Normally, I'd fix any typo mentioned in comments. And I thank you for forcing me to examine this line closely.

But this one is 80% intentional. I probably always over correct when placing myself last and using I instead of me. My guess, is this is a twist of language which will be the new rule in 25 years. (Which is to say, I don't think anyone is confused linguistically here.)

But I also think this occurrence is a special case:

Let's look at the full sentence...

So unlike Adam and I.

Your suggestion is:

So unlike Adam and me.

Try to say Adam and me ten times fast. It becomes a tongue twister. Because it's a fragment to begin with I'm already throwing out grammar. It's meant to be a poetic line.

We can do the common check of removing Adam to see how it sounds.

So unlike I.

vs

So unlike me.

There "me" sounds a tinge more natural but, "So unlike I," doesn't sound wrong to my ear. The way it would in a more traditional missuese of the object form of I/me.

My guess is, this has to do with the fragmented nature. Without a subject, "I" feels better than it otherwise would. This might be due to the nature of my dyslexia, but my brain rearranges it a bit. When I read, whether silently or aloud, "So unlike Adam and I." It has the emotional resonance of Adam and I being the subject.

Adam and I are unlike the firefighter.

That's the poetry of the line for me. That's why I wanted the fragment. I erase him. I make it about Adam and me.

If I were to fix it for grammar's sake, I'd probably fix it by adding in the subject rather than implying it.

The firefighter wasn't anything like Adam and me.

But it doesn't ring as pretty.

If you feel strongly, you could probably convince me I'm crazy. But that's how I've been thinking about it since you pointed it out.

Super thanks for this note and the follow.