I personally believe that one should “think Less Wrong and act Long Now”, if you follow me. I diligently do my daily spaced-repetition review and n-backing; I carefully design my website and writings to last decades, actively think about how to write material that improves with time, and work on writings that will not be finished for years (if ever). It’s a bit schizophrenic since both are totalized worldviews with drastically conflicting recommendations about where to invest my time. It’s a case of high discount rates versus low discount rates; and one could fairly accuse me of committing the sunk cost fallacy, but then, I’m not sure that sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy (certainly, I have more to show for my wasted time than most people).
What bothers me about it (of course, beyond just the general ambient suspicion that attends anything Pangram will flag as 100% AI-written, especially when making enormous generalizations without any scaffolding) is that it is stylistically relentlessly bouncing back and forth, in punchy lines, that leave one punchdrunk. There is no relief from the chipper clever tone, or the relentless contrast, as the writing metronome ticks on. The statement, the negation, the em dash, the paragraph making a statement only to end in an antithesis. It may not use “it’s not X but Y” or the more obvious tricolons, but there’s still an exhaustion by the end.