A love letter to people fapping themselves blind to AI

Recently Karl Denninger wrote a magnificent article titled: “The Latest Bubble, And Why It WILL Pop” About so-called AI. And as Karl often does in his own inimitable way, he dismantled all the hopes and dreams of the AI utopians by explaining very clearly why it’s not what everyone thinks, pretends, and hopes it is… and simply, like all bubbles, is destined to pop. Although I’d argue it won’t be so much a pop but be more like the air rushing out of an ever-growing puncture that is already rapidly hissing air now. Is he right? Only time will tell. But even if AI was some kind of writer’s magic wand I am still not seeing the point of using it for any kind of writing. Including even the time wasting ticky tack kind of writing writers hate to write that it was supposed to liberate them from if you listen to all the cartoons on Twitter. For example: Just recently, I saw one of Zoom's AI summaries yesterday summarizing a marketing training which should have been easily summarized in at least some kind of engaging way. Especially since it was about, you know, marketing and copywriting which is supposed to be engaging. Instead it was boring, cold, and totally non-engaging — with about as much personality and engagement as the instructions on the back of a bottle of cough medicine. It immediately got me thinking about famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Guy was nearly unbeatable in court. And he was so persuasive he was once literally accused of hypnotizing an audience. Anyway, in his book “How To Argue And Win Every Time” he does a bit on how his legal briefs he'd hand the judge were fun, with a human interest-type story, always engaging, personal, and warm. And judges loved that. And no doubt it gave him an advantage during the trials in many subtle, and even intangible ways, while his adversaries would write the same old boring legal briefs with about as much warmth, personality, engagement as that cough medicine label-sounding Zoom AI summary. Another example: Dan Kennedy in his 7 Figures Academy course (highly recommend) talked about how if you write a newsletter you really do have to do it yourself if you want it to last and be something people bond with, look forward to, grow to love and depend on. Yes, I could hand a “great writer” a bank of my last 13 years worth of Email Players issues and maybe be able to create a reasonably good knock off of me that will fool newer people. But my best boys & ghouls would instantly know something is rotten in Denmark, lose interest, know I’m not doing it myself with the consequences of such inevitable. i.e., they know the difference between gold and fools gold. It ain’t just me though. Anyone who's been writing to their audience for a long time, has genuine fans, and who has people who look forward to reading them, who think of them as a trusted friend they personally know even if they haven't personally met 'em, knows Dan’s correct about that. And so it goes. Writers always want to have written without having to write anything. And AI like fapGPT is supposedly what will do that for them. But it’s not really “writing.” At best it's the writer's equivalent of a sex doll. If you want to see a video I created about this on YouTube, go here: [( Ben Settle This email was sent by Ben Settle as owner of Settle, LLC. Copyright © 2024 Settle, LLC. All Rights Reserved. No part of this email may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from Settle, LLC. Click here to [unsubscribe]( Settle, LLC PO Box 1056 Gold Beach Oregon 97444 USA