The Worst Engineer You Know Feels Threatened

The stark contrast between AI and institutional responsiveness perfectly captured. While CERN's scientists are busy smashing particles at near light-speed to uncover the fundamental secrets of the universe, they apparently don't have time for hypothetical anatomical collision experiments. ChatGPT, however, will cheerfully generate a response to even the most physically impossible and inadvisable scenarios. This is the true particle-human interface we never knew we needed.

Content Varun Khurana • @varunkhurana99 Your company's highest paid engineer showing up to meetings

Welcome to the corporate dystopia of "smart cities" planning! Two team members immediately jump to surveillance-based solutions—one suggesting "Minority Report" pre-crime AI (because nothing says urban planning like arresting people before they drive badly), and another brilliantly proposing "1984" surveillance (because traffic congestion is definitely solved by Big Brother watching you). Meanwhile, the quiet engineer in the corner suggests actual math and science: graph theory to optimize the street grid into a more efficient tree structure while adapting speed limits. Naturally, this person gets thrown out the window. Can't have actual solutions interfering with our dystopian surveillance fantasies! Fun fact: Graph theory has been used to solve real traffic problems since the 1950s, but why use proven mathematics when you can just slap "AI" on a proposal and get triple the funding?

The eternal battle between human expertise and AI hallucinations, dramatized in ghostly form. When ChatGPT starts confidently explaining how dolphins photosynthesize or how gravity is just "spicy magnetism," any researcher with actual knowledge must invoke the sacred gesture of "please stop talking." The AI equivalent of that colleague who read half an abstract once and now considers themselves a leading authority. Trust me, I've been reviewing papers since before these models knew what a token was.

The eternal mathematician's gambit: "I checked it for n=1,2,3,4... therefore it must be true for all n!" Meanwhile, Grok 3 is over here solving Putnam problems that stumped 500 human math prodigies. This is the perfect illustration of the induction principle gone wrong—the mathematical equivalent of saying "I survived jumping off a 1-foot ledge, so clearly I'll survive jumping off a cliff." The irony of the title paired with an AI solving a complex Hankel matrix determinant problem is just *chef's kiss*. The gap between "I think this pattern works" and actually proving it rigorously is where mathematicians either become legends or end up writing that infamous line on their exams.

LinkedIn has officially reached the event horizon of corporate pseudointellectualism. Someone just casually violated the conservation of energy by adding "AI" to Einstein's equation like it's a bonus topping at Subway. The MIT physicist's single-word response "What" perfectly encapsulates the collective groan of the scientific community. Next up: F = ma + blockchain, where the blockchain makes objects accelerate through the power of decentralized consensus.