The second law of thermodynamics is often used by literary types like me to explain away some phenomena they decry. The second law of thermodynamics explains how thermal equilibrium is reached into closed systems via the concept of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder and it is well-accepted that all systems left to their own will see their entropy increase. For example, a class of students left to their own where the teacher doesn't show up will most likely not start teaching each other.

The same thing happened in ancient Greece with the Sophists. Being teachers paid by the ruling class to teach their children how to stay in power; how to rule in a democratic city by "making the weaker argument the stronger".

In more recent time, since the democratization of generative AI, I've witnessed many people emboldened by the powers of ChatGPT talk about things they knew nothing about. Most have learned to hide the fact that their answers come from a large-language model (llm) but we can still smile at naive ones who simply copy-paste an answer generated by AI, if it agrees with their position, and share it as if it was an authoritative argument.

It's not that informations synthetized by AI are wrong. The problem is that they are taken to be authoritative. Moreover, when someone in a position of authority is using AI slop to assert their opinions, we are being handed the smaller end of the stick. Nobody wins when being wrong is the only option.

This rag-chewing of mine only to put this 1940s text into relevance for us and the younger generations of 2026. Given we humans love not only to fix problems and build stuff, we also love to end every project with all-encompassing rules. What the hell if that project was a success, now we have learned the recipe and should perform every new projects the same way.

Also given the fact that no project is exactly the same; that a rule may likely not fit some aspects of new situations, blindly following rules that have been dictated by people with authority is always a loss-loss situation.

In his 1945 book, mathematics professor G. Polya characterizes the brainless following of rules as "pedantry" while the appropriate use of our educated judgment as "mastery"

"To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry. Some pedants are poor fools; they never did understand the rule which they apply so conscientiously and so indiscriminately. Some pedants are quite successful; they understood their rule, at least in the beginning (before they became pedants), and chose a good one that fits in many cases and fails only occasionaly."

What a lot of us witnessed in recent years with generative AI is that it is often used as an authoritative argument to support pretty much anything the other party wants to be the truth. Experts and masters in various domains, like hot irons (low-entropy), are pressured by people in authority (high-entropy) who don't master the subject-matter to bench their expertise. The courage to use our own mind should be rekindled. Let's dare use our own lights!

"And if you are inclined to be a pedant and must rely upon some rule learn this one: Always use your own brain first.

sources

George Polya (1945), "How to Solve It: a New Aspect of Mathematical Method"

Woody Allen (1977), "Annie Hall - If life were only like this", scene with Marshall McLuhan