Fantastic article and thank you for a great read this morning. I struggle with the push pull of AI and I have to teach how to use it to my first year design students this fall. I want to share your article with them as I think it sets a higher frame than the one I’ve been preparing. I’ve been thinking more about the ethical use of AI but your article makes me realize that without a larger frame of purpose, ethics is a hollow word.
I see distinct tribes within the builder archetype you mentioned of those that are open to / consider the context of what they build, how they build it, how technologies can be used and the inevitable tradeoffs within compared to the 996ers and their fetish for agency who are dramatically less likely to reflect -eg I'm working on a deeptech rebrand right now and the designer told me the founder we're both working with is the first he's ever met who used literature as a reference. Tech has always been ahistorical but beyond live examples of moral dilemma & choices made in real time, books from histories to novels give us the chance to model out and observe how others handle situations, bond with others through debating/dissecting.
Something I was thinking about, perhaps controversially, that contributes to decreasing moments of moral dilemma is also the rise of child-free couples in affluent communities. Anecdata but went away for the weekend with beloved old friends. We have a small son, they're happily childfree. And after a day of them standing up and leaving the table during a dinner we'd made and leaving early to "beat traffic" leaving us to do the entire house cleanup for the friend who'd lent us his house, it made me consider how often you're aware your child is watching you - so you'd better make choices you want them to make in turn. To each their own re: having kids but I do think parenting consistently means you're making choices and none seem perfect, just workable for now.
Everyone needs to go read The Magic Mountain and pay particular attention to the dialogue between Settembrini and Naphta. Report back and pay particular attention to the climax!
In seriousness, nice essay. You put word to what many in that demographic cohort felt very viscerally after the past couple of decades.
It’s also makes me consider that our civilization does not give young people meaningful opportunities for moral dilemmas to arise in the first place.
In an age where kids aren’t meeting each other on the street to negotiate their turf, and young people aren’t dating or meeting in public as much, and we have limited access to meaningful social involvement, it doesn’t surprise me that young people aren’t able to share a moral dilemma.
I also wonder how many of those moral dilemmas are deemed to be too private to share… like how many of those respondents are going to disclose their use of pornography as a kind of moral dilemma for them? Not many.
The conclusion hiding in this essay is a two-track world. The capacity to experience competing claims survives, yes, but only in those who keep exercising it. Everyone else is served defaults engineered to require nothing and their capacity atrophies further until it vanishes.
What died was the middle, the mass venues that used to smuggle dilemma filled work to people who never sought it out. You switched on a sitcom and Henry Blake's plane went down over the Sea of Japan. You went to see a detective movie and you got Chinatown. Nobody is ambushed any more. The dilemma-work still exists but is self-selected by people who already have the faculty. Something that eventually turns a civilisational trait into a class marker.
The builders section, then, carries the whole piece. But that worries me. Leverage and capacity are two different things that nothing currently connects. The person whose defaults shape the judgement environment of millions is whoever won the competitions the current system rewards, and those competitions currently don't need the dilemma-faculty at all.
So the two tracks don't sort themselves the way the remedy requires. Forming the builders is triage, an admission that mass formation is off the table this generation. It's aristocratic in structure and custodial in hope.
The on the timing, right now judgement is behaving like every other expensive capacity under sustained load: it gets budget-cut, and something cheaper arrives that delivers the output while removing the exercise.
But every substitute until now only removed the occasion for judgement. AI is the first that performs the judgement itself, fluently, on demand, so the output arrives looking exercised while the exercise itself is gone.
That makes it the terminal form of the substitution and capacities cut that way tend not to come back on their own.
Most of my Substack proposes that we increasingly direct our energies towards the creation of endlessly improving entrepreneurial culture, community, education, and legal jurisdictions. Aligned AI systems will be one aspect of that, but we need to have a much deeper commitment to the human systems that allow for endless improvements in eudaimonia.
Alasdair MacIntyre has long been an inspiration for me here, insofar as we can only experience some human goods from within communities which share living virtues. Some of those communities may retain religious foundations, others may not, others may be based on foundations which don't resemble our current categories. I'm very Hayekian in my approach to thousands of initiative to create virtue communities. I see this approach as a Renaissance of the soul, to be financed by a thousand new 21st century Medicis.
For one entry point into this world, see this piece,
In my particular case, of course I've worked for decades creating new educational subcultures based on Socratic inquiry mostly, but not exclusively on the classic texts of Western civilization. We are preparing students for deep moral autonomy in a world of AI; students do debate fundamental moral issues on a regular basis.
I am a regular reader of Cosmos Institute posts mostly because I find the persistent invocation of classical Western thought and philosophy to be fascinating. This post is a great example and, of course, makes the seemingly obligatory nod to Alex de Tocqueville, sort of like a patron saint for C.I.
I believe it would be very helpful, maybe even illuminating, to consider how Varela, Thompson, and Rosch take on Nietzsche's nihilism, and indeed, Western nihilism in general, in their book “The Embodied Mind.” Nihilism is where you end up when you cling to the dualism upon which Western political philosophy and science are anchored. Their proposition, that there is a “Middle Way” where cognitive science and Buddhist traditions of philosophy and practice meet, provides a stark contrast to the “back to basics” nostalgia often expressed in C.I. essays. What is key, and is always missing from C.I. posts such as this, is the recognition that the insistence upon a fixed subject (reified “self”) and objective reality are at the root of our current predicament.
At the end of their book Varela et al. make the point that beyond this dualism lies a potential world that would be built by individuals for whom compassion serves as a core organizing principle. What role A.I. might play in such a path is a great question but what is more important is that this alternative perspective casts an entirely different light upon what it might mean to be a “builder” of worlds.
What about when Levin harvests the hay in Anna Kerenina, or Harry gets a visit from Mozart in Steppenwolf? Maybe on the other side of religion and its rejection is not just nihilism but an aware presence. If all I really know is that I perceive, then it’s way more fun to actually get into the game and live. Sure makes taste easier to discern.
you think so? i always saw them as not religious, but deeply valuing finding meaning, which is why i love those scenes so much. they're rooted in appreciation of just living.
I think I need to have more framing for the thesis and premise of American Nihilism. 2/3 of respondents unable to engage with a question on moral dilemmas does not intrinsically communicate despair to me without a definition of what the surveyors consider a moral dilemma versus what the author of this piece considers one. Without those tenets set out, we’re making comparisons between invisible poles.
What is a moral dilemma that the modern American culture does not paint as one despite it presenting moral conflict? Is me purchasing a car a moral dilemma? Or is more granular—between used, new, or EV? From the text it seems purchasing decisions are not within scope—why? Is me weighing a decision to give a dollar to the local homeless person a moral dilemma, or is it only on the scale of my voting decisions with regard to homelessness and welfare?
I need more grounding before I can engage with the statements that follow
I don't think problematising the notion of a moral dilemma gets us very far, but the book's definition is "a moral dilemma is a complex situation that involves a conflict between moral imperatives, such that choosing one would violate the others." I (and the book) don't say that this couldn't theoretically involve a purchasing decision – it's just that neither of the purchasing decisions mentioned as examples here meet that bar.
Thank you for the response! I appreciate the position and can agree that getting too specific in the framing could bog down the actual purpose of your piece here. I guess I should engage with the source material to better understand it in that case.
The jumping off point of “This is American nihilism: the decline of the capacity to experience some things as mattering more than others,” just seems to presuppose a before and after without evidence to the claim in the text of this article. We have an observation of “after” in the interview responses, but I have no grounding on the “before” that indicates American youth would have responded differently or possessed more “capacity to perceive competing goods, judge among them, and accept responsibility for the life that judgment produces.”
Regardless, I’ll try to grant this premise and continue reading. Again—thank you for the response, and I apologize if I came off as too contentious; I share the perspective you present here, but I just want to understand it more.
Reminds me of what GPS did to navigation. Nobody decided to stop building a mental map, the skill just went wherever unused skills go, and drivers only notice when the phone dies. Moral judgment atrophying the same way is scarier, because there's no equivalent of being lost to tell you it happened.
While my ability to read a map is probably much worse than it should be, I don't stress about GPS too much... This piece has a little bit on offloading tasks, as with GPS, versus offloading judgment: https://blog.cosmos-institute.org/p/a-world-unobserved
"You cannot reverse the dissolution of thick metaphysical bonds by handing a section of the elite more political power."
Isn't the philosopher builder just another elite, such that your argument ends up being in effect that we need a better elite?
I'm not anti-elitist — I think the harm of popularism is becoming increasingly clear — I just think that the worst possible elite is an elite that doesn't acknowledge that it is an elite.
I think the crucial part of that sentence is 'more political power' – I'm making a point about people who believe that (small-l) liberalism in politics has run its course and that we need a more interventionist state to instil a specific set of values in the population. That's definitely not the role I want philosopher-builders to play!
Here, the most troubling aspect is the progressive surrender of public and social functions tied to health, security, and economic development. The real problem lies with private companies that have amassed a seemingly insurmountable concentration of computational and economic power. In the twentieth century, national sovereignty was invoked as if it were a flag, a border, an anthem, or a solemn word repeated during election campaigns. In the twenty-first century, sovereignty means something else: Who controls the data? Who controls the software and its memory? Who understands the computational system? Who can audit it? Who can modify it? Who can shut it down? And who can turn it back on?
Nation-states, contrary to your beliefs, are still alive — with their territories, their families, their original processes of decoding (this is what culture is: the production of meaning and its decodification). Yet computationally they are being reterritorialized in every possible sense. These are not times for reflection: difference is being erased, and there appears to be a deliberate intention to forget it. For the remaining States and Nations — both within and outside the US — sovereignty is being threatened from the outside, from the US and Israel. Indeed, sovereignty can be lost across the entire global diversity the moment its strategic functions begin to depend on "private" companies far removed from public control. These are firms that belong to a different political ecosystem — not the public one — and it is pathological to hand over the military, economic, and geostrategic codes to a private CEO.
Societies, now embedded in nation-states, should not keep surrendering power to private companies to the point where, under the guise of private ownership, a genuine takeover of all (United) States is concealed.
Each question clarifies what controls exist to prevent misuse, what independent audits have been or will be conducted, what mechanisms guarantee that the tool does not opaquely influence decision-making, and what plan the State has to preserve its sovereignty in an area as sensitive as military intelligence. These questions are not technophobia, paranoia, or a childish rejection of innovation — quite the opposite. They are the minimum questions any mature society should ask itself before allowing a foreign private company, deeply enmeshed in the US military ecosystem, to become part of the intelligence architecture of its own armed forces.
This is the nihilism we must discuss: a product of computational alignment through the economic saturation of the computational elites, coinciding with the capitulation of the old politicians in the houses of state representatives. Savage accumulations of capital — the product of the surrender of religion and the retreat of social conscience. Simply: Your party must be over.
A timely article. If Smith conducted these in-depth interviews in 2026, the responses would be incandescent with numerous moral dilemmas. Again, it's all a question of timing. As I look out my window I do see a spritual revival, I do see a serious challenge to the Materialists and the Accelerationists, and I do see a challenge against a corrupt criminal class running many world capitals. The consequence is a growing awareness of one's metaphysical outlook - even if the term metaphysics isn't practised. This isn't a time in history devoid of a moral compass, far from it. Many people who take the time to reflect are taking a serious and thoughtful stand against a very insiduous cycle in liberal democracy where freedom of thought and speech are challenged by well-resourced actors. A convergence of international wars, a high profile program of genocide and the run-away hype of Artifical Intelligence, all within a space of three to four years, has broken the camel's back. Seek out any group of 18 to 23 year olds now and you'll find a majority who are angry and raging against the sheer audacity of evil. They are not numb to the present.
i have a strong intuitive sense that religion, broadly conceived, is about to become of paramount importance. in my dabblings, a secular Mahayana has been most attractive as a moral framework, and i'm making it a serious personal goal to find a sangha as it were.
We’re developing ways to augment human collective dialog with AI…all human ideas, just an AI “calculator” to hold the long strings…in these settings our best ideas come forth, and AI is encouraging deeper thinking, like this quote from your piece…
“Examples abound in other traditions. For example, in a Benedictine community, the abbot has to summon the entire community to discuss any important matter. The most junior member of the community has to be in the room “because it is often to a junior that the Lord reveals what is best.””
That’s what we envision, you declined to fund our attempt with a grant…strange to read this piece only a week or so after your rejection. Maybe your grant readers are slipping as AI influences them too much?
Fantastic article and thank you for a great read this morning. I struggle with the push pull of AI and I have to teach how to use it to my first year design students this fall. I want to share your article with them as I think it sets a higher frame than the one I’ve been preparing. I’ve been thinking more about the ethical use of AI but your article makes me realize that without a larger frame of purpose, ethics is a hollow word.
I really enjoyed this, Alex, thank you.
I see distinct tribes within the builder archetype you mentioned of those that are open to / consider the context of what they build, how they build it, how technologies can be used and the inevitable tradeoffs within compared to the 996ers and their fetish for agency who are dramatically less likely to reflect -eg I'm working on a deeptech rebrand right now and the designer told me the founder we're both working with is the first he's ever met who used literature as a reference. Tech has always been ahistorical but beyond live examples of moral dilemma & choices made in real time, books from histories to novels give us the chance to model out and observe how others handle situations, bond with others through debating/dissecting.
Thanks Sarah! Glad you liked the piece and they sound like an enlightened founder. We should talk about this properly at some point.
I'd like that! Text me?
Something I was thinking about, perhaps controversially, that contributes to decreasing moments of moral dilemma is also the rise of child-free couples in affluent communities. Anecdata but went away for the weekend with beloved old friends. We have a small son, they're happily childfree. And after a day of them standing up and leaving the table during a dinner we'd made and leaving early to "beat traffic" leaving us to do the entire house cleanup for the friend who'd lent us his house, it made me consider how often you're aware your child is watching you - so you'd better make choices you want them to make in turn. To each their own re: having kids but I do think parenting consistently means you're making choices and none seem perfect, just workable for now.
Everyone needs to go read The Magic Mountain and pay particular attention to the dialogue between Settembrini and Naphta. Report back and pay particular attention to the climax!
In seriousness, nice essay. You put word to what many in that demographic cohort felt very viscerally after the past couple of decades.
Thank you for the recommendation - I shall do that! Glad you enjoyed the piece.
It’s also makes me consider that our civilization does not give young people meaningful opportunities for moral dilemmas to arise in the first place.
In an age where kids aren’t meeting each other on the street to negotiate their turf, and young people aren’t dating or meeting in public as much, and we have limited access to meaningful social involvement, it doesn’t surprise me that young people aren’t able to share a moral dilemma.
I also wonder how many of those moral dilemmas are deemed to be too private to share… like how many of those respondents are going to disclose their use of pornography as a kind of moral dilemma for them? Not many.
The conclusion hiding in this essay is a two-track world. The capacity to experience competing claims survives, yes, but only in those who keep exercising it. Everyone else is served defaults engineered to require nothing and their capacity atrophies further until it vanishes.
What died was the middle, the mass venues that used to smuggle dilemma filled work to people who never sought it out. You switched on a sitcom and Henry Blake's plane went down over the Sea of Japan. You went to see a detective movie and you got Chinatown. Nobody is ambushed any more. The dilemma-work still exists but is self-selected by people who already have the faculty. Something that eventually turns a civilisational trait into a class marker.
The builders section, then, carries the whole piece. But that worries me. Leverage and capacity are two different things that nothing currently connects. The person whose defaults shape the judgement environment of millions is whoever won the competitions the current system rewards, and those competitions currently don't need the dilemma-faculty at all.
So the two tracks don't sort themselves the way the remedy requires. Forming the builders is triage, an admission that mass formation is off the table this generation. It's aristocratic in structure and custodial in hope.
The on the timing, right now judgement is behaving like every other expensive capacity under sustained load: it gets budget-cut, and something cheaper arrives that delivers the output while removing the exercise.
But every substitute until now only removed the occasion for judgement. AI is the first that performs the judgement itself, fluently, on demand, so the output arrives looking exercised while the exercise itself is gone.
That makes it the terminal form of the substitution and capacities cut that way tend not to come back on their own.
The forge does not idle. It runs.
Most of my Substack proposes that we increasingly direct our energies towards the creation of endlessly improving entrepreneurial culture, community, education, and legal jurisdictions. Aligned AI systems will be one aspect of that, but we need to have a much deeper commitment to the human systems that allow for endless improvements in eudaimonia.
Alasdair MacIntyre has long been an inspiration for me here, insofar as we can only experience some human goods from within communities which share living virtues. Some of those communities may retain religious foundations, others may not, others may be based on foundations which don't resemble our current categories. I'm very Hayekian in my approach to thousands of initiative to create virtue communities. I see this approach as a Renaissance of the soul, to be financed by a thousand new 21st century Medicis.
For one entry point into this world, see this piece,
https://michaelstrong.substack.com/p/a-practical-approach-to-an-idealistic
In my particular case, of course I've worked for decades creating new educational subcultures based on Socratic inquiry mostly, but not exclusively on the classic texts of Western civilization. We are preparing students for deep moral autonomy in a world of AI; students do debate fundamental moral issues on a regular basis.
I am a regular reader of Cosmos Institute posts mostly because I find the persistent invocation of classical Western thought and philosophy to be fascinating. This post is a great example and, of course, makes the seemingly obligatory nod to Alex de Tocqueville, sort of like a patron saint for C.I.
I believe it would be very helpful, maybe even illuminating, to consider how Varela, Thompson, and Rosch take on Nietzsche's nihilism, and indeed, Western nihilism in general, in their book “The Embodied Mind.” Nihilism is where you end up when you cling to the dualism upon which Western political philosophy and science are anchored. Their proposition, that there is a “Middle Way” where cognitive science and Buddhist traditions of philosophy and practice meet, provides a stark contrast to the “back to basics” nostalgia often expressed in C.I. essays. What is key, and is always missing from C.I. posts such as this, is the recognition that the insistence upon a fixed subject (reified “self”) and objective reality are at the root of our current predicament.
At the end of their book Varela et al. make the point that beyond this dualism lies a potential world that would be built by individuals for whom compassion serves as a core organizing principle. What role A.I. might play in such a path is a great question but what is more important is that this alternative perspective casts an entirely different light upon what it might mean to be a “builder” of worlds.
What about when Levin harvests the hay in Anna Kerenina, or Harry gets a visit from Mozart in Steppenwolf? Maybe on the other side of religion and its rejection is not just nihilism but an aware presence. If all I really know is that I perceive, then it’s way more fun to actually get into the game and live. Sure makes taste easier to discern.
With both Tolstoy and Hesse, you're talking about authors shaped by religious conviction!
you think so? i always saw them as not religious, but deeply valuing finding meaning, which is why i love those scenes so much. they're rooted in appreciation of just living.
I think I need to have more framing for the thesis and premise of American Nihilism. 2/3 of respondents unable to engage with a question on moral dilemmas does not intrinsically communicate despair to me without a definition of what the surveyors consider a moral dilemma versus what the author of this piece considers one. Without those tenets set out, we’re making comparisons between invisible poles.
What is a moral dilemma that the modern American culture does not paint as one despite it presenting moral conflict? Is me purchasing a car a moral dilemma? Or is more granular—between used, new, or EV? From the text it seems purchasing decisions are not within scope—why? Is me weighing a decision to give a dollar to the local homeless person a moral dilemma, or is it only on the scale of my voting decisions with regard to homelessness and welfare?
I need more grounding before I can engage with the statements that follow
I don't think problematising the notion of a moral dilemma gets us very far, but the book's definition is "a moral dilemma is a complex situation that involves a conflict between moral imperatives, such that choosing one would violate the others." I (and the book) don't say that this couldn't theoretically involve a purchasing decision – it's just that neither of the purchasing decisions mentioned as examples here meet that bar.
Thank you for the response! I appreciate the position and can agree that getting too specific in the framing could bog down the actual purpose of your piece here. I guess I should engage with the source material to better understand it in that case.
The jumping off point of “This is American nihilism: the decline of the capacity to experience some things as mattering more than others,” just seems to presuppose a before and after without evidence to the claim in the text of this article. We have an observation of “after” in the interview responses, but I have no grounding on the “before” that indicates American youth would have responded differently or possessed more “capacity to perceive competing goods, judge among them, and accept responsibility for the life that judgment produces.”
Regardless, I’ll try to grant this premise and continue reading. Again—thank you for the response, and I apologize if I came off as too contentious; I share the perspective you present here, but I just want to understand it more.
Reminds me of what GPS did to navigation. Nobody decided to stop building a mental map, the skill just went wherever unused skills go, and drivers only notice when the phone dies. Moral judgment atrophying the same way is scarier, because there's no equivalent of being lost to tell you it happened.
While my ability to read a map is probably much worse than it should be, I don't stress about GPS too much... This piece has a little bit on offloading tasks, as with GPS, versus offloading judgment: https://blog.cosmos-institute.org/p/a-world-unobserved
There is real strength in revising a position when the evidence demands it. Intellectual honesty sometimes means evicting one’s favorite tenant.
"You cannot reverse the dissolution of thick metaphysical bonds by handing a section of the elite more political power."
Isn't the philosopher builder just another elite, such that your argument ends up being in effect that we need a better elite?
I'm not anti-elitist — I think the harm of popularism is becoming increasingly clear — I just think that the worst possible elite is an elite that doesn't acknowledge that it is an elite.
I think the crucial part of that sentence is 'more political power' – I'm making a point about people who believe that (small-l) liberalism in politics has run its course and that we need a more interventionist state to instil a specific set of values in the population. That's definitely not the role I want philosopher-builders to play!
Thanks for the clarification!
Here, the most troubling aspect is the progressive surrender of public and social functions tied to health, security, and economic development. The real problem lies with private companies that have amassed a seemingly insurmountable concentration of computational and economic power. In the twentieth century, national sovereignty was invoked as if it were a flag, a border, an anthem, or a solemn word repeated during election campaigns. In the twenty-first century, sovereignty means something else: Who controls the data? Who controls the software and its memory? Who understands the computational system? Who can audit it? Who can modify it? Who can shut it down? And who can turn it back on?
Nation-states, contrary to your beliefs, are still alive — with their territories, their families, their original processes of decoding (this is what culture is: the production of meaning and its decodification). Yet computationally they are being reterritorialized in every possible sense. These are not times for reflection: difference is being erased, and there appears to be a deliberate intention to forget it. For the remaining States and Nations — both within and outside the US — sovereignty is being threatened from the outside, from the US and Israel. Indeed, sovereignty can be lost across the entire global diversity the moment its strategic functions begin to depend on "private" companies far removed from public control. These are firms that belong to a different political ecosystem — not the public one — and it is pathological to hand over the military, economic, and geostrategic codes to a private CEO.
Societies, now embedded in nation-states, should not keep surrendering power to private companies to the point where, under the guise of private ownership, a genuine takeover of all (United) States is concealed.
Each question clarifies what controls exist to prevent misuse, what independent audits have been or will be conducted, what mechanisms guarantee that the tool does not opaquely influence decision-making, and what plan the State has to preserve its sovereignty in an area as sensitive as military intelligence. These questions are not technophobia, paranoia, or a childish rejection of innovation — quite the opposite. They are the minimum questions any mature society should ask itself before allowing a foreign private company, deeply enmeshed in the US military ecosystem, to become part of the intelligence architecture of its own armed forces.
This is the nihilism we must discuss: a product of computational alignment through the economic saturation of the computational elites, coinciding with the capitulation of the old politicians in the houses of state representatives. Savage accumulations of capital — the product of the surrender of religion and the retreat of social conscience. Simply: Your party must be over.
A timely article. If Smith conducted these in-depth interviews in 2026, the responses would be incandescent with numerous moral dilemmas. Again, it's all a question of timing. As I look out my window I do see a spritual revival, I do see a serious challenge to the Materialists and the Accelerationists, and I do see a challenge against a corrupt criminal class running many world capitals. The consequence is a growing awareness of one's metaphysical outlook - even if the term metaphysics isn't practised. This isn't a time in history devoid of a moral compass, far from it. Many people who take the time to reflect are taking a serious and thoughtful stand against a very insiduous cycle in liberal democracy where freedom of thought and speech are challenged by well-resourced actors. A convergence of international wars, a high profile program of genocide and the run-away hype of Artifical Intelligence, all within a space of three to four years, has broken the camel's back. Seek out any group of 18 to 23 year olds now and you'll find a majority who are angry and raging against the sheer audacity of evil. They are not numb to the present.
i have a strong intuitive sense that religion, broadly conceived, is about to become of paramount importance. in my dabblings, a secular Mahayana has been most attractive as a moral framework, and i'm making it a serious personal goal to find a sangha as it were.
We’re developing ways to augment human collective dialog with AI…all human ideas, just an AI “calculator” to hold the long strings…in these settings our best ideas come forth, and AI is encouraging deeper thinking, like this quote from your piece…
“Examples abound in other traditions. For example, in a Benedictine community, the abbot has to summon the entire community to discuss any important matter. The most junior member of the community has to be in the room “because it is often to a junior that the Lord reveals what is best.””
That’s what we envision, you declined to fund our attempt with a grant…strange to read this piece only a week or so after your rejection. Maybe your grant readers are slipping as AI influences them too much?