"But we've spent decades building institutional moats around mediocrity. Professional licensing that protects incompetent practitioners from competition. Educational credentials that signal compliance rather than competence. Regulatory frameworks that benefit established players at the expense of innovative challengers.
AI doesn't care about any of that. It's pure market force, stripped of political consideration or social niceties. It rewards clarity, iteration, and results. Period."
Stepfanie, I applaud your enthusiasm, what I see as your journey to maximizing human potential and happiness. I happened upon one of your essays about the beauty in life and loved it so much I wanted to read more (with the intent of becoming a paid subscriber). But your work has lost it's glow for me, particularly when you wade into topics such as capitalism, and now AI. AI would not exist were it not for all those humans who've done the work (with all the inherent flaws that make humans human) from which it takes its cues. It hallucinates often, makes things up including sources and facts. At the moment, I can get an AI tool to say anything I want it to say if I put the 'right' questions to it.
The problem for me is that you do not consider any negatives/downsides/operational problems. Your work would be stronger if you did.
hi Paula—appreciate you reading, and i’m glad one of my earlier essays resonated. but to clarify a few things:
1. AI and capitalism have been core themes of my work from the start. if you scroll through my archive, you’ll find that this isn’t a detour—it’s the throughline
2. holding a subscription over my head doesn’t incentivize ideological compliance. in fact, that is capitalism—voting with your wallet. and i respect that. but i’m not here to shape-shift for approval. if someone liked my writing when it "glowed" but not when it challenges, then what they liked wasn’t me—it was comfort. i don’t write for comfort. i write to make contact with what’s real
3. the AI criticism feels surface-level. yes, it hallucinates sometimes. so do humans. yes, it pulls from flawed data. so do institutions. the point isn’t that AI is perfect—it’s that it’s useful, accessible, and improving at exponential speed. most people aren’t choosing between AI and peer-reviewed journals—they’re choosing between trying something or being stuck in bureaucratic systems that don’t scale. i’ve seen the other side. i’ve lived in the waiting rooms. i’m not nostalgic for inefficiency
people say they want nuance, but what they often mean is “say it my way.” i’m not interested in performing balance for people who get uncomfortable around dissent. i trust my readers to tolerate complexity
thanks again for reading. i don’t take that lightly
I appreciate your reply and as a newcomer I did not realize your work revolves around the "themes" of capitalism and AI. That said I feel you've misinterpreted my points in a manner that makes them almost unrecognizable to me. Case in point: your failure to respond to the major point of my comment which leaves me wondering: are you propagandizing? I can think of no other reason.
"The problem for me is that you do not consider any negatives/downsides/operational problems. Your work would be stronger if you did."
you’re accusing me of “propagandizing” because i didn’t respond to the one line of your comment that you decided was the most important—after i already addressed your broader argument with clarity, good faith, and more respect than it deserved
let me be clear: disagreement is not propaganda. and the idea that my work is only strong if it caters to your personal discomforts is, frankly, laughable
you came in with a condescending tone, admitted you liked my writing when it felt warm and agreeable, then tried to pivot into some amateur epistemological critique of AI without understanding the tech, the context, or the point of the essay
also, let’s correct your wording: i said capitalism and AI are throughlines in my work. that’s very different from saying it revolves around them. i write about systems, agency, consciousness, power, and meaning. AI and capitalism happen to be relevant in all of those conversations. if you reduce it to a narrow fixation, that’s on your lens, not my writing
best of luck on your journey. i hope you find a writer who glows just the right amount for you
You addressed my comments by skewering them toward your favored narrative; i.e. after iterating a brief history of how I made it to your essays (loving one->free subscription->(hopefully a paid subscription), you give me this: "holding a subscription [OVER MY HEAD]" (emphasis mine) "doesn’t incentivize ideological compliance". Absolute nonsense and complete misrepresentation because any reasonable person (even those like me who can 'easily' afford it) would be foolish to subscribe to a page based solely on one essay.
And so my alarm bells began ringing. I checked out your feed on X. And it all became clear what you're up to. I see you. And I'm out.
This is one of the things I live by:
Find those who are hurting and help them to hurt less.
Encounter those who are comfortable hurting others and make them uncomfortable.
Yes...it truly is an interesting time to be alive. Sandwiched between absolutely maddening barriers and endless possibilities. For me letting go of the urge to control and accepting/considering everything has been massive. With optimism...😊
Congrats on your success. You are an inspiring read.
Excellent essay! Even if AI helped you organize clearly original thoughts and lived experience. As a songwriter and musician, I’m exploring the places where AI can help me get past artificial scarcity of talent and ideas by remaining true to my creativity, which comes from the soul and can never be replicated from a learning machine.
thank you! AI doesn't generate or organize my thoughts tho, i do
the core insights, voice, and synthesis come from my experiences and perspectives. AI isn't replacing creativity, it’s amplifying it
i think it’s easy to assume that using AI means you’ve outsourced something essential, but in my experience, it actually demands more clarity and intention—not less
you say your creativity comes from the soul and can’t be replicated—and i’d say the same
I absolutely agree. This has been my experience in music and I think will continue to be. It’s opening up new creative pathways, but could never replace the inspiration.
I'm reminded of a story told to me by a friend who, when young, had traveled through India by train. He talked of the great inefficiency of a system where his single ticket had to be stamped by a dozen people before boarding. He mentioned this to an Indian friend. The friend replied that all those menial workers had families at home who needed to be fed. What do we do about that reality?
that story nails the emotional dilemma, but also exposes the trap: we designed systems not for efficiency or excellence—but for employment
bureaucracy becomes the job. inefficiency becomes a feature, not a bug. the machine exists to keep itself running, not to deliver better outcomes
but here’s the hard truth: protecting livelihoods by preserving dysfunction is not compassion—it’s stagnation
the real question isn’t “how do we keep these jobs alive?” it’s “how do we create systems that generate more value, more opportunity, and more dignity for more people?”
AI doesn’t just automate—it frees up human capacity. the future shouldn’t be about keeping twelve stampers employed. it should be about creating conditions where none of us are reduced to stamping
Bravo - and 🥂 to more agency, less middling / muddling and 🤣 to the Dr Hooha footnote.
😜
builders vs. blockers—
Agency is going to be highly prized soon.
Anyone willing to take the time and energy to build something may be highly rewarded
Imagine every inefficiency you alluded to being met with an army of people trying to make processes more efficient
i can't wait for a more efficient world, it's going to be beautiful
and regarding agency: you can just do things 💁♀️
This is very well written, very insightful, and on point.
Thank you
Thanks so much, Seane, glad you enjoyed it.
Great article.
"But we've spent decades building institutional moats around mediocrity. Professional licensing that protects incompetent practitioners from competition. Educational credentials that signal compliance rather than competence. Regulatory frameworks that benefit established players at the expense of innovative challengers.
AI doesn't care about any of that. It's pure market force, stripped of political consideration or social niceties. It rewards clarity, iteration, and results. Period."
Stepfanie, I applaud your enthusiasm, what I see as your journey to maximizing human potential and happiness. I happened upon one of your essays about the beauty in life and loved it so much I wanted to read more (with the intent of becoming a paid subscriber). But your work has lost it's glow for me, particularly when you wade into topics such as capitalism, and now AI. AI would not exist were it not for all those humans who've done the work (with all the inherent flaws that make humans human) from which it takes its cues. It hallucinates often, makes things up including sources and facts. At the moment, I can get an AI tool to say anything I want it to say if I put the 'right' questions to it.
The problem for me is that you do not consider any negatives/downsides/operational problems. Your work would be stronger if you did.
hi Paula—appreciate you reading, and i’m glad one of my earlier essays resonated. but to clarify a few things:
1. AI and capitalism have been core themes of my work from the start. if you scroll through my archive, you’ll find that this isn’t a detour—it’s the throughline
2. holding a subscription over my head doesn’t incentivize ideological compliance. in fact, that is capitalism—voting with your wallet. and i respect that. but i’m not here to shape-shift for approval. if someone liked my writing when it "glowed" but not when it challenges, then what they liked wasn’t me—it was comfort. i don’t write for comfort. i write to make contact with what’s real
3. the AI criticism feels surface-level. yes, it hallucinates sometimes. so do humans. yes, it pulls from flawed data. so do institutions. the point isn’t that AI is perfect—it’s that it’s useful, accessible, and improving at exponential speed. most people aren’t choosing between AI and peer-reviewed journals—they’re choosing between trying something or being stuck in bureaucratic systems that don’t scale. i’ve seen the other side. i’ve lived in the waiting rooms. i’m not nostalgic for inefficiency
people say they want nuance, but what they often mean is “say it my way.” i’m not interested in performing balance for people who get uncomfortable around dissent. i trust my readers to tolerate complexity
thanks again for reading. i don’t take that lightly
Could not be any clearer....Bravo Stepfanie, bravo! 😊👏👏👏
I appreciate your reply and as a newcomer I did not realize your work revolves around the "themes" of capitalism and AI. That said I feel you've misinterpreted my points in a manner that makes them almost unrecognizable to me. Case in point: your failure to respond to the major point of my comment which leaves me wondering: are you propagandizing? I can think of no other reason.
"The problem for me is that you do not consider any negatives/downsides/operational problems. Your work would be stronger if you did."
hi again paula—
you’re accusing me of “propagandizing” because i didn’t respond to the one line of your comment that you decided was the most important—after i already addressed your broader argument with clarity, good faith, and more respect than it deserved
let me be clear: disagreement is not propaganda. and the idea that my work is only strong if it caters to your personal discomforts is, frankly, laughable
you came in with a condescending tone, admitted you liked my writing when it felt warm and agreeable, then tried to pivot into some amateur epistemological critique of AI without understanding the tech, the context, or the point of the essay
also, let’s correct your wording: i said capitalism and AI are throughlines in my work. that’s very different from saying it revolves around them. i write about systems, agency, consciousness, power, and meaning. AI and capitalism happen to be relevant in all of those conversations. if you reduce it to a narrow fixation, that’s on your lens, not my writing
best of luck on your journey. i hope you find a writer who glows just the right amount for you
You addressed my comments by skewering them toward your favored narrative; i.e. after iterating a brief history of how I made it to your essays (loving one->free subscription->(hopefully a paid subscription), you give me this: "holding a subscription [OVER MY HEAD]" (emphasis mine) "doesn’t incentivize ideological compliance". Absolute nonsense and complete misrepresentation because any reasonable person (even those like me who can 'easily' afford it) would be foolish to subscribe to a page based solely on one essay.
And so my alarm bells began ringing. I checked out your feed on X. And it all became clear what you're up to. I see you. And I'm out.
This is one of the things I live by:
Find those who are hurting and help them to hurt less.
Encounter those who are comfortable hurting others and make them uncomfortable.
Hope is a thing that lives in the dark.
- A R Moxon
Super interesting and so well written 👌🏻 thanks!!
Yes...it truly is an interesting time to be alive. Sandwiched between absolutely maddening barriers and endless possibilities. For me letting go of the urge to control and accepting/considering everything has been massive. With optimism...😊
Congrats on your success. You are an inspiring read.
Excellent essay! Even if AI helped you organize clearly original thoughts and lived experience. As a songwriter and musician, I’m exploring the places where AI can help me get past artificial scarcity of talent and ideas by remaining true to my creativity, which comes from the soul and can never be replicated from a learning machine.
thank you! AI doesn't generate or organize my thoughts tho, i do
the core insights, voice, and synthesis come from my experiences and perspectives. AI isn't replacing creativity, it’s amplifying it
i think it’s easy to assume that using AI means you’ve outsourced something essential, but in my experience, it actually demands more clarity and intention—not less
you say your creativity comes from the soul and can’t be replicated—and i’d say the same
the machine isn’t the soul. it’s the mirror :)
I absolutely agree. This has been my experience in music and I think will continue to be. It’s opening up new creative pathways, but could never replace the inspiration.
I'm reminded of a story told to me by a friend who, when young, had traveled through India by train. He talked of the great inefficiency of a system where his single ticket had to be stamped by a dozen people before boarding. He mentioned this to an Indian friend. The friend replied that all those menial workers had families at home who needed to be fed. What do we do about that reality?
hi Merike, thanks for the comment—
that story nails the emotional dilemma, but also exposes the trap: we designed systems not for efficiency or excellence—but for employment
bureaucracy becomes the job. inefficiency becomes a feature, not a bug. the machine exists to keep itself running, not to deliver better outcomes
but here’s the hard truth: protecting livelihoods by preserving dysfunction is not compassion—it’s stagnation
the real question isn’t “how do we keep these jobs alive?” it’s “how do we create systems that generate more value, more opportunity, and more dignity for more people?”
AI doesn’t just automate—it frees up human capacity. the future shouldn’t be about keeping twelve stampers employed. it should be about creating conditions where none of us are reduced to stamping
we owe people better than pointless work