If you’re doing any heavy asynchronous work you should look into it. It’s truly game changing.

Yes

This is in every way an argument for the author’s point.

Say more?

Ah yes, it’s not an earnest critique that the tech is destabilizing and isolating. It’s a conspiracy! Thank you. For a moment there I thought I’d have to examine my own beliefs!

This type of reflexive snark is just shite; I'm so bored of it. Things can be both earnest and compelled - right? I agree with you, and still hold my opinion.

Sounds like you probably highly resist examining them.

Dang maybe you’re right

Found the gambler!

What other ways can you approach it?

But it isn’t joining the workforce. Your perspective is that it could, but the point that it hasn’t is the one that’s salient. Codex might be able to do a substantial portion of what a freelancer can do, but even you fell short of saying it can replace the freelancer. As long as every ai agent needs its hand held the effect on the labor force is an increase in costs and an increase in outputs where quality doesn’t matter. It’s not a reduction of labor forces

OK, let me fall less short. It has replaced the freelancer for me. I communicate product requirements. It builds the product immediately at trivial cost. It’s better than a human. There are jobs I would have considered hiring out that I don’t because the machine is better. Nothing you said about labor effects in the large even logically follow. Have you even used one of these systems?

Yup

If you don’t support your family, no one else will

I find that when decisions are very minor, people love to have tons of options to select from. When decisions are much more impactful and high stakes, people seem to love finding ways to convince themselves there are no options and that they must proceed down a single path out of necessity for how the world is.

There’s rarely (maybe never) an objective and comprehensive measure of quality. Your concept of what merits matter is someone else’s advertising. No one is operating non-meritocratically, they just value different qualities from you.

I think your definition of popular is holding you back. If popular just means other people like you, you’re obviously wrong- plenty of people are very successful even though they are disliked. Often this will happen multiple times on a single team at a company. If popular means you’re perceived as valuable, you’re obviously right. All institutions are social institutions and operate on social understandings of value. So to be successful you have to be perceived as valuable by these social structures. I think calling this a scam misunderstands the non-quantitative metrics of worth. There isn’t actually a Best Academic, a Best Engineer, or a Best Coworker in some measurable objective sense. Those are all social evaluations and they’re valuable because of that, not despite it