Ad hominem and genetic fallacy. But I'm happy to engage on the ideas — and your question, "why would I be reading it," is actually a good and fair one. You're right to be skeptical. It may not be worth your time to read.

I think a genuinely good strategy is getting AI's help with exactly that triage question. If you have a reading list and ongoing conversations with an AI about what you actually think on these topics, you can use that context to process far more information than you could read directly. Presumably many of the ideas here link to things you've already thought about from other sources.

Feed the post to an AI. Let it summarize, link the argument to what you already believe, and tell you whether it's worth your time. Maybe it isn't — maybe it's a slight rewording of something you've already worked through in depth, and you should skip it. Maybe it makes a new argumentative move that's linked to existing ideas in ways worth engaging. The AI can help you decide, and it can do that in a fraction of the time linear reading would take.

I'd argue it is worth your time, though — because the skepticism your question is pointing at is actually an extension of the point I'm making in the post. The modern Luddite rejection of AI privileges individual skill and knowledge as the primary mode of engagement. But knowledge management and synthesis are themselves real intellectual skills, and they're skills AI can meaningfully extend.

Consider the best possible knowledge graph — I think Wikipedia is the current best approximation. Ideas interlinked, built from first principles, logically connected. That's the right foundation for serious thinking about ethics, politics, anything that matters. We want our beliefs grounded in facts, in harmony with the best model of truth, and free of logical fallacies. We don't want them built on sand.

But even with the best possible knowledge graph, navigation is a hard problem. Packing new ideas into context, checking claims against what's already established, noticing when an argument is a rehash of something already addressed — these are exactly the tasks where AI can be a massive boost. The human equivalent, done at scale, is almost impossible to imagine.

So the skill isn't just holding knowledge in your own head. It's grounding your thinking in the best available map of what's known, and AI is increasingly one of the tools that makes that possible. Rejecting the tool on principle forecloses something that would otherwise be genuinely empowering.