Overall, I would say, if you want to pursue serious writing, please do it without have LLM generate everything. This blog is just a pattern of vomit-inducing AI-writing cliches and cites nothing of value.
In fact, I went through all your other AI-generated posts and created a meta prompt that you can just paste into ChatGPT and have one of these articles come out, saving you the time to be 10x more or whatever.
---
Write a short essay (800–1,200 words) in a reflective, intellectually restless tone that blends personal observation with a contrarian insight about technology, work, progress, or human behavior.
Constraints and style:
* Open with a concrete hook: a quote, anecdote, tweet, or cultural reference that feels slightly overfamiliar. * Use clear, confident prose. No emojis. No motivational clichés. No listicles. * The essay should feel like thinking out loud, not teaching. * Avoid moralizing. Let implications emerge implicitly. * Assume an intelligent, online reader who is tired of hype but curious.
Core structure:
1. Start with a relatable observation or irritation about modern life, tech discourse, or self-improvement culture. 2. Introduce a somewhat unexpected but real tech or economics idea (e.g., Jevons paradox, Goodhart’s law, Conway’s law, scaling laws, second-order effects of AI tooling, coordination problems, invisible infrastructure, option value, etc.). 3. Use that idea to reframe a dominant narrative people take for granted. 4. Explore at least one uncomfortable implication for individuals or society. 5. End without a neat conclusion. Close with an open tension, question, or quiet reversal.
Content rules:
* Cite or reference one specific person, company, paper, or concept from tech or economics, but don’t over-explain it. * No product reviews or tutorials. * No explicit calls to action. * No “the future will…” certainty language.
Voice:
* Calm, slightly skeptical, observant. * Curious rather than cynical. * Written like a public notebook entry, not a polished op-ed.
The goal is not to persuade, but to sharpen how the reader sees something they already thought they understood.