It seems clear why 20-somethings have advantages, but extrapolating that out is I think a mistake.
I also think subheds like "Naive Conviction" and "Capitalized Execution" and "Durable Craft" are going to set people off, and as a bit of writing advice I'd avoid them, along with constructions like "It's not X. It's Y." or "X isn't Z. Y is." It's also kind of not-great writing? It starts to sound like something written for Bill Shatner to read.
No dispute on the first part, but I really wish there were numbers available somehow to address the second. Maybe it's my cultural bubble, but it sure feels like the "AI Artpocalypse" isn't coming, in part because of AI backlash in general, but more specifically because people who are willing to pay money for art seem to strongly prefer that their money goes to an artist, not a GPU cluster operator.
I think a similar idea might be persisting in AI programming as well, even though it seems like such a perfect use case. Anthropic released an internal survey a few weeks ago that was like, the vast majority, something like 90% of their own workers AI usage, was spent explaining allnd learning about things that already exist, or doing little one-off side projects that otherwise wouldn't have happened at all, because of the overhead, like building little dashboards for a single dataset or something, stuff where the outcome isn't worth the effort of doing it yourself. For everything that actually matters and would be paid for, the premier AI coding company is using people to do it.