The more pertinent AI question

I use AI generously in my life. My recent projects are vibe-coded with Claude Code and OpenAI codex, and I frequently ask Claude to play editor for my blog.

There are many excellent discussions about what Large Language Models mean for the future of my chosen profession, but I think most miss the point. Eventually, LLMs — or some future architecture — will become good at maths and science. Once someone figures out how to hook an LLM to an Atlas , the physical domain won't be free from AI automation either.

Nobody can predict the future, so we don't know what job or trade is safe from automation. Given a long enough horizon — 10 years? 20 years? — the answer may very well be: most things.

Where does that leave us? Surely, WALL-E isn't an appealing vision for most of us.

I think the pertinent question to ask is:

What aspects of humanity are so fundamentally human that we don't want to automate them?

The question is no: what can be automated — because, probably, everything can. The better question is: What don't we want to be automated?

That, to me, feels like a much better question to ask ourselves as we buckle down for what's sure to be a wild ride.

For now, I'm going to stop worrying about my job safety and instead follow this sage advice:

When in doubt, be yourself — Simon Sinek https://simonsinek.com/quotes/

Some working principles I’m trying to live by (subject to change):

I value the struggle to learn something — skill, language, facts — even if AI can do it better/faster. The struggle and mastery itself is fulfilling

AI has no role in my personal relationships

I'm cautious about AI influencing my judgement, or me delegating judgement to AI