Where are we?

The professionalism that has arrived on Instagram is astonishing the amateurism that existed in the beginning. Remember? Those personal photos. You at the restaurant. Your family gathered on the sofa. Those less elaborate posts.

But that's old news.

I want to get to this:

In this already old news, the professional posting experts who astonish the amateur posts are still human. Humans expelling humans, therefore.

For how long do these professional posting experts need to be human?

ChatGpt can create a post for any platform, for example with a very eye-catching teaser right at the beginning and a "call to action" at the end, or in the format of any professional marketing structure of the moment. You just literally have to ask.

Therefore, one day the still human professionals of Instagram should be replaced by the even more competent professionalism of chatGpts.

Do we perceive a new scenario?

All humans - our amateur side, our professional side - end up being expelled from the social network.

I forgot to say that the social network is, in theory, a new street, a new sidewalk, a new park for meetings.

If social networks are emptied, we would be emptying the meeting. The streets and squares of glass screens.

It is possible that we fight against this trend. It is possible that we do not give up the human encounter.

But it's not mandatory.

It is possible that we gradually exchange the human-human relationship for the human-chatGpt relationship. More and more.

If it is to find professionalism, dispensing with the human in the equation of the meeting is practically certain.

As already happens on Instagram. On Instagram, amateur humans have already been replaced by professional humans. Where professionalism is preferred over amateurism - professionalism with or without the need for humans producing - the audience will remain faithful to professionalism, not to the human who was previously behind this professionalism.

What may - will it? - remain is a niche of humanism. A search for assumed amateurism. A search for "idiotic" behavior compared to the professionalism that will be.

But is it mandatory for this to happen? Is it mandatory that we look for humans and their mistakes, getting tired of competent professionalism?

Is it mandatory to have a niche of assumed amateur humanism, idiotic compared to the professional?

I don't see it as certain that we will be faithful to ourselves, humans with humans. I don't bet either way. I don't know.

I hope you notice the question I propose: the professionalism of chatGpt will replace human encounters that desire professionalism - in this I bet/opine that it will occur. What I don't know next is whether we will still want "human amateurism" "in our spare time". Will we want "human amateurism" "in our spare time"?

But what is "human amateurism"? Are they our charming flaws? The failure?

If it is the failure, or the charming defect, even a chatGpt knows how to reproduce that, easily. Defects are as reproducible as creating "call to actions" or catchy opening phrases.

If our "humanism" - perhaps our flaws, our imperfection - is also possible to be imitated, then even the eventual "charm" of human "amateurism" will be replaceable by machines.

In such a scenario, not only would the jungle be emptied - we have been emptying the jungles for a long time -, not only the streets and cafes in the streets - which we are still emptying -, but even the virtual streets, these streets that we slide vertically with our finger on glass screens, would be emptied.

"Emptiness". Image produced for the film Vanilla Sky (2001).

Just as we fear, today, the jungle - mosquitoes, snakes -, we will fear the streets - dodging cars weighing a ton, strong sun, rain -, we may even fear human social networks: amateurism, lack of competence.

Let's think together? While we still have relative competence for that..

"Emptiness". Image generated by a human (me) using a scene from vanilla sky.