A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author does not rule out people working with technology as part of a response, but says this approach faces both technical and philosophical difficulties.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
The author leaves human–technology partnership open as a possible response while emphasizing technical and philosophical difficulties.
Personal AI tools do not guarantee understanding or independent action
Keeps partnership as a possibility but qualifies it with unresolved technical and philosophical difficulties, consistent with the narrative’s caution about tools and agency.
Adapting to computer systems or resisting them can both carry risks
Shows that accommodation is not categorically rejected, while making clear that partnership faces unresolved difficulties.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The author’s criticism is not a complete rejection. People working with technology could contribute to a response, although the passage does not resolve the difficulties.
Why it matters
This keeps working with technology among the possibilities without treating it as a proven or sufficient answer.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. This qualifies the earlier criticism: the author leaves room for partnerships while emphasizing their difficulties. Addresses: The proposals for closer human–technology partnership.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The passage says people working with technology could contribute, while noting that difficulties remain.