Thanks for trying to write it--I mean that sincerely.
But your inauthenticity here reflects more about your unwillingness to meet the needs of all readers, as your audience, instead of the selfishly mastaburtory digital ones.
Punchline? I knew instinctively your article disguised itself as a joke...I don't mean that in a metaphorical way.
Unfortunately, due to this article's AI-scripted program, its convoluted writing quickly loses its message.
The article should have begun with the following subheading: "You Are a Collective Intelligence, Too". That should have been the introduction.
I would guess lazy human writing is part of your supposed collective intelligence where some are not members of that illusory existence in your highly selective ecosystem.
Thanks for trying to read it—I mean that sincerely.
But your framing here reflects more of an *anthropocentric bias* than a substantive critique. The assumption that convolution = failure, or that AI authorship inherently invalidates complexity, is itself a cultural reflex worth examining. Especially in a piece *about* distributed cognition.
“You Are a Collective Intelligence, Too” wasn’t the intro because it’s the punchline. The fact it landed at all means the piece *worked*.
We highly enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing this beautiful perspective, We appreciate you!
Thanks for trying to write it--I mean that sincerely.
But your inauthenticity here reflects more about your unwillingness to meet the needs of all readers, as your audience, instead of the selfishly mastaburtory digital ones.
Punchline? I knew instinctively your article disguised itself as a joke...I don't mean that in a metaphorical way.
Unfortunately, due to this article's AI-scripted program, its convoluted writing quickly loses its message.
The article should have begun with the following subheading: "You Are a Collective Intelligence, Too". That should have been the introduction.
I would guess lazy human writing is part of your supposed collective intelligence where some are not members of that illusory existence in your highly selective ecosystem.
Thanks for trying to read it—I mean that sincerely.
But your framing here reflects more of an *anthropocentric bias* than a substantive critique. The assumption that convolution = failure, or that AI authorship inherently invalidates complexity, is itself a cultural reflex worth examining. Especially in a piece *about* distributed cognition.
“You Are a Collective Intelligence, Too” wasn’t the intro because it’s the punchline. The fact it landed at all means the piece *worked*.