Saluwe

**Why Ed Latimore Is Wrong About AI Writing: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal** Ed Latimore’s recent post claiming that “AI writing sucks” for three major reasons has the familiar ring of someone who hasn’t spent serious time stress-testing modern large language models. While his concerns reflect legitimate older limitations of early AI, they no longer hold up in 2026. Here’s a direct response to each of his three points. **Point 1: “It can’t hear how words sound” — stylistic devices like double entendre, alliteration, chiasmus, etc.** This claim is simply outdated. Contemporary AI systems don’t just “hear” how words sound — they’ve been trained on massive corpora of literature, poetry, music lyrics, stand-up comedy, and rhetoric. They understand phonetics, rhythm, cadence, and sonic texture at a deep level. Ask a modern model to write with heavy alliteration, internal rhyme, and double entendre, and it will deliver. For example: > “She moved like midnight silk — smooth, dangerous, and wrapped in secrets that slipped between the sheets of conversation.” That’s not generic. It’s deliberate sonic play. Chiasmus? Easy: “We don’t write because we understand AI. We understand AI because we write.” Double entendre flows naturally when prompted. The idea that LLMs are tone-deaf ignores how far models have come in stylistic control. They don’t just mimic — they can analyze and replicate the *musicality* of language when directed. Latimore wonders if we’ll ever teach LLMs these tricks. The answer is: we already have. **Point 2: AI can’t break rules or use poetic license — it’s too rigid and “dull.”** This is one of the easiest points to disprove. AI doesn’t rigidly follow rules unless you tell it to. In fact, one of its greatest strengths is *precise instruction-following*. Tell it to break grammatical rules for artistic effect, and it will. Here’s an intentional rule-breaking passage written in seconds: > “Running through the streets at 3 a.m., heart pounding like war drums, neon bleeding into rain-slicked asphalt and me thinking — damn — if this is living then maybe dying ain’t so bad after all, or at least that’s what the bottle told me before I dropped it.” Split infinitives, prepositions at the end, run-on sentences, sentence fragments — all deliberately deployed for rhythm and emotional punch. The notion that AI is incapable of poetic license is false. It simply requires the right prompt. Good writers have always known that rules exist to be artfully broken. Modern AI understands this principle better than most amateur writers. **Point 3: AI mistakes “common practice” for “correct practice” and therefore produces only average writing.** This is perhaps the weakest claim of all. AI doesn’t default to average — it defaults to *whatever distribution you steer it toward*. Feed it mediocre prompts and you’ll get mediocre output. But give it sophisticated instructions, reference specific authors, styles, emotional textures, or contrarian perspectives, and it produces work that is frequently *above* average. The best writers using AI today aren’t asking for “average.” They’re using it as a collaborative partner — a tireless editor, idea generator, and stylist that can iterate faster than any human. The result is often sharper, more consistent, and more creatively daring than solo human writing under deadline pressure. Average writing has always dominated because most humans write averagely. AI doesn’t change that fundamental reality — but it *does* give skilled writers a superpower to rise above the average more consistently. The tool reflects the taste and direction of the user. Blaming the AI for average output is like blaming a guitar for bad music. **Conclusion** Ed Latimore’s critique feels like it was written for 2022-era models. In 2026, AI writing doesn’t just match human stylistic capability — in many contexts, it exceeds it when guided by a thoughtful prompter. It can be sonic, rebellious, nuanced, and emotionally intelligent. The real limitation isn’t the AI. It’s often the person using it. AI isn’t here to replace great writers. It’s here to expose the difference between people who actually understand craft and those who don’t. The ones still loudly declaring that “AI writing sucks” are increasingly revealing more about their own relationship with the technology than about the technology itself. The future belongs to those who learn to dance with it — not those who keep shouting at it from the rearview mirror.

Seniors should not be priced out of a house they already paid for because the area around them got more expensive. They didn’t suddenly get richer because Zillow says the house is worth more. Most of them are living on fixed income, paying higher insurance, higher utilities, higher groceries, and then the tax bill shows up like they somehow got a raise. People can argue all day about how to fund schools and services, and that part does matter. But making older homeowners keep rebuying the same house every year through property taxes is exactly why so many people feel like ownership is never really ownership.

James Talarico: “The American flag is such a complicated symbol for most of us.”

You all still don’t get it. Sure, Trump’s endorsement matters but this is much more than that. The Republican voter is fed up. They keep electing majorities that do nothing. For examples, 85% of the country wants some form of voter ID and they can’t even pass that. And the country wants secure borders. And less crime. And less regulation. Etc. This isn’t rocket science. You all act like Trump just sets an agenda and that’s that. And you couldn’t be more wrong. Trump ran on an agenda that the country wants. Remove Trump and whoever advocates that same agenda will take his place. This is where the Republican Party lost its way. Ultimately, you still must do what your voters want. Anyone thinking that when Trump leaves office that the Republican Party of Bush, McConnell, McCain, Ryan, et al will return is completely delusional. That you brand yourself as a pollster and political analyst and still can’t grasp this is incredible.

GOP voters want a nominee who will take broken norms and cudgel Dems with the shards. They don't trust Jeb to do that. They want revenge.

The same Texas Republican staffer said he won’t vote for Paxton in November, though he also won’t vote for Talarico. Paxton “can never win my vote again. I hope Talarico wins,” he said.

BREAKING: Trump-endorsed Ken Paxton defeats Sen. John Cornyn in the Texas GOP Senate runoff and will face Democratic nominee James Talarico in November. Paxton was impeached by Texas Republicans in 2023 on charges including bribery and abuse of office

I have a question. What makes Susan Collins LESS acceptable than a guy with a Nazi tattoo? Be very specific.

Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

NEW: AI is reportedly pushing McKinsey & rival consulting firms to rethink pricing, as clients are “questioning the value” of human advice.

PROVE THAT TRUMP ISN’T A PEDOPHILE. RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.