I don't find it surprising that people here are reading this completely literally (eg. I'll be hit by a car with erratic movement), or approaching it as if the author is suggesting we have a god complex (eg. painting a big picture of how you're going to be Neo). But it is a bit disappointing. Have LLMs ruined our ability to think abstractly?

It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone. If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye. The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way. Living your life by choosing the average of all decisions will, for a lot of people, lead to a boring and meaningless life. I reckon for most people it would be substandard. Instead, do things which are not common or average or expected of you. It's advice that's practically as old as time, packaged up in a slightly different way.

> Have LLMs ruined our ability to think abstractly?

No. Well, maybe. You'd have to ask someone who uses them.

> It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone.

Exactly. It's a tired trope, and gussying it up with pontifications about the utility of personal stochastic processes, after a detour into the big bang and entropy, doesn't make it any better.

> If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye.

And nobody would submit it to HN, either.

> The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way.

No. The article is tedious, and, as has already been pointed out, prescriptive rather than permissive.