I haven't given up my slide-rule. I was just using it to determine counterweight locations. I've been like post #13
"I have had quite a high-tech career, and I have always kept astronomy as a low-tech, get-out-in-nature kind of hobby:"
One other reason for me not to electrify this hobby is that electronics don't age well yet. I still enjoy using the scope I bought in 1987. There aren't any electronic gizmos from 1987 that I use or would enjoy using. My oldest electronic thing is a music cd player from 1997 or 1998. Some people rave about connecting these smart telescopes to their tablet or phone. Software has a shorter working useful life than the electronic platform. It has happened way too many times that I "upgrade" an operating system and my tried and true programs won't recompile. I wrote image processing programs in plain vanilla 'C' back in the 1990's. They've jumped through many operating systems and even computer architectures. Now they won't compile after an OS upgrade. I know I can figure out the problems but resent having to go through with it.
Many people rave about these devices as the answer to light pollution. I think of dark-sky as a human birthright that has been taken from us through the mal-adaptation of technology. Rather than correct the mistake of wasting light, the light polluters tell people "Don't worry just buy more technology." Or jet off to a dark sky vacation.
For the bright objects that I observe with my modest equipment the photographs don't capture what I see. People say they see more "detail" in the photographs of DSOs but my equipment only shows the brighter subset and sometimes that bright subset shows arcs of stars or darker areas that get washed out in the photos. I recently made a sketch of M5 in poor conditions moon and haze. When I compared my sketch to the photos I see on the internet I had a hard time seeing this arm of stars extending from it. The photos all showed a mass of stars of the same intensity it was difficult to distinguish the bright ones I sketched. They were there just hidden in the photo. One night at a Jupiter opposition I saw one of its moons transit its own shadow perfectly. Well, as perfectly as my scope and sky would allow, the bight moon seemed to be centered exactly in the middle of its own shadow.
I searched for a photo on the internet and haven't found one. The closest I've seen have been among the amazing photos at this web site:
https://www.damianpe...com/jupiter.htm
I'm pretty sure that eventually we will be able to tell the smart telescope to watch a Jupiter opposition and snap a photo of the exact moment a moon covers its own shadow while we sleep. When we wake up in the morning we can view the photo. If I did that I would miss out on the sense of discovery I had when I made the completely unexpected observation. The smart telescope way doesn't seem much different than telling an AI agent like DeepSeek or ChatGpt to go out on the internet and find such a photo or even to generate a synthetic photo of the event.
I agree with BradHaak's sentiment "Do what you want and use the tools that make you happy." but warning that if we adopt a smart telescope only approach we miss out on some good experiences and maybe drop the ball on combating light pollution. The posts on the internet about the seestar scopes give me the impression that people are expressing that new-toy joy.
I just bought a used slipstick last December on eBay. My son the actuary, thought it would be fun to learn how to use one.
Seestars and Dwarf 3s are, at least for now, mostly entry-level scopes that are great for folks who are exploring where they want to go with the hobby or even as an entry to our hobby. A few folks will even settle on them as a long-term tool. With the mosaic mode that was added late last year, you can make some incredible images with them. It takes a while, but that's okay.
I also see the same low cost smart scopes as gateway scopes. It's similar to aperture fever for visual folks. Once new users see what can be done with small apertures and a little time, they start to wonder what would happen with better optics, more aperture, and larger sensors.
I also spent my entire career in high-tech (look at where I live). So, I understand about electronics not aging well. But in my decades of looking through eyepieces, I've never owned a scope more than a couple of years so that's not even a consideration for me. That's true of my computer and phone history, too. There are too many options available to limit myself. I've always been an early adopter and I don't see that changing now.
Besides my back can't handle the load of carrying and setting up large scopes. The Celestron Origin is about as big as I'm willing to go, these days, and some days I don't want to even deal with it. But at least vision isn't an issue since cataract surgery. I have full near to distant 20/25 vision in both eyes (I highly recommend getting cataracts so that you too can have bionic eyes 
). But in spite of that, I'll never look through an eyepiece again unless I'm being polite to a friend that wants to show me something. And when I do look at some grayish fuzzy blob, I'll be gracious and complimentary about it.
The point to all of this is that there are multiple reasons to stay with visual astronomy, or to move to AP or to smart scopes. They're all valid. I read your reasons to continue with visual, and I agree with most of what you said, but I reached a different conclusion. This is a hobby with many ways to experience it. You've found your niche and are obviously happy with it. That's great, but others of us find different niches, and that's okay, too.
Don't ever assume that your priorities, reasoning, and decisions apply to anyone except yourself. Enjoy your way of doing things and support others in their own enjoyment.
Who knows, maybe they or you may even learn something new. Isn't learning and sharing why we're all here?
