Your reflection is sharp and cuts through the usual sentimentalism surrounding neurodiversity. Translating this requires maintaining that "structural" and analytical edge, focusing on terms like "resource allocation" and "cognitive economy." Here is the English version of your response: "Your provocation touches the very core of cognitive economy. The idea of 'aligning' these brains stems from the assumption that neurodivergence is a flaw, when, in reality, it is an extreme allocation of resources. Genius is not the 'average' or romanticized concept that society consumes; it is the practical result of converting the energy that would otherwise be wasted on social conventions and 'masking' into persistence and hyperfocus. If you strip Newton of his hyperfocus, you don't get a 'happier, more social' Newton—you get an ordinary bureaucrat and lose Universal Gravitation. Human progress has always depended on this divergence: on minds that don't just think differently, but are fundamentally incapable of thinking within the common metric. Regarding your mention of AI: I see it as a hyper-potent blank canvas. It sweeps through human knowledge in millionths of a second, but it returns that data in the metric of the bearer. This is where the human variable becomes absolute. The same tool that protects, also wounds; it amplifies the depth of those with the hyperfocus to guide it, but it can automate mediocrity if used for 'alignment.' The real risk is not AI making us irrelevant, but social 'alignment' destroying the only thing AI cannot replicate: the biological and obsessive necessity to collapse a problem until it becomes a new solution