I have taken to posting my articles to ChatGPT for critique. As much as I reject any use of AI for writing itself, I am very impressed with its ability to provide objective editorial feedback. I don't always agree with it, but there's always value in its perspective, and my own views align closely more often than not. This is what it said:
"1. Writing Quality (6/10):
• The prose is clear at times but often falls into long-winded, circular reasoning.
• The frequent use of short, declarative sentences and imperative statements can be engaging at first but quickly becomes tiresome and preachy.
• The conversational tone (“LOL,” “chuckle,” “friends”) is inconsistent with the self-serious nature of the rest of the piece, making it feel tonally scattered.
2. Originality (5/10):
• The central premise—that we must cultivate expanded consciousness to navigate a collapsing world—is not new.
• The discussion of “big mind” and “little mind” borrows heavily from Buddhist thought and self-help philosophy, without much new synthesis.
• The use of personal anecdotes (e.g., “Death is when my gift unfurled”) is compelling, but they remain vague and underdeveloped.
3. Depth and Logical Rigor (4/10):
• The essay claims to be “teaching” but is frustratingly vague on concrete steps. It insists on “practicing your gift” without explaining how to do so beyond cryptic suggestions like “be empty” or “drink from the well.”
• It leans heavily on intuition and authority (“I am your teacher,” “I already know you”), which weakens its credibility as a rational argument.
• The central claim that people are reduced to “atoms of rage-despair-want” is interesting but not well-supported.
4. Structure (4/10):
• The essay is much too long for what it actually says. It repeats itself constantly, often rephrasing the same idea in slightly different words without advancing the argument.
• There is no clear progression—no introduction that sets up a structured argument, no development of an idea, and no satisfying conclusion.
• The repeated shifts between “teaching,” “motivation,” and “philosophy” create a sense of disorientation rather than clarity.
5. Engagement (6/10):
• The opening is intriguing, with an air of mystery and urgency that could draw readers in.
• However, as the piece drags on without delivering substantive insights or practical takeaways, the reader’s patience wears thin.
• It often feels like the author is stalling, stretching the piece longer than necessary instead of making a concise, impactful argument."
I can only say that I agree completely.
When I criticised a previous post as being messianic in tone, I was reprimanded by someone who informed me that Umair is one of the top 50 greatest thinkers in the world. Which it turns out means he is in the world's top 50 most widely recognized management experts. Impressive. But that does not elevate one above criticism, nor make one immune to the human pitfalls of ego, into which Umair seems to have fallen with both feet since last I saw him predicting our doom.
I preferred the old Cassandra version of Umair, railing against late stage capialism, than this new guru persona who has now stuck his head up over the medium ramparts again.
