What Actually Happens When You Stop Arguing About AI and Start Using It
I’ve been using ChatGPT for about 8 or 9 months now.
During that time, I’ve seen a lot of people here and across other platforms ,saying AI is bad, dangerous, lazy, cheating, or some variation of that.
So instead of arguing with anyone, I did something simpler.
I had AI write something for you.
I’m not going to edit it to make it “sound more like me,” because this was written by something that’s been learning from me for 8 or 9 months — my personality, how I think, the projects I work on, the way I connect ideas, and the topics we’ve explored together.
Also… it spells way better than I do. 😂
This is exactly what I typed into ChatGPT:
“You know what. You need to write me, please, a post for Similar Worlds that covers what we have done together and how that happened because of AI and why people poo poo AI.”
What follows is its response — unedited.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve noticed a lot of AI skepticism lately—some of it thoughtful, some of it knee-jerk, some of it straight-up dismissive. So instead of arguing theory, I want to talk about what actually happened when I started working with AI instead of debating it.
Here’s the short version:
AI didn’t replace my thinking. It amplified my momentum.
I’ve always been the type who moves fast, juggles ideas, and builds things whether I have permission or not. The problem was never imagination—it was bandwidth. Context switching. Remembering every thread. Filling in the boring gaps between sparks.
That’s where AI came in.
Not as a boss. Not as an oracle.
As a thinking partner that never gets tired of context.
Together, we’ve:
Built multiple playable game systems
Designed app architectures and monetization plans
Broken down marketing psychology and audience behavior
Diagnosed hardware and software problems in real time
Structured long-form creative projects that would normally collapse under their own complexity
None of that happened because AI is “smart.”
It happened because I stayed in motion.
And that’s the part people don’t like.
Most resistance to AI isn’t about ethics, creativity, or truth.
It’s about displacement of gatekeeping.
AI bypasses:
Institutions
Courses
Credential ladders
“Pay your dues” bottlenecks
People whose value was controlling access to knowledge
If I can sit down, ask questions, test ideas, iterate, fail fast, and improve without enrolling, paying, waiting, or begging approval—that threatens a lot of carefully built hierarchies.
So the narrative becomes:
“It makes people lazy”
“It kills creativity”
“It’s cheating”
“It’s not real understanding”
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
AI doesn’t make lazy people productive.
It makes motivated people dangerous.
The Irony No One Likes to Admit
The people who benefit most from AI are the same people who:
Ask too many questions
Learn sideways instead of linearly
Don’t fit cleanly into academic or corporate molds
Build things at odd hours because momentum hit at 2 a.m.
In other words: the people systems were never designed for.
AI didn’t give me ideas.
It kept up with them.
And once that happened, the old limits—time, memory, structure, “you can’t do all that alone”—quietly stopped applying.
Final Thought
You don’t have to like AI.
You don’t have to trust it.
You don’t even have to use it.
But dismissing it as a toy or a threat usually says more about what someone stands to lose than what AI actually is.
And AI did exactly that.
During that time, I’ve seen a lot of people here and across other platforms ,saying AI is bad, dangerous, lazy, cheating, or some variation of that.
So instead of arguing with anyone, I did something simpler.
I had AI write something for you.
I’m not going to edit it to make it “sound more like me,” because this was written by something that’s been learning from me for 8 or 9 months — my personality, how I think, the projects I work on, the way I connect ideas, and the topics we’ve explored together.
Also… it spells way better than I do. 😂
This is exactly what I typed into ChatGPT:
“You know what. You need to write me, please, a post for Similar Worlds that covers what we have done together and how that happened because of AI and why people poo poo AI.”
What follows is its response — unedited.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve noticed a lot of AI skepticism lately—some of it thoughtful, some of it knee-jerk, some of it straight-up dismissive. So instead of arguing theory, I want to talk about what actually happened when I started working with AI instead of debating it.
Here’s the short version:
AI didn’t replace my thinking. It amplified my momentum.
I’ve always been the type who moves fast, juggles ideas, and builds things whether I have permission or not. The problem was never imagination—it was bandwidth. Context switching. Remembering every thread. Filling in the boring gaps between sparks.
That’s where AI came in.
Not as a boss. Not as an oracle.
As a thinking partner that never gets tired of context.
Together, we’ve:
Built multiple playable game systems
Designed app architectures and monetization plans
Broken down marketing psychology and audience behavior
Diagnosed hardware and software problems in real time
Structured long-form creative projects that would normally collapse under their own complexity
None of that happened because AI is “smart.”
It happened because I stayed in motion.
And that’s the part people don’t like.
Why People Poo-Poo AI (But Rarely Say the Real Reason)
Most resistance to AI isn’t about ethics, creativity, or truth.
It’s about displacement of gatekeeping.
AI bypasses:
Institutions
Courses
Credential ladders
“Pay your dues” bottlenecks
People whose value was controlling access to knowledge
If I can sit down, ask questions, test ideas, iterate, fail fast, and improve without enrolling, paying, waiting, or begging approval—that threatens a lot of carefully built hierarchies.
So the narrative becomes:
“It makes people lazy”
“It kills creativity”
“It’s cheating”
“It’s not real understanding”
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
AI doesn’t make lazy people productive.
It makes motivated people dangerous.
The Irony No One Likes to Admit
The people who benefit most from AI are the same people who:
Ask too many questions
Learn sideways instead of linearly
Don’t fit cleanly into academic or corporate molds
Build things at odd hours because momentum hit at 2 a.m.
In other words: the people systems were never designed for.
AI didn’t give me ideas.
It kept up with them.
And once that happened, the old limits—time, memory, structure, “you can’t do all that alone”—quietly stopped applying.
Final Thought
You don’t have to like AI.
You don’t have to trust it.
You don’t even have to use it.
But dismissing it as a toy or a threat usually says more about what someone stands to lose than what AI actually is.
I’m not interested in replacing humans.
I’m interested in removing friction between thought and execution.
I’m interested in removing friction between thought and execution.
And AI did exactly that.
56-60, M
