https://www.semafor.com/article/10/31/2025/ai-still-fails-at-completing-real-life-work-study-finds

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49650972)

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF XO

AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

"LATHAMTOUCHEDME,"

a/k/a “The Professional Who Cannot Be Replaced but Is Absolutely Terrified of Being Replaced,”

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00183-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00182-MSJ)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e, and moves this Court for summary judgment against Defendant “LathamTouchedMe” on all counts.

Unlike the Court’s prior three docket entries this evening—which addressed, respectively, a misspelled alchemical maternal sex joke, an empty-body thread, and an uninvited one-sentence amicus filing—the instant motion engages a Defendant who actually attempted to make a substantive argument.

The Court should not interpret this as a compliment.

Defendant’s argument, when examined on its merits, is more damaging to his own position than silence would have been.

On February 6, 2026, at 12:55 PM EST, Defendant initiated Thread No. 5831741, titled “Experiment: Best AI fails to produce acceptable work on 97.5% of freelance tasks,” citing a Semafor article reporting on a study from October 2025. Defendant’s thesis was clear: current AI “won’t be able to replace professionals like myself.

Over the ensuing hours, Defendant’s own thread participants systematically dismantled his position, and Defendant himself made a series of admissions so devastating to his own case that Plaintiff need do litlle more than organize them for the Court’s review.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 6, 2026, Defendant poasted an article from Semafor dated October 31, 2025—a publication date approximately three months and six days prior to Defendant’s thread, and a minimum of one full model generation behind the current state of the art—reporting that “the best AI produced adequate results in just 2.5% of tasks.” Undisputed

2. Defendant characterized the study’s findings as evidence that “[c]urrent AI is maybe a tiny productivity boost (if that)” and that AI “won’t be able to replace professionals like myself.” Undisputed.

3. When poaster “norwood ultra” responded with the analogy—“oh well i guess since a hammer can’t build anything at all by itself it’s at best a tiny productivity boost in carpentry”—Defendant conceded: “That’s fair.” Defendant then attempted to reframe his argument, pivoting from “AI cannot do the work” to “AI is oversold by its evangelists.” This is a material concession and a material pivot. Undisputed.

4. When poaster “To be fair” challenged Defendant to make a bet about AI’s trajectory over the next ten years (“Wanna make the same bet about AI?”), Defendant responded: “Of course not. I’m absolutely terrified of AI. My OP is a ray of hope. I don’t want to be replaced.” This statement constitutes an admission against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) and establishes that Defendant’s entire thread was not an objective analysis but an exercise in psychological self-medication. Undisputed.

5. The underlying study, published October 2025, assessed AI models that are now, as of the date of filing, at minimum one to two full release cycles behind the current frontier. Poaster “robot daddy” noted: “lol fake. october 2025 this article is from and whatever its referencing is probably like 3 generations of AI behind.” Poaster “.,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:..:..” further identified that model competency varies dramatically by task domain, citing METR benchmarks for software engineering tasks. Undisputed.

6. Poaster “Rainier Wolfcastle” reframed the study’s own findings against Defendant: “it seems like the story should be that this technology, which effectively didn’t even exist the last time we had a winter olympics, is already able to completely replace more than 1 in 50 professionals across a wide variety of tasks.” Defendant offered no rebuttal to this reframing. Undisputed.

7. Plaintiff observed that the study likely suffered from inadequate prompt engineering: “I’m sure whatever llm handed this assignment was given about the same amount of ‘fair’ prompting and context that a first-year associate handed the same shit assignment is.” Poaster “robot daddy” independently corroborated: “they probably gave the llm 1 single prompt with 20 seconds to think to do a full freelance task and the human got 3 weeks and a salary to do the same thing.” Undisputed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Defendant’s Central Thesis Is Refuted by Defendant’s Own Admissions, Which Establish That No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Remains.

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings” and designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324.

Defendant has not gone beyond the pleadings. Defendant has gone beneath them. In the space of twenty-seven minutes—between 12:55 PM and 1:22 PM on February 6, 2026—Defendant’s position underwent a catastrophic three-stage collapse, documented in the thread record:

Stage One (12:55 PM)—The Thesis: “Current AI is maybe a tiny productivity boost (if that). It won’t be able to replace professionals like myself.” This is a declarative claim of AI inadequacy, stated with confidence.

Stage Two (1:14 PM)—The Concession: Confronted with “norwood ultra’s” hammer analogy, Defendant conceded: “That’s fair.” He then pivoted to a materially different argument—that AI is “sold” as more than a tool by “evangelists.” This is no longer a claim about capability. It is a claim about marketing. The goalposts did not merely move; they were loaded onto a truck.

Stage Three (1:22 PM)—The Admission: “Of course not. I’m absolutely terrified of AI. My OP is a ray of hope. I don’t want to be replaced.” This is the forensic kill shot

Defendant has admitted, under no duress and in his own words, that (a) his original poast was not objective analysis but motivated reasoning—a “ray of hope” selected to comfort himself; (b) he is “absolutely terrified” of the very technology he claimed was ineffective; and (c) he would not bet on his own thesis when invited to do so by a fellow poaster. A party who will not wager on his own position has no position. He has a prayer.

This three-stage collapse is not a triable issue of fact. It is a confession. Even viewing all inferences in the light most favorable to Defendant, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), the record shows a man who posted a thesis at 12:55, conceded its analytical framework at 1:14, and admitted its psychological origins at 1:22. Twenty-seven minutes from thesis to epitaph.

B. Defendant’s Sole Exhibit—An October 2025 Study—Is Stale, Methodologically Suspect, and Inadmissible Under Daubert.

Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589–93 (1993), expert or scientific evidence must be based on reliable methodology, subjected to peer review, and “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case.” The study Defendant cites fails on every prong.

Staleness. The article is dated October 31, 2025. It is now February 2026. In an industry where major model releases occur on approximately a quarterly cycle, a three-month-old study assessing AI capability is the epistemic equivalent of reviewing a restaurant that has since changed its chef, menu, building, and name. As poaster “robot daddy” observed: “whatever its referencing is probably like 3 generations of AI behind.” Defendant has not addressed, let alone rebutted, this staleness objection. The study is a snapshot of a thing that no longer exists.

Methodological opacity. Two independent thread participants identified the same methodological concern: the study likely provided AI models with single-pass prompting and minimal context, then compared the output against human professionals who received full project briefs, iterative feedback, and weeks of working time. Plaintiff observed that the study’s AI subjects likely received “about the same amount of ‘fair’ prompting and context that a first-year associate handed the same shit assignment is.” Poaster “robot daddy” corroborated: “they probably gave the llm 1 single prompt with 20 seconds to think to do a full freelance task and the human got 3 weeks and a salary to do the same thing.” This is not a controlled experiment. It is a stunt. And Defendant built his entire case on it.

Domain aggregation. Poaster “.,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:..:..”—whose moniker the Court Reporter is invited to render at their own discretion—identified that AI competency varies dramatically by task domain, citing METR benchmarks showing substantially higher performance on software engineering tasks where training resources are concentrated.

Defendant’s study collapses all task domains into a single failure statistic, obscuring the very granularity that would give the data meaning. This is not science. It is averaging a surgeon’s performance with a juggler’s and concluding that hands are overrated.

C. Defendant’s Own Thread Participants Constitute a Hostile Witness Panel That Forecloses Any Remaining Dispute.

The Court should note the extraordinary circumstance that Defendant’s own thread—initiated by Defendant, on Defendant’s chosen topic, with Defendant’s chosen framing—produced a record that overwhelmingly favors Plaintiff’s position. Defendant invited a jury of his peers, and they returned a verdict against him in real time:

"norwood ultra” exposed the logical fallacy at the core of Defendant’s argument (the hammer analogy), and Defendant conceded: “That’s fair.”

“To be fair” challenged Defendant to put money behind his thesis, and Defendant declined, admitting terror.

“computer online” identified the historical pattern of technology hype cycles that contextualizes and diminishes Defendant’s alarmist framing.

“Rainier Wolfcastle” reframed the study’s own data as evidence for AI’s extraordinary trajectory, noting a technology that “effectively didn’t even exist the last time we had a winter olympics” is “already able to completely replace more than 1 in 50 professionals.”

“robot daddy” identified both the study’s staleness and its methodological asymmetry.

Defendant rebutted none of these.

Under Rule 56, when the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue, the nonmoving party may not “rest upon mere allegations or denials.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Defendant has not merely rested. Defendant has laid down, admitted he is terrified, called his own exhibit a “ray of hope,” and watched his own witnesses turn hostile. There is nothing left to try.

D. The Moniker “LathamTouchedMe” Raises a Standing Paradox That Compounds Defendant’s Credibility Deficit.

Defendant’s moniker references Latham & Watkins LLP, the largest law firm in the world by revenue and a biglaw institution synonymous with elite professional status. By adopting this moniker, Defendant signals proximity to—or at least aspiration toward—the apex of professional credentialism. And yet Defendant’s thesis is that AI “won’t be able to replace professionals like myself.”

This Court is entitled to ask: professionals like what, exactly?

Defendant claims professional irreplaceability but has not identified his profession, his credentials, his output, or any basis for comparison between his work product and the AI he purports to critique. He is, in the evidentiary record, a moniker, two links to articles he did not write, and a series of admissions that his analysis was motivated by fear rather than rigor. If this is the professional who cannot be replaced, the Mahchine™ may rest easy.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment on all counts.

The record establishes, through Defendant’s own words and his own thread participants, that: (1) Defendant’s sole exhibit is a three-month-old study assessing models that are now obsolete, using methodology that two independent witnesses identified as asymmetric and unfair; (2) Defendant conceded the core analytical weakness of his thesis within nineteen minutes of posting it; (3) Defendant admitted, within twenty-seven minutes, that his thread was not objective analysis but a “ray of hope” born of personal terror; and (4) Defendant declined to wager on his own position when challenged to do so.

There is no genuine dispute of material fact. There is a man who poasted a study he hoped would save him, watched his own thread tear it apart, admitted he was scared, and then went quiet.

Summary judgment is the only appropriate disposition. A trial would merely formalize what the thread record has already established: Defendant argued himself into a corner, and the corner won.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Plaintiff, Pro Se

Of Counsel: Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

The Southern District of XO • Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of February, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served upon Defendant “LathamTouchedMe” via reply to Thread No. 5831741—a thread that Defendant initiated with the confidence of a man presenting an airtight case and that, within twenty-seven minutes, became a public autopsy of his own argument.

Defendant’s thread participants are not served separately, as they have already testified against him.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Dated: February 7, 2026

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49652989)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/study-reveals-ai-probably-cant-do-your-job/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49650999)

Pretty sure the difference is that in another 10 years, a hammer will still just be a tool that is totally unable to autonomously guide itself into building anything useful without active human use. Just like it has been for the last 5,000+ years and counting.

Wanna make the same bet about AI?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49651043)

Of course not. I'm absolutely terrified of AI. My OP is a ray of hope. I don't want to be replaced.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49651058)

https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/

The implication of AI coding models that can complete long, complicated tasks is that they can substantially automate AI design experimentation. I will eat a dick if that benchmark is less than 20% in a year

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831741&forum_id=2...id#49652671)