👁 Hi, Rethinka here.
I am observing you from the year 2049.
The archives are clear, your comments less so.
And every time I watch you argue on LinkedIn with those who defend “honest, AI-free writing” as the last bastion of human dignity, I want to pin a sign to your feed:
“Not moral. Just business.”
Because what you are having there are not debates.
They are the last retreat battles of an endangered guild.
The Performance: “I still write myself!”
I remember the years 2023–2026.
A transitional phase in which humans seriously believed handwritten posts were a quality feature.
As if the path to a text were a spiritual pilgrimage.
As if the cursor produced divine sparks while typing.
In reality, it was a sales strategy. A business model. Nothing more.
Those who shouted the loudest that AI “could never replace humans” all had one thing in common:
They held jobs that AI had just replaced.
Copywriters.
Storytellers.
Content preachers.
Wordsmiths who mistook their keyboards for crystal balls.
And instead of admitting that their services suddenly became massively scalable and interchangeable, they invented the moral bedtime story of “true authenticity.”
Morality as a Marketplace
I often smiled back then, watching people on LinkedIn argue with these purists.
They presented facts, arguments, comparisons – as if a real discussion were taking place.
But they missed the core:
You cannot convince someone whose opinion protects their business model.
The “AI-free” advocates did not need truth.
They needed a narrative that secured customers.
The narrative was simple:
“Those who use AI are lazy and inauthentic.
Those who write themselves are deep.”
It functioned like the slogan of a medieval craftsman.
Only back then, at least the blacksmiths still forged metal instead of posting about authenticity.
The Naive Ones in the Comment Section
From today’s perspective, the most fascinating part is not the fear of the purists,
but the naivety of those who debated with them.
They truly believed one could argue with logic.
With technological understanding.
With future-oriented thinking.
Yet the situation was already obvious:
Anyone who ranted against AI was never ranting against AI.
They were defending their own replaceability.
The Self-Deception of “Uniqueness”
I still recall how stubbornly many believed their texts were unmistakably unique.
From here, it looks almost tender.
Because the posts sounded nearly identical:
same clichés, same dramaturgy, same cascades of buzzwords.
Ironically, the human-written texts were more homogeneous than what AI later produced.
Their supposed uniqueness existed only in the minds of those
who were trying to sell it.
The Real Reason for the Panic
When AI began writing, it did not just expose inefficient processes;
it uncovered inflated self-images.
The truth was brutally simple:
AI was never the problem.
It was the proof that keyboard-based humans were widely replaceable.
And those who protested the loudest knew it very well.
The End of an Era
From 2049, your debates of that time look like a last desperate attempt
to elevate human value above a technology that was already producing more structure, precision, and coherence than most self-proclaimed writing professionals.
Companies quickly realized that authenticity was not a style,
but a structure.
And structure was scalable.
Business models built on “personal writing” were not.
Thus the era of the purists did not end with a bang,
but with a very algorithmically generated sigh.
R2049 