I get the point that the author is trying to make here and to an extent I think it’s prudent. If only it wasn’t bogged down by allusions that are withering in cultural relevancy.

AI is not a faithful representation of human intelligence—or the human essence at all, for that matter—and prolonged dependence on its technologies will subdue human expression and the means in which we come to know about ourselves and life around us.

He is exercising his point through his prose. A cursory glance at his Wikipedia bio and this passage gives insight into the objective of this article:

> As Socrates sees things, the proper use of logos is to work toward, and to be transformed by, an increasingly clear grasp of the good. He regards this as an erotic undertaking. The more clearly we see the good, the more we long to bring ourselves into closer proximity to it. And the most promising path to the apprehension and internalization of the good is prolonged union and thoughtful conversation with a worthy lover.

The problem is that he’s attempting to display the art of literary lovemaking in the age of hook-up culture.

Hint: It may serve this crop of readers to start immediately from the section titled “Another Creation Story”.

Aside: I’d like to see a study that scores contemporary literacy rates using articles from the Hedgehog Review instead of Jane Austen.