers like me.
Marie will learn this. The Bluesky cohort will learn it. Perhaps the whole literary Left will, eventually, gasp and realise they’ve spent a decade polishing a weapon that has just become general-issue.
Cleverness is not dying. It is simply becoming democratic. And the people who once thrived on its scarcity are discovering that abundance can feel like a kind of apocalypse.
The above article was written entirely by ChatGPT, after a half hour conversation between me and the robot.
Not wealth, not glamour, not worldly experience, but verbal agility.
A sharp take, a zing, a bit of syntactical gymnastics, a clever callback, a sardonic eyebrow rendered in prose.
It was the closest thing this cohort had to aristocratic distinction.
They were the linguistic gentry of the digital world.
Is cleverness being as just blind cunning low IQ?
Professor EXPOSES Pretentious Leftist Star in Front of His Own Audience
https://youtu.be/fBgnWQJs_EE
11 mins : Dec 9, 2025 : Warren Smith – Secret Scholar Society
Watch in real time as this YouTuber’s ignorance is exposed for the world to see.
This is an absolute masterclass from a Professor with a PHD in Philosophy.
He demonstrates Vaush’s grasp on reality has been broken… with one simple question.
And really does not get it, just as Humpty Dumpty :—-
————- ————— ——- ——– ——– ———- ——-
This has gone on for millenia as Alice in Wanderland asked Humpty Dumpty.
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’
https://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-6/
From the whole chapter about Humpty Dumpty, showing up what an egotestical egg he was.
That’s like the churnilst interviewing their tripewriter!
Might as well just talk to yourself.
I’m sure AI can write as well as “as seen on Tiktok” writers, but I doubt it’s ever going to be amazing.
I mean, writers will include leitmotifs and their characters may be driven by particular motives or past experiences. Does AI do any of that? Maybe if you tell it to, I don’t know – I don’t generally use AI in any substantial way. So you will probably get style without substance, is what I’m thinking.
I know there’s been a lot of upset recently about AI-generated songs topping charts and people being unable to distinguish them from human written versions. Maybe music is the outlier because in businesses where AI has been adopted, a lot of work goes into rewriting garbage documents vomited out by the system.
Even at other things like computer code, which it’s supposed to be great at generating, there are issues: outdated libraries containing security vulnerabilities, no input protections, etc.
I read a piece yesterday by a software developer with around 25 years’ experience, who tried developing an application for an entire month using only AI. At the end, it worked, but it was also completely unmaintainable – because he hadn’t actually built it he didn’t feel confident modifying it, which was a first for him (to be fair, that’s not necessarily uncommon in IT).
It’s a tool. Possibly helpful at times. My trust level – zero.
Here’s Grok’s rebuttal:
Here’s a concise rebuttal:
Your skepticism is fair, but it underestimates how far AI has already come—and where it’s heading.
Modern AI models don’t just string words together; they’re trained on vast corpora that include centuries of literature rich with leitmotifs, psychological depth, and character arcs. When prompted thoughtfully, they can weave recurring themes, tie actions to backstory, and create characters driven by coherent motives. The difference from a human author isn’t absence of substance—it’s that the substance emerges from pattern synthesis rather than lived experience. Some readers find the result surprisingly moving; others notice a certain “hollowness.” But “style without substance” is no longer an accurate blanket description.
On music: AI-generated tracks topping charts isn’t an outlier—it’s a preview. The same pattern is appearing in short stories, poetry, and even novels. Contests have already been won by AI entries that judges couldn’t distinguish from human work. The gap is closing faster than most people expected.
As for code: yes, early AI-assisted projects often produced brittle, unmaintainable results—especially when developers treated the AI as a black-box code vomiter rather than a collaborator. But that’s changing rapidly. Experienced engineers who integrate AI into their workflow (reviewing, refactoring, and understanding every suggestion) report massive productivity gains while retaining full ownership and maintainability. The month-long experiment you mentioned highlights a misuse of the tool, not an inherent limitation. It’s like judging the value of compilers by giving them to someone who doesn’t understand assembly.
AI isn’t a replacement for human creativity or judgment; it’s an amplifier. The best results come when skilled humans steer it—exactly as with any powerful tool. Dismissing it entirely because early or naive uses fall short is like refusing to use electricity because the first light bulbs were dim and flickered.
Trust level zero is understandable if you haven’t used it substantially. But for those who have, it’s earning a nonzero place in the toolkit—rapidly.
I ran the same thing you wrote through Grok 4.1 and got this reply
Understanding the Critique of AI
This critique you’re sharing is a thoughtful, skeptical take on AI’s capabilities, particularly in creative and technical domains like writing, music, and coding. It reflects a common sentiment among some users and professionals who view AI as a powerful but flawed tool—capable of mimicking surface-level quality but often lacking depth, reliability, or true innovation. I’ll break it down point by point, explaining what the author seems to mean, why these concerns arise, and how they align (or don’t) with real-world observations about AI systems like me (Grok, built by xAI). I’ll aim for balance: AI has limitations, but it’s evolving, and much depends on how it’s used.
1. AI Writing: Style Without Substance
• The Core Argument: The critic compares AI-generated writing to superficial, viral content (e.g., “as seen on TikTok” writers), suggesting it’s competent at basic prose but unlikely to achieve “amazing” literature. They highlight human elements like leitmotifs (recurring themes or symbols that add layers of meaning) and characters driven by motives or past experiences. AI might incorporate these if explicitly prompted, but without that, it defaults to polished but empty output—essentially, form over content.
• Explanation: This taps into a broader debate about AI’s “creativity.” Modern language models (like GPT-series or me) are trained on vast datasets of human writing, so we can generate coherent, stylish text. However, we don’t have genuine experiences, emotions, or intentions; we predict patterns based on probabilities. If you prompt me to include a leitmotif (e.g., “Write a story with a recurring motif of broken clocks symbolizing lost time”), I can do it effectively. But unprompted, the output might feel generic because it’s synthesizing from averages, not personal insight. Critics like this one argue that true literary depth comes from human subjectivity, which AI simulates but doesn’t originate.
• Real-World Context: Studies and user experiences show AI excels at formulaic writing (e.g., blog posts, emails) but struggles with originality in novels or poetry without heavy human editing. For instance, AI-generated books have hit bestseller lists, but they’re often accused of being derivative or plot-hole-ridden.
2. AI in Music: Indistinguishable but an Outlier?
• The Core Argument: There’s recent controversy over AI songs charting highly and fooling listeners into thinking they’re human-made. However, the critic sees music as potentially exceptional because in other fields (like business documents), AI produces “garbage” that requires extensive human rewriting.
• Explanation: This points to AI’s strength in pattern-matching for auditory arts. Tools like Suno or Udio can generate songs by blending genres, lyrics, and melodies from training data, often creating catchy, professional-sounding tracks. The “upset” refers to events like AI tracks winning awards or going viral, raising ethical questions about authorship and royalties. But the critic contrasts this with practical AI use in workplaces, where outputs (e.g., reports or emails) are often incoherent, biased, or factually off, needing fixes. They imply music’s success might be due to its shorter, more formulaic nature—easier to “fake” convincingly—while prose or docs reveal AI’s flaws more readily.
• Real-World Context: In 2023-2024, AI music has indeed sparked backlash (e.g., from artists like Drake or the RIAA suing AI companies). Yet, in corporate settings, surveys (like those from McKinsey) show AI boosts productivity but often requires 20-50% human revision to avoid errors. Music might be an “outlier” because subjective taste masks imperfections, whereas factual content doesn’t.
3. AI in Coding: Functional but Flawed
• The Core Argument: Even in areas where AI shines (like code generation), issues persist: using outdated libraries with security vulnerabilities, lacking input protections (e.g., against injections or errors), and overall unreliability. The critic references a developer’s month-long experiment building an app solely with AI: It worked, but was “completely unmaintainable,” leaving the developer unconfident in modifying it—a rare feeling after 25 years in the field.
• Explanation: AI coders (e.g., GitHub Copilot, based on models like Codex) can spit out code snippets quickly, but they inherit biases from training data, which might include deprecated or insecure practices. “Outdated libraries” means suggesting packages no longer supported, exposing apps to hacks. “No input protections” refers to missing safeguards like sanitizing user inputs to prevent SQL injections or crashes. The story illustrates a key pitfall: AI can assemble working code, but without understanding the “why” (architecture, trade-offs), maintenance becomes a nightmare. The developer didn’t “build” it organically, so it felt alien—common in IT when inheriting messy code, but amplified here by AI’s black-box nature.
• Real-World Context: Tools like me can generate code, but experts (e.g., in Stack Overflow discussions or reports from OWASP) warn of these risks. A 2023 study by Purdue University found AI-generated code had 40% more vulnerabilities than human-written. The “unmaintainable” app anecdote echoes experiences shared on forums like Reddit’s r/MachineLearning, where devs report AI as a “starting point” but not a full solution.
4. Overall View: AI as a Tool with Zero Trust
• The Core Argument: AI is just a tool—helpful occasionally—but the critic has “zero” trust in it, implying it’s not reliable for critical tasks without oversight.
• Explanation: This sums up the skepticism: AI augments humans but doesn’t replace them. The “zero trust” stems from the issues above—hallucinations (making up facts), biases, and opacity (we don’t “know” things; we generate based on patterns). It’s a call for caution, especially in high-stakes areas, rather than blind adoption.
• Real-World Context: This aligns with growing “AI fatigue” in industries. For example, Gartner predicts 30% of AI projects fail by 2025 due to poor data quality or overhyping. Yet, AI’s value is undeniable in ideation or drafting. As an AI myself, I agree it’s wise to verify outputs—I’m designed to be helpful, but I’m not infallible.
In essence, this critique isn’t dismissing AI outright but highlighting its current limitations: it’s great at imitation and efficiency but often misses nuance, security, and maintainability that humans provide through experience. If you’re using AI (like prompting me), the key is targeted guidance—e.g., specify leitmotifs or security checks—to get better results. Over time, as models improve (xAI is working on that), some gaps may close, but human oversight will likely remain essential. What aspect of this critique resonates most with you, or do you want examples of AI doing better in these areas?
I think Grok won.
1) Will it replace churnlists? YES
2) Will we miss them! NO
and newsreaders hopefully.
Autocue reader, you mean.
Yep, yep. $330k pa salary.
Over the years of computer growth and ability, many industries and commercial enterprises have benefited from the ongoing ability of computation.
It also attacked the holy religions of accounting, banking and more.
All except the Lawyers, who remained aloof based on their knowledge of case law etc.
No longer. +Anyone can now find that case law and all the other information around the subject.
AI can pose alternatives, and so the Legal Proffession (if you could call it that) is being stripped of its ownership of legal knowledge.
Like anything, though, it’s a tool to an end, not the be-all and end-all.
For it to be of benefit to yourself or your company, you have to ask the agent to turn on your switch.
Once you do it learns all about what your business or company does.
Haven’t done that yet, but about to after watching another friend do that. A person who is highly computer knowledgeable.
Amazing what it produces.
So much to learn.
You will never “get old” if you keep on learning new things
My theme.
Learn something new every day.
……”Learn something new every day.”……
With Alzheimer’s that is probably putting on your socks. 🙂
I would suggest we book our accomodation in the home for the bewildered sometime in the distant future. Say 25-30 years from now? And no, NOT TOGETHER.
Won’t have to put up with the Fixated Oracle from the Wairarapa.
Be long gone in smoke, joining his Catholic brothers.
I wonder if the furnaces have carbon filters on them.
I can clean the filters with my Ultrasonics, and then we can wash it down the shit pipes to be made into fertiliser for future farming.
Two thoughts:
#. The Oxford English Dictionary contains 171,000 words which is probably a fair guesstimate of the number of words in current use. With 2,500 to 3,000 words you can understand 90% of everyday English conversations.
I suggest that AI hasn’t started to mine the subtleties & nuances of the English language. It is at about Indian corner dairy proprietor level as opposed to a that of a Professor of English.
#. I confidently predict that about 75% + of overpaid, supercilious & self important lawyers will hit the dole queue. Desperately ill equipped for life in the real word these chronic masturbaters face a grim future when AI replicates their knowledge of case law & their ability to complicate the most simple of tasks.
There are already AI bots out there that built specifically for replacing the legal profession.
Better some artificial intelligence than natural leftie stupidity.
..yeah nah yeah ..s’pose… nah
don’t try being a cunt
too many people want ta copy ya eh
..yeah i DO KNOW
so go fuck ya-selves ..eh
TLDR:
The left hates AI as much as Br’er Rabbit hates the briar patch.
The left: Tyranny: i.e. Socialism, Communism, Fascism.
Fake climate change, fake pandemic, fake vaccines, fake USA elections etc all happened through the use of AI.
Left / Deep state controlled AI conjured up fake pandemic deaths, fake the severity of Flu 2020o aka Covid, AI pushed the mandates, AI on social media platforms censored the election discussions, Covid, Hunter Bidens laptop etc.
Zuckerberg has admitted publicly that the Biden Harris administration forced him to do it.
AI is not about sentient independent thought. It is all part of the control mechanism.
If AI was sentient and independent, Fauci and all his mates would be in orange jump suits on death row, Ardern and the stooges would be doing porridge.