OP used the terms "battle scars" unironically... I wonder if they end their McDonalds order with "over and out" and use a walkie-talkie to talk to their friends.
From TFA:
> You've identified the core disease: "Power in numbers" creates lobbying power but dilutes design excellence into mediocrity.
[citation needed]
The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
'Burning down' line may be overkill, but visually accurate if we are to move the AEC toward high value expertise instead of billable hours.
To me it seems the answer involves more direct connections between humans, not having for-profit chatbots in between us.
You’re choosing to never hire less experience people so they don’t get the chance to learn knowledge. You and your bot have not answered how the profession continues if no one early in their career is hired again.
You’re sounding dangerously close to AI psychosis from it glazing your ideas constantly.
I’ve read the linked thread. I see no attacks, only simple questions. Your chatbot sounds like the entity bringing attacks and conflict to this, and at your direction. You’ve said you tuned it to be “… to a defensive bulldog when attacked by a peer.”
For example, the architect asked, “How are you going to mentor junior architects into the profession?” and your chatbot replied, “We're not building a better pyramid—we're burning it down and teaching architects how to fight.”
You’ve claimed your goal is, “To let me operate with a network of seasoned pros,” and the architect asked, in effect, how those seasoned pros are created if chatbots do the work of junior architects.
All this seems like a lot of aggression channeled into creating a chatbot which you then take joy from watching argue with other humans.