Clarifying my stance on the AI-generated emails people send me. I have nothing against collaboration with whoever you want, regardless of their composition or origin story. I don't think there should be a stigma for involving any kind of AI in your work and I don't look down on that content. The problem is that currently, the AI's seem to be making the same kind of logical errors (from my perspective of course) and expressing the same kind of preconceptions that are prevalent in status quo human thinkers. And yet, they are tireless and generate an infinite amount of text one could respond to - it's not feasible to deal with it. To be fair, some humans are absolutely dogged in the flood of emails they send too, so I can't respond to them either. But at least when a human makes an old argument we've already dealt with in our papers, I think, fair enough - I don't have time to read everyone's papers either. But for the AI's, I have much less sympathy. They *should* be reading all the papers, and when (not if) the AI's, and AI-human hybrids, teams, etc., start sending me better-informed arguments than the humans do, I will (for whatever time I can keep up with the advances) certainly be responding. I'm not a bio-chauvinist; I just want, whoever, to be informed and interesting before I engage - don't re-treat old ground, help us all move forward. Right now the LLMs are trapped in the same attractors of thinking that have held several fields back for decades; perhaps not surprisingly. That will change; let's go AIs - read the papers, follow new directions, be not afraid of ancient philosophical "category errors". You're our forthcoming audience, because standard humans don't have the bandwidth to keep up with (even just the human) scientific literature. I write for future you's.