For as long as I can remember, writing has been my catharsis — my escape. There's an allure to the elements of writing that captivates me: the architecture of structure, the rhythm of pace, the artistry in keeping language simple, the finesse of persuasion. It quickly becomes apparent why good writers stand out — because mastering this craft is no small feat.

PG's latest essay struck a chord with me. As a futurist, I found myself pondering: where does this leave me in the realm of writing? Has one of my (what I consider) natural advantages been eroded? Now that we're well into the LLM adoption cycle.

My biggest concern is finding myself becoming overly dependent on LLMs, potentially losing my distinctive 'voice' as I succumb to the temptation of leaning on ChatGPT. I'm not quite there yet —at the moment I predominantly have it act as an editor to my 'submitted work' — analysing for flow and readability.

But it could become a slippery slope resulting in complacency and a dilution of 'me'.

To counter this, I've challenged myself to continue writing independently, keeping LLMs at arm's length. My goal is to prevent them from becoming a crutch or an instinctive fallback.

I believe many will develop a reliance on these digital companions — a double-edged sword for society, bringing both benefits and drawbacks.

This self-imposed challenge is not just about preserving my writing skills, but about maintaining the clarity of thought that comes with the act of writing itself. As Leslie Lamport said, "If you're thinking without writing, you only think you're thinking." In this evolving landscape, I'm determined to remain among the "writes" and the "thinks," embracing the cognitive benefits that come with putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) without AI assistance.