blah blah blah more AI crap i don’t talk to computers
I’m sorry you feel that way about yourself, man. If I served you those fries, the bag might be on the inside, and I doubt you’d like the taste.
So no, I’ll put fries in a bag when your hands are on the table, open, honest, and to the sky.
So was my response but I use the free chat gpt you get what you pay for 
- “learn” keys in the correct order and stop skipping levels. I’m going to die on the hill that says people shouldn’t be allowed into keys if they’ve not timed the level right before ithe one they’re trying to do.
1b) - “learn” with friends or groups dedicated to teaching/learning. STOP selfishly jumping into LFG when you’ve never once set foot in the place or dont understand the boss’ mechanics. I dont get why this is too much to ask…people act like i’m asking for their first born… Just like people watch videos or hell, do LFR before stepping foot into a raid, prepping is essential
- mythic+ dungeons should “end” when the timer does. The whole point of the challenge is to defeat the dungeon correctly and time it. I think giving people vault slots when they fail the timer should NOT be a thing. People need to be encouraged to learn to play better and doing something like this would lend itself to that.
anybody who doubts this just lacks the specialized knowledge to spot the issues. ask an LLM to write a mathematical proof and you get a bunch of nicely formatted text that sounds very technical and mathematical but doesn’t make any sense. it’s the same for basically anything that can have a wrong answer.
Critiquing the use of AI to generate or clarify an idea, without engaging the idea itself, is like refusing to read a typed manuscript because it wasn’t handwritten.
I used a tool—yes. A tool that helped me clarify, structure, and sharpen what I was already thinking. But the thoughts, the critique, the synthesis? That’s still mine. It’s not automation, it’s augmentation.
If you doubt the validity of an idea because of how it was composed—rather than interrogating its logic, accuracy, or implications, you’re not engaging in critique. You’re gatekeeping process.
And the irony? That attitude reinforces the same systems this post is critiquing:
- judging output based on presentation, not substance
- ignoring the “messy middle” of how things are made
- enforcing performance over authenticity
AI didn’t write these concerns for me. I wrote them through a tool—just like you write through spell check, keybinds, and UI mods. The medium doesn’t invalidate the message unless you’re more concerned with authorship than accuracy.
we have no way of knowing that. for all we know you typed “write me a post for the wow forums” and just posted the results.
if you can’t bother to spend your time clarifying and expressing your thoughts, why do you expect anybody to spend their time reading them?
The irony is wild: I wrote a post about how people erase context, oversimplify effort, and flatten nuance—and now you’re doing exactly that.
You’re not asking questions about the ideas. You’re asking me to perform authenticity to your standards, or else you won’t consider the content valid. That’s not discourse. That’s process policing.
If you want to talk about the ideas, I’m here for that. But if your argument is “I don’t trust this unless I watched you suffer to create it,” then you’re not critiquing my thoughts, you’re demanding a purity ritual.
At the end of the day, you either engage with what was said… or you admit that your real issue is that I used a tool more thoughtfully than you’re comfortable with.
did the robot write that for you?
Did the robot write that for me?
Does it matter more who typed it, or what it’s trying to say?
If you’d rather engage with the actual ideas, I’m here. We can explore them in real time, maybe learn something together. I’m not hiding anything.
What does “purity” mean to you? What’s a ritual? What’s critique?
To me, purity is refusing to evolve,clinging to the illusion that the way we’ve always done things is the only legitimate way.
A ritual is something we repeat without questioning, like the endless recycling of meta narratives, or the habit of dismissing a voice just because a tool was involved.
I’m trying to break that ritual.
Your turn.
But before you respond, can I ask something in return?
Where does your discomfort actually lie? Is it with me? Or with the system that allows tools like this to amplify insight without credential, hierarchy, or approval?
Does my voice sound suspicious to you… or does it echo something you’ve already sensed about the system itself?
Maybe you’re not trying to dismiss me at all.
Maybe you’re probing, trying to see if I’ve earned the right to speak this way—when the real question is: Why should truth require permission in the first place?
And yes, I’ll own this part too:
My writing may be unpolished in places. Sometimes it spirals. Sometimes it punches.
It’s like if Kant and Nietzsche had a kid who took Lysergic acid diethylamide, learned to parse patch notes, and is now trying to claw their way out of the dungeon by naming the boss mechanics of the system that raised them.
But hey, that’s what thinking looks like when you’re not afraid to do it in public.