Fantastic!

So so much. I remember with fondness when “I hate Illinois Nazis” could be a punchline in a movie, and impactful for its rarity.

I can see LLMs becoming good at highlighting divergences from an authors usual voice, or solving “how would I usually say that”, but it seems odd to use one to short circuit the creative process entirely. I do use them for boilerplate in structured content, but fiction is not usually so structured.

I love what grammar and spell checkers do, even though I reject many of their suggestions. They force intentionality on the places I diverge from mechanistic practice. It’s fair to ask if there is an amount of content where I would no longer see it as a helper and need to become its editor.

This is also true for engineers writing designs. Knowing the craft is important, as otherwise, you may not be able to articulate a concept. Reading others builds your library of techniques that worked, or at least worked for them.

I know many smart and hard working people who did not get the same lucky breaks I did. It does not diminish skill to recognize luck playing a role. You are one of the few successful people who I hear a similar message from.

Condolences.

This is absolutely cool.

But … there was (thing) and (thing) and how do you carry on the story from (thing)? And what day will I stay up until dawn reading? Now I have to reread them all! Ahem. I am clearly reacting with composure.

the national weather service and national hurricane center do not have reputations for exaggeration or hyperbole