My Real Fear of AI

At a previous library job, I helped host a series of technology drop-in sessions: a couple hours for people to bring in their devices and get help figuring out how to use them, walking them through their frustrations and pinch points.

Often after I had shown someone how to do something, they would ask me how I knew how to do that. Most of the time, I didn’t. I just poked around until I figured it out. This is really the core skill of using modern technology: the willingness to figure it out. (Also, a base knowledge of how to poke around safely.)

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out how to make your tech do what you want. Sometimes it’s not obvious or intuitive where certain functions live. Sometimes you have to click through way too many options until you find what you’re looking for. Sometimes, it takes longer than you want it to.

The number one thing we tried to teach folk was persistence in the face of frustration.

Which highlights my biggest fear about AI and how it’s being deployed in our society:

We use it to offload the frustrating and time-consuming things we don’t want to have to do. It encourages and rewards our impatience.

This is anathema to building and maintaining persistence. It actively undermines resilience.

It scares me to think who we’ll be as people and as a society if we lose our ability to persist in the face of frustration, if we lose our resilience through difficulties. I can’t see how this leads us to any kind of good place.

People without persistence or resilience are a people easy to control. The more dependent we become on external agents to do the hard things for us, the easier we become to control.

I believe this is exactly what the tech oligarchs want.

It has often been said—and often by me—that AI is a tool. There are some things it does extremely well, and it can be very valuable in the right circumstances. I don’t believe the people currently building and deploying it are doing so for our benefit. The tech oligarchs are building a future where they can be in control and where they answer to no one. We’re putting ourselves at the mercy of venal, selfish people who care nothing for our well-being.

There’s no good outcome if we stay on this path.

Thoughts on T’ai Chi Ch’uan

Originally posted April 15, 2026

UPDATED April 29, 2026

I recently attended a three day silent t’ai chi ch’uan retreat. I spent much of my time there thinking about my practice and what I want to get out of it. One night, I sat down and wrote this before I went to bed.

I practice Yang style t’ai chi: specifically the short form developed by Professor Cheng Man-ch’ing. Yang style seeks relaxation, the release of tension, strength through softness and expansion. This type of strength is referred to as sung. Most martial arts—from Shaolin gung fu to Western-style boxing—use the opposite type of strength: contraction, hardness, tension. This is called li. Yang style only seeks sung, never li.

There are other styles of t’ai chi, most of which are notably older than Yang style. Chen style, for instance, has been practiced for centuries and remains the most popular style in China (Yang is the most popular in the West).

Musician Lou Reed practiced Chen style t’ai chi for decades and he wrote a book about his experience. I read it last year. The way he describes his style is markedly different than how we describe Yang. He talks about balancing softness with hardness, expansion with contraction, relaxation with tension, slow with fast, sung with li, and the ability to move from one to the other. This is so different from Yang practice, in which all tension is released and none allowed to build up, that it’s difficult to think of these as both being t’ai chi.

Continue reading “Thoughts on T’ai Chi Ch’uan” →

In Praise of Simplicity

Back in high school, I knew a very gifted electric bassist. He started out by playing along to the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Bootsy Collins, he got himself Louis Johnson’s video instruction series. By the time we graduated, he was starting to get through Jaco Pastorius tunes. Incredible technical virtuosity!

In our early 30’s, he got recruited into a bar band. All his bass lines were simple walking quarter notes on the root, maybe an occasional eighth note run for decoration. As simple as simple could be. Simple enough I could learn to play it.

He told me it’s the music he’s most proud of, that it’s the best music he’d ever made. It was the first time that his ego completely disappeared and the only thing he cared about was serving the songs. The songs needed simple, so he gave them something simple.

Another musician I know had almost the exact same evolution: started out mastering the most complicated techniques, developed incredible virtuosity on their instrument, and then decided one day to just start playing simple. I asked them why:

“I got bored with complicated,” they answered.

Continue reading “In Praise of Simplicity” →

Neurodivergence & Personal Identity

Recently, someone dear to me received an adult diagnosis of ADHD, and stated that they think I have it, too. No one had ever suggested that before. I fully disagreed with them.

I’ve known a lot of people with ADHD over the years. Theater and the arts tend to attract people who are very different from the “norm,” and that includes more neurodivergent folk than many other professions. The same is true of libraries, I think. Most of the women I’ve dated in my life have had ADHD. I’ve never seen much of myself in these people I’ve known. I’ve witnessed many of them struggle to function in the world, but that’s never been much of a challenge for me.

I have hyperfixation, but that doesn’t constitute a diagnosis of ADHD on its own. I have a long history of not doing things I don’t want to do, but that’s as much my innate contrarianism as anything else.

I recently read this excellent article:

“A Generation Got Told to ‘Just Try Harder.’ The Neuroscience Just Said ‘That Was Never Going to Work.'”
by Ross Grossman, February 4, 2026

Continue reading “Neurodivergence & Personal Identity” →

2025: My Year in Reading

I read 38 books this year. Mostly nonfiction, and proudly representative of my major interests: cosmology, deep time, and human nature. I ended the year with a stack of around 10 books sitting on my end table, most of which I’ve had checked out for several months and I just haven’t bothered to read yet. I keep renewing them from the library but when the time comes, I choose to sit in front of the TV rather than read.

When I have done some reading this year, it’s been in intense spates, several titles all in a row, all in a couple days. A punctuated equilibrium: watching TV is my default state, with quick periods of ravenous reading scattered around.

I’ve been struggling with this for the better part of decade. Peruse any of my past Year in Reading posts and you’ll see me harping on this. I consistently get to the end of each year with a feeling that I didn’t read enough, or didn’t read regularly enough. I have this idea in my head that I’m supposed to be a more dedicated reader than this.

Thing is: I didn’t used to worry about this. I didn’t used to think about it much at all. So why has it been such a major source of pressure and disappointment for me over the past decade? Let’s do some honest accounting of my history as a reader…

Continue reading “2025: My Year in Reading” →

Mastery

Malcolm Gladwell famously stated it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. This has been debunked over and over again by various experts. You can’t reduce growth and development to a formula: 10,000 hours = Mastery! How you spend each hour is the key.

I’m reminded of story I heard from my tai chi instructor:

A student of tai chi isn’t making any progress. The teacher asks him, “Have you practiced?”

The student replies, “I’ve practiced 100 hours since our last class.”

The teacher asks, “What do you do when you practice?”

“I do the form.”

“Do you pay attention to how you’re applying the principles?”

“No.”

“Do you actively seek out pockets of tension in your body and try to let it go?”

“No.”

The teacher tells the student, “You have not practiced 100 hours. You practiced one hour, 100 times.”

Intent and attention drive development. Even 10,000 hours will only add up to mastery if you spend those hours the right way. This brings me back to something I’ve posted about before: our cultural beliefs about time. “Time equals money!” is a frequent declaration, and it implies that we should reduce time spent in order to maximize profit.

But the key to quality is attention and care. Attention and care require an investment of time. 10,000 hours is a lot of time!

It’s also true that “haste makes waste.” Things done quickly are usually not done well.

In the end, my conviction is that quality matters most. Quality requires an investment of time. Things take as long as they take, if you want them done well. Stop worrying about time. What matters, what brings value to our endeavors, is intent, attention, and care.

Diversity Means Survival

I was perusing Bluesky recently, and saw a post about the newly discovered Neanderthal animal fat processing site:

This was my reply to it:

This got me thinking in a different way about the value of diversity.

We know that Neanderthal was as smart, maybe smarter, than us, and engaged in similar methods of thinking. And yet, they died out at the end of the last ice age and we didn’t. Why is that?

Continue reading →

Sometimes Our Job Is Hard

Several years ago, I worked for a nonprofit that did event-based fundraising. We purchased a new all-in-one software service that ran both the back-end fundraising and participant database, and our front-end event website, where participants could have a profile page and accept online donations. Because it was an all-in-one package, the way you configured each end affected how the other end functioned. Changes to any part of the system caused ripples to other parts. My job was to set up and configure the software, and provide tech support to participants.

The back-end database wasn’t easy to use: overly complicated, nonintuitive workflows. A colleague who worked in the accounting department, and who only interfaced with the back-end database, came to me with a list of things she hoped I could reconfigure to improve the workflow. I looked at the list and realized these changes would alter the participant front-end in ways that would make it much harder for people to use.

So I said no.

My colleague agreed when I showed her what the impact would be. We couldn’t make it harder for participants and donors in order to make our jobs easier. Better we deal with the difficulty than them.

I think about this whenever we look for ways to make our jobs easier. It’s totally fine to want to make our jobs easier, but there are going to be ripples that affect other people, either customers or colleagues. We need to be aware of how our workflows affect someone else’s, especially if we make their job more difficult in order to make ours easier. We need to consider whether that’s really what’s best for customers and the organization, and not just whether it’s best for ourselves.

Sometimes our job is just going to be hard.

Continue reading →

Efficiency Is A Terrible Goal

In a recent discussion, a group of us were talking through options for using LLMs to make some our work tasks more efficient. I made the comment that I don’t believe efficiency is the correct goal for us to focus on. This statement set some of my colleagues aback. Modern American work culture is so steeped in the ideal of efficiency, it seems tantamount to sacrilege to suggest we shouldn’t value it the way we do.

I want to take some time here to unpack this belief. There are good reasons why I feel this way, but I also need to caution myself against dismissing the very real values that efficiency can bring.

Let’s start with a trite phrase: “Time is money.”

This phrase never sat quite right with me. It feels more correct to say, “Time is value.” On the face of it, these seem like they should be the same statement: money is intended as a measure of value, after all. But something interesting happens when you delve deeper into them.

Continue reading →

NaPoWriMo 2025: Wrap-Up

I did it! I completed NaPoWriMo 2025! With a couple caveats:

I didn’t write and post one poem per day. I kept up daily through April 5 (including the early-bird prompt on March 31), then fell about a week behind, then wrote a bunch of poems in one day to get mostly caught up, then fell about a week behind again, got mostly caught up all in one day… Regardless, I wrote thirty poems in thirty days.

I actually wrote more than thirty poems: Before the month even started, I wrote and posted a poem that popped into my head when I decided to participate; I did the early-bird prompt; and I wrote two poems on day sixteen (although one is a silly toss-off haiku which I probably shouldn’t count).

You’ll notice I didn’t post anything for day eight. (Even without this one, I still wrote more than thirty poems.) The prompt for this day was to write a ghazal, and frankly, I don’t think I can. I’m not skilled enough and I’m not confident to attempt one. I’m trying to talk myself into it, and one may be forthcoming, but I don’t promise anything. If I try it, I want to take it seriously, and not make a joke of it like I did with my sonnet this year (although I do really enjoy this joke!)

I don’t know why I didn’t title any of my work this year. I just… didn’t.

I enjoyed the prompts this year, more so than previous times I’ve participated, even though I didn’t strictly follow all of them. The inspirational links seemed disconnected from the prompts, which was a bit odd. Maybe I wasn’t clever enough to use the inspiration.

Continue reading →