Forbes asked me to write another article for them.
They gave me a bunch of topics to choose from, but they all reeked of stale LLM trash.
Instead, I told them what I really wanted to write about, and given that I was about to discredit 99% of their contributors, I was both surprised and delighted they agreed.
The result was heavily edited, and in horrible US English spelling, but for the first time I feel like Forbes published something remotely human.
The resulting article is titled: Large Language Models Are Destroying The Art Of Writing
https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2026/06/03/large-language-models-are-destroying-the-art-of-writing/
A few of the parts they edited out are as follows:
1) I wanted to say LLMs are making people dumber, fatter, lazier, more helpless, more dependent and more afraid of unrehearsed face-to-face conversations with people (including loved ones).
2) I also wanted to say that we face an existential threat from Big Tech blending us into a monoculture of androgynous drones. Why? Because it is far easier to socially engineer a populous who all think the same.
3) A sameness of thought means that the best a society can ever hope for is a plateau.
3) A sameness of thought means that the best a society can ever hope for is a plateau.
4) The irony of "AI" is that at the exponential rate LLMs are writing and publishing content, it won't be long before the entire internet is "AI" generated. Well perhaps not the entire internet, but 99.999999% with more nines being added by the second, constantly drowning out the few actual human voices that remain... including those of "AI" founders and enthusiasts.
Perhaps the most important question we need to ask ourselves is: "who benefits?"
I have gone on many thought experiments, and based on the way "AI" is currently being used, I see NIL benefits for the bottom 99% of society in the immediate term.
Having said that the latest episode of Clarkson's Farm did give me some hope...
The debate between "AI" skeptics and enthusiasts (Big Tech shareholders) usually goes like this:
Enthusiast: AI is like a tractor or a phone - it will increase productivity for the benefit of humanity.
Enthusiast: AI is like a tractor or a phone - it will increase productivity for the benefit of humanity.
Skeptic: How exactly is AI benefiting the poor and middle class right now?
Enthusiast: They have access to all this information, they can run budget reports without needing an accountant etc
Skeptic: But what good is that if they don't have a job?
Enthusiast: They have access to all this information, they can run budget reports without needing an accountant etc
Skeptic: But what good is that if they don't have a job?
Enthusiast: There will be new jobs created by AI
Skeptic: Where are those jobs now? How does someone fired today get one of those jobs?
Skeptic: Where are those jobs now? How does someone fired today get one of those jobs?
Enthusiast: They're coming, it will just take a little while.
Skeptic: What are they supposed to do in the meantime?
Enthusiast: Derr - learn about AI!
Skeptic: Riiight...
Anyway, you get my point. Currently there is a net loss of productivity from "AI" which will lead to the greatest consumption-led recession of our lives. What people call "productivity gains" are actually "productivity transfers" i.e. from employee to employer.
And this is where Clarkson's Farm excited me.
Jeremy, being the old petrol-head technophobe he is, goes to a convention for the latest agricultural technology. Initially, he is bored, confused, and uninspired.
But then he is shown a bunch of the latest farming technology. Autonomous tractors, spraying drones, a device that shows where the most fertile soil on the lot is. The light bulb went on in Jeremy's brain at the same time as mine. This is the greatest boon to global productivity since the tractor itself.
"AI" is not currently being used to increase agricultural yields (for which there is huge demand) and it is not being used to increase the natural resources required for energy production (for which there is an even huger demand). It is being used to reduce workforces.
It is for this reason that "AI" in agriculture excites me. Jeremy, like most farmers, wastes enormous amounts of time, money, and resources in the quest to feed people. "AI" can solve most of that. Jeremy sees what I see. A genuine use case for "AI" that will actually serve humanity rather than shift wealth from losers to winners.
As for energy, the "AI" payoff needs to be extraordinary, for the following reasons: "green" energy is currently negative sum i.e. it costs more energy than it produces. The only way that it can be made affordable or even profitable is through government market manipulation i.e. subsidies for "green" energy and penalties & bannings for "fossil fuels." Remove the government and coal is BY FAR the lowest cost, most available, and most pure form of energy we have. Politics aside, given how much water, energy and money it costs to run "AI", "AI" has a significant hurdle to jump to breakeven. Can it be done? Hell yeah it can be. Call me an old fashioned "climate denier" but the best use for "AI" in energy right now is to increase coal extraction, keep the government out of energy and use "AI" to make the fossil fuel production more efficient. There is seemingly unlimited demand for power, so people don't need to lose jobs.
If you don't like the sound of that, you can post an LLM-written complaint on Instagram or LinkedIn, but before you do that, please spare a thought to the people who are experiencing job losses, power outages and genuine environmental degradation due to a nearby data centre.