I resubmitted this because somebody flagged the original submission for unclear reasons and it had quite a lot of upvotes in a short time.

Perhaps some people are offended by this argument, but it's definitely worthy of a discussion instead of censorship.

It's because it's AI written with all the usual over-the-top grandeur and a ridiculous number of negative parallelisms.

> No regression. No noise. Just compounding.

> the transition is measured in years, not decades.

> not by decree, but by ruthless compounding.

I'm not interested in what an LLM thinks about the social implications of LLMs.

It was flagged for being clearly botted, and I don't just mean LLM-generated (although it is also that). When I posted on and flagged the old submission, I noted that it had over two dozen upvotes in 15 minutes, despite the essay having a helpful "54 min read" indicator at the top. I truly do not believe the upvotes on these submissions are organic, and it really destroys my faith in HN that this was restored when the first one went down successfully.

(If by some chance I am wrong and this monster of an LLM-generated essay really got dozens of people instantly upvoting it from the title alone, that fact would also not give me much faith in HN, I have to add.)

The essay, if taken seriously, has a logical conclusion that I'm sure a decent number on this website find uncomfortable, but perhaps more importantly, which at least some people who might have disproportionate power to make such decisions prefer not be discussed too heavily. This is a microcosm of the larger phenomenon

Well, all of the comments on the old submissions were complaining about the essay being AI slop. I haven't read the essay so I couldn't say, but that's clearly the reason why.