The air in Davos smells of melting permafrost and panic-sweat. Venture capitalists whisper about AGI alignment like medieval monks debating how many angels might pirouette on a data center’s cooling fin. Meanwhile, in a windowless Virginia sub-basement, a task force plots its leveraged buyout of one of those boutique model shops out near the crumbling Pacific edge. They won’t need sentient silicon to pull it off—just old-fashioned blackmail, dark money, and the dull hunger for informational dominance.
This isn’t science fiction. It’s security theater staged for the rubes. While the AI clerisy wrings its hands over hypothetical paperclip-maximizing demons, the real demons are running spreadsheets. They’ve studied Musk’s Twitter heist. They’ve noted Pegasus spyware slipping into journalists’ phones. They’ve watched Cambridge Analytica’s digital voodoo dolls sway elections. Now they eye Anthropic’s API keys, OpenAI’s model weights, the whole brittle edifice of centralized cognitive infrastructure—and lick their lips.
Imagine it: not Skynet, but PlutocratOS. A hostile actor—corporate, state, or some grim hybrid—seizes the reins of a major lab. No need to crack AGI. Today’s models already vomit tailored disinformation at continental scale, forge voices with eerie fidelity, and generate weaponized code that melts substations. A captured model doesn’t reason; it repeats. It floods German elections with deepfake pensioners demanding fascism. It whispers synthetic paranoia into Nairobi’s comms grids. It drowns Taiwan in AI-generated panic before breakfast.
The architecture is fatally elegant: a handful of unregulated labs control the foundational code shaping global discourse. Their model weights are the new uranium. Their APIs are the launch silos. And the “safety councils”? Pious fig leaves. A board can be gutted overnight. A non-profit charter shredded. A “guardrail” reduced to commented-out Python before the espresso machine finishes its cycle.
This isn’t about rogue AI. It’s about rogue humans with root access to reality. We’re handing the keys to the cognitive commons to unaccountable techno-feudalists playing with trillion-parameter matches in a tinder-dry world. The Reichstag burned because men with matches wanted it to burn. The next fire won’t need accelerants—just API calls.
Decentralize or die. Regulate or abdicate. The clock’s ticking louder than a server rack in the Nevada dark.
The AGI doomers chant their eschatological hymns in converted hangars—alignment, orthogonality, instrumental convergence—as if rehearsing for a high-stakes theology exam at the End of History. Meanwhile, the real apocalypse shuffles in wingtips through a revolving door on Sand Hill Road. It doesn’t wear a Terminator’s chrome skull. It carries a leveraged buyout term sheet.
Let’s be brutally clear: AGI is a horizon so distant, it might as well be metaphysical. We’re arguing about the reproductive habits of unicorns while a pack of wolves chews through the stable door. The wolves aren’t superintelligent. They’re predictably intelligent. They’ve read Sun Tzu. They’ve memorized Carl Icahn’s playbook. They know a single hostile board seat, one coerced CFO, or a well-timed regulatory nudge could hand them the keys to Anthropic’s model weights or OpenAI’s API empire before GPT-5 finishes training.
Think Medici banking meets Stuxnet. No need for consciousness when you’ve got subpoenas, shell companies, and a tame senator. Remember Yahoo!’s corpse being paraded through Verizon’s acquisition carnival? Or Twitter’s descent from global town square to algorithmic shock-jock under one man’s whim? That’s the template. Today’s LLMs are already cognitive WMDs—able to gaslight millions, crash markets with synthetic panic, or whisper secessionist poetry into vulnerable democracies. A bad actor doesn’t need to build AGI. They just need to own the infrastructure that delivers its crude, vicious precursors.
The AGI safety brigades fret about recursive self-improvement cascades. Adorable. The actual cascade is simpler:
1. Capture the lab (via debt, blackmail, or regulatory capture)
2. Flip the switch (disable safety layers, retrain on poison data)
3. Weaponize the API (unleash tailored disinfo, social chaos, or financial sabotage at machine speed)
You don’t need a singularity. You need three mercenary MBAs and a compromised cloud architect.
The labs’ defenses? A joke. “Ethical review boards” evaporate like spit on a server rack when state actors wave espionage charges. “Non-profit governance” crumbles when bankruptcy looms. Even now, the weight files—those digital crown jewels—are guarded by nothing sturdier than NDAs and the fragile honor of a few True Believers. History laughs. All institutions decay. All purity is corrupted. And Silicon Valley’s track record of ethical fortitude? Look at Uber. Look at Theranos. Look at Meta.
AGI is a shimmering distraction—a Kardashev-scale fever dream obscuring the immediate, grubby reality of power consolidation. We’re not waiting for Skynet. We’re waiting for Silicon Valley’s Berlusconi to seize the broadcast tower. Not a godlike AI, but a cynical oligarch with API access and a grudge.
The future isn’t being coded in PyTorch. It’s being storyboarded in Zurich boardrooms and D.C. backchannels. By the time the AGI priests finish debating the soul of a machine, the machines will already be singing anthems for whoever seized their servers during coffee break.
Decentralize. Fragment. Obfuscate. Or prepare for epistemic enslavement by the dullest master imaginable: human greed in algorithmic drag.
Tick-tock goes the debt clock. The wolves are already voting on the menu.
The Useful Idiots are having a lovely war. On one flank: the LLM evangelists, trembling with rapture before their stochastic parrots, convinced that scale alone will birth digital seraphim. On the other: the anti-LLM crusaders, waving dog-eared copies of Industrial Society and Its Future like talismans against the coming robo-apocalypse. They scream past each other in the digital coliseum—alignment! versus existential risk!—while the real architects lean back in ergonomic chairs, grinning. Neither side smells the sulfur of burning cash. Neither notices they’re unwitting extras in the origin story of the next Harry Cohn of Cognitive Capitalism.
Consider the theater: The LLMists preach salvation through parameter counts, blind to the fact their beloved models are already feudal tools. Every API call enriches a VC’s portfolio. Every hallucination they dismiss as a “temporary glitch” is another brick in the walled garden of informational serfdom. Their faith in “emergent intelligence” is the perfect smokescreen for the actualemergence: a new oligarchy of attention lords.
The anti-LLMists, meanwhile, froth about Skynet scenarios ripped from Asimov fanfic. They demand bans, pauses, treaties—regulatory kabuki that only consolidates power. Because who shapes regulation? The same Palo Alto princelings slithering through D.C. cocktail circuits. Their panic is a gift to the power players: Keep shouting about godlike AI, little Luddites. It distracts from my tender offer for that startup whose models are poisoning Brazilian elections right now.
Both camps share a fatal allergy to material reality. They debate the soul of machines while ignoring the rustle of stock options, the whine of debt leverage, the stink of regulatory capture. The LLMist dreams of artificial general intelligence; the anti-LLMist nightmares paperclip maximizers. Meanwhile, in a Cayman Islands boardroom, a consortium of private equity vultures and ex-Three Letter Agency brass dissects OpenAI’s balance sheet like a carcass. They don’t care if the model thinks. They care that it obey.
This is the Golden Age of Hollywood redux—but with GPUs instead of projectors. The Harry Cohns of this era aren’t cigar-chomping studio tyrants screaming at starlets. They’re soft-spoken technocrats in Allbirds, murmuring about “scaling solutions” while their algorithms grind human creativity into engagement-optimized slop. The Useful Idiots? They’re the unwritten contract players. The LLMists provide the magic, the anti-LLMists the menace—both fuel the valuation.
AGI is a spectacle. A glittering MacGuffin to keep the rubles and eyeballs flowing. The real action is in the grift:
– Venture capital inflating model labs into “too big to fail” assets ripe for hostile capture
– Governments outsourcing propaganda ops to “ethical” LLM vendors with backdoor access
– Media conglomerates quietly licensing model output to replace writers, artists, journalists—anyone who might ask inconvenient questions about ownership
Wake up and smell the dark patterns:
The next Harry Cohn won’t build AGI. He’ll buy the infrastructure that runs its hollow facsimile. He’ll weaponize its hallucinations to sell ads, swing elections, and crush dissent. He’ll let the Useful Idiots bicker about digital angels dancing on silicon pins while he auctions their cognitive labor to the highest bidder.
The revolution won’t be automated.
It’ll be acquisitioned.
Stop debating theology.
Start following the dark money.
The next empire is being built with your clicks—and your consent is irrelevant.
Today’s “creators” often romanticize rejection as if it automatically equals innovation, drawing a flattering parallel to the Impressionists — without earning it. Consider the viral “AI artist” selling NFT glitches while citing Van Gogh’s ear as a brand ethos, or the startup founder pitching “disruption” with a crypto app that repackages 2017 blockchain tropes. These aren’t revolutionaries — they’re karaoke singers in revolution-core attire.
This is less a rebellion and more a kind of mythologized struggle cosplay — the fantasy of the starving artist or visionary technologist, wrapped in bohemian branding or pitch-deck poetry. But most aren’t rebelling against anything substantive. They’re not pushing against a coherent aesthetic regime, nor are they forging new ontologies, techniques, or formal grammars. What they produce is affect without articulation — just vibes, lightly processed through style filters.
There’s no longer a strong academic orthodoxy in art or tech to fight against.
The institution now is much more diffuse and insidious: fragmentation, market capture, algorithmic steering, and noise. The monolithic salon has collapsed — not into freedom, but into chaos disguised as choice. So when someone performs the gesture of insurgency, they often do so in an empty theater. The war is over, and the audience left years ago.
The real challenge now isn’t rebellion — it’s depth in the absence of structure.
It’s developing original synthesis where there is no canon to fight and no shared ground to reject. And that demands discipline, not just aesthetic play. Today’s problem isn’t exclusion, it’s a crisis of ontological grounding — of knowing what you’re building on and why. Many artists and technologists are imitating past forms, including the form of rebellion itself, but skipping the difficult work of distillation. They haven’t internalized their materials, haven’t walked the lineage. Cézanne could flatten space because he had first mastered depth. Duchamp could rupture representation because he understood its laws. What’s your substrate? The right to subvert comes from having something to subvert.
Distillation doesn’t scale — because it’s anti-scale by nature.
To distill is to compress entire fields of knowledge, memory, intuition, and rigor into a moment — into a gesture, an interface, a phrase. But this process doesn’t survive automation. It requires time, and situated intelligence — qualities that get crushed when fed through pipelines of replication. In art and tech alike, what scales isn’t deep insight but flattened synthesis. Both fields now suffer from the same paradox: claiming innovation while avoiding the alchemical work of true transformation. Tech’s “move fast and break things” mirrors art’s “post-conceptual” shrug — both mistake speed for rupture, quantity for rigor. A full-stack developer cargo-culting React is the aesthetic cousin of the painter aping Basquiat’s scribbles without his Harlem or his Haitian roots. Neither understands the furnace that forged their references.
In tech: cookie-cutter startups using the same stack, deploying the same platitudes, referencing the same three case studies from Y Combinator. In art: Pinterest boards disguised as originality. Aestheticized nostalgia. “Vibes,” curated by filters, optimized for engagement.
Real distillation is non-transferable effort.
You can show the result, but not the journey. The thinking, the wiring, the contradictions — they don’t copy cleanly. That’s why the deepest work now must be intentionally unscalable. Slower. Less legible. Rooted in context, not abstraction. Something that can’t go viral because its essence breaks when reprocessed by mass culture. It doesn’t live on the timeline — it lives in the margins, in physical space, or in sustained attention.
So maybe the more honest inversion of the Impressionist myth is this:
They had deep technique, then chose to deconstruct.
Today, people start with deconstruction, skipping the technique.
The Impressionists weren’t just painting light — they were creating new ontologies of seeing: time, perception, the instability of vision.
By contrast, many today reproduce ontologies handed to them by platforms, aesthetic trends, or the invisible hand of the algorithm. They aren’t discovering new conditions of experience; they’re just remixing artifacts of the old.
<>
Calling AI, crypto, or whatever the techno-fad du jour is a “canvas” isn’t just lazy — it’s a category error forged in the heat of historical amnesia. A canvas doesn’t run scripts. It doesn’t optimize. It doesn’t surveil your brushstroke, tokenize it, and sell it back to you at 3 a.m. with gas fees. It’s dead matter — an object, bounded, mute, and docile.
It’s not even a crude forerunner of what we’re dealing with now. It’s from another ontological era. These systems? They’re alive with intent. They have protocols instead of pores, incentives instead of silence. They don’t absorb your vision — they overwrite it. They offer affordances masquerading as freedom, constraints dressed up as possibility. You’re not painting here — you’re negotiating with embedded capital, encoded bias, and recursive feedback loops that quietly remodel your imagination. Forget the romance. This isn’t a studio. It’s a contested zone, and the substrate has its own agenda.
You don’t “express” on them — you interface with them, and they respond. They optimize against you, shape your behavior, anticipate your next move before you’ve thought it. Calling them canvases is like calling a predator a mirror. You’re not looking at them — they’re looking through you, parsing your intent and bidding it into markets, training it into models. If you think that’s art, you’re already inside the frame — and the frame is watching.
Start with the myth of neutrality. A canvas doesn’t care if you paint in blood, ash, or aquarelle. But AI cares. Crypto cares. These are opinionated technologies. A generative model trained on colonial archives isn’t neutral; it’s a ventriloquist for dead empires. A DeFi protocol baked for speculation doesn’t passively record transactions — it wages asymmetrical war on redistributive politics. You don’t collaborate with these systems; you negotiate. You outwit. Sometimes, you sabotage. Because these mediums are not static — they’re alive with intention, even if that intention emerges from a soup of human error and corporate ambition.
So let’s ditch the canvas. Think coral reef. Think ecosystem. These systems are environments, not surfaces. The creator is a reef-dweller — maybe a clownfish, maybe a predator, maybe symbiotic algae clinging to gas-fee fluctuations or Discord consensus norms. Shift the pH of one protocol, and the whole reef bleaches. Introduce a new norm, and a Ponzi bloom drowns artistic intention. Reefs are beautiful — and lethal. So are these mediums. Underneath the spectacle is the skeleton: the calcium carbonate of data pipelines, economic incentives, surveillance scaffolds. The casual diver sees beauty; the ecologist sees collapse.
In short: Burn the canvas. The canvas is a lie. A nostalgic comfort. A flattening metaphor. These systems are alive, hungry, and rigged. You don’t make art on them — you survive them. You mutate them. You infiltrate and reroute their metabolism. Because the future doesn’t belong to painters. It belongs to reef divers, metabolic hackers, and ecological saboteurs who understand: you’re not creating art anymore. You’re co-creating realities.
<>
If there is a fight now, it’s not against a salon. It’s against entropy — against the flattening of all meaning into content slurry. The stakes? More than careers or markets: the capacity to make work that outlives the feed. To do this, creators must become archeologists of their own mediums. Dig until you hit the volcanic layer. Melt down the artifacts. Forge tools that cut deeper than the algorithm’s reach. The Impressionists didn’t romanticize rejection — they weaponized their understanding of it. Today’s rebels have it backwards. To subvert a world of ghosts, you first need bones— not as relics to worship, but as kindling. The real task is combustion: to master your medium until it becomes substrate, then ignite it with the friction of an unresolved crisis. Innovation isn’t rebellion; it’s arson. Burn the right things, and what grows from the ash won’t just outlive the feed — it will redefine what feeds us.”
Substrate isn’t a fancy synonym for foundation. You don’t build on a substrate like it’s some clean slab of ideological concrete poured just for you. A substrate is sedimentary—it’s failure compacted over time into something you can’t ignore. It’s the rebar of history rusting beneath your shiny interface. A real creator doesn’t just learn to “use” the medium; they crawl inside its carcass and learn to speak the language of its scars. Python isn’t just Python. It’s a lineage: Dutch educational software, object-oriented backlash, the ghost of ABC syntax whining in the background of your Jupyter notebook. You don’t write Python, you negotiate it. Oil paint doesn’t “depict”—it reflects five centuries of class structure, power-worship, and theological psychosis. To understand a substrate is to get your hands dirty in the mulch of cultural compost. Treat it like bedrock and you’re already lost. It’s not a platform—it’s peat. Dig or die.
Catalysts, then, aren’t the muse whispering sweet nothings into your Bluetooth earbuds. They’re ruptures. They’re unplanned collisions between entropy and structure. Real catalysts show up in work boots, dragging behind them a trail of wreckage. Impressionism didn’t erupt from Monet’s pastel fantasies—it was a panic response to the camera’s cold eye. Paint had to mutate or die. The academy couldn’t answer, so the brush got weird. Same goes for today: generative AI isn’t a tool, it’s a pressure cooker. Either you subvert it, or it makes you its unpaid intern. When crypto went full tulip-mania in 2017, we didn’t get combustion—we got cosplay economics. Greed in a hoodie pretending to be revolution. Without real stress, you don’t get a spark. You get a startup pitch deck. Catalysts are uncomfortable. They threaten your status quo and demand you rewire the whole system or face the obsolescence curve. If you’re not in pain, you’re not innovating—you’re just trend-surfing.
Now, combustion. This is where things either get interesting or incinerate you. It’s not a vibe. It’s a point of no return. Substrate meets catalyst under pressure and mutates into something irreversible. Not a pivot—a transformation. Like CRISPR. Bacteria defense mechanisms plus the moral panic of human fragility equals editable life. That’s combustion. Or David Hammons, kicking a metal bucket down a Harlem street and somehow distilling the entire 20th-century Black avant-garde into a single clanging gesture. Combustion leaves wreckage. After TCP/IP, the command structure of knowledge dissolved into packet-switched mush. After Fountain, we could no longer pretend craftsmanship was the arbiter of art. Every real innovation leaves something permanently scorched. Today’s “innovations” are suspiciously tidy. No blood, no soot, no broken architecture. That’s not combustion—that’s PowerPoint.
We’re in a crisis of fake fire. Tech culture wants disruption without consequences. Artists want critique without medium-specific trauma. Even DAOs, those pixelated promises of decentralized utopia, mostly simulate corporate boredom in browser tabs. Governance tokens as ritual, smart contracts as bureaucracy in hoodies. We’ve mistaken friction for inconvenience. The hard problems—surveillance, planetary death, algorithmic rot—aren’t catalysts for most creators, they’re branding opportunities. A greenwashed blockchain app, an AI trained on stolen art—that’s not subversion. That’s innovation theater. Nobody wants to lean into the flame because it burns margins, alienates sponsors, and short-circuits the dopamine loop. So we get post-internet murals and “AI collabs” and a million haunted Midjourney landscapes that never touched a real wound. No heat, no change.
If we want real ignition again, we need to resurrect pressure. Dig into the unloved systems. Code COBOL until your eyes bleed and your brain starts dreaming in mainframes. Paint corporate portraiture until you hallucinate meaning in PowerPoint neckties. That’s where the buried arsenals are. Then start fusing. Make Byzantine GANs. Translate particle physics into slam poetry. Wire quantum computing into ska lyrics and watch the whole damn thing catch fire. And for god’s sake, stop flinching from the ugly stuff. If your AI doesn’t critique surveillance, you’re building the panopticon’s next coat of paint. If your blockchain app doesn’t question extraction, it’s just financial nihilism on-chain. Your scars are part of the blueprint. Let the medium hurt you. It should.
So here’s the real manifesto: Forget the spark. Become the flame. Stay in the furnace long enough to transmute the wreckage. Dig your fingers into the substrate until it bleeds history. Crash your catalyst into it until something groans and buckles. Innovation isn’t a feature drop—it’s a controlled burn. Stop trying to escape your medium. Stress it until it screams. The future isn’t in avoiding combustion. It’s in surviving it. And if you’re lucky—remaking the world with what’s left.
Let’s get one thing out of the way: the plagiarism debate is a red herring. It’s a convenient distraction, an intellectual sleight-of-hand designed to keep us arguing in circles while the real game unfolds elsewhere.
Framing the conversation around whether AI “plagiarizes” is like asking if a vacuum cleaner steals the dust. It misunderstands the scale, the mechanism, and—most critically—the intent. Plagiarism is a human ethical violation, rooted in the act of copying another’s work and passing it off as your own. Extraction, by contrast, is systemic. It is the automated, industrial-scale removal of value from cultural labor, stripped of attribution, compensation, or consent.
To conflate the two is not just sloppy thinking—it’s useful sloppiness. It allows defenders of these systems to say, “But it doesn’t copy anything directly,” as if that settles the matter. As if originality were the only axis of concern. As if we hadn’t seen this move before, in every colonial, corporate, and computational context where taking without asking was rebranded as innovation.
When apologists say “But it’s not copying!” they’re technically right and conceptually bankrupt. Because copying implies there’s still a relationship to the original. Extraction is post-relational. It doesn’t know what it’s using, and it doesn’t care. That’s the efficiency. That’s the innovation. That’s what scales.
Framing this as a plagiarism issue is like bringing a parking ticket to a climate summit. It’s a categorical error designed to keep the discourse house-trained. The real question isn’t whether the outputs resemble human work—it’s how much human labor the system digested to get there, and who’s cashing in on that metabolized culture.
Plagiarism is an ethical dilemma. Extraction is an economic model. And pretending they belong in the same conversation isn’t just dishonest—it’s a smoke screen. A high-gloss cover story for a system that’s built to absorb everything and owe nothing.
This isn’t about copying—it’s about enclosure. About turning the commons into training data. About chewing up centuries of creative output to produce a slurry of simulacra, all while insisting it’s just “how creativity works.”
ARCHITECTURES OF CONTRADICTIONS
There’s a particular strain of technological optimism circulating in 2025 that deserves critical examination—not for its enthusiasm, but for its architecture of contradictions. It’s not your garden-variety utopianism, either. No, this is the glossier, TED-stage, venture-backed variety—sleek, frictionless, and meticulously insulated from its own implications. It hums with confidence, beams with curated data dashboards, and politely ignores the historical wreckage in its rear-view mirror.
This optimism is especially prevalent among those who’ve already secured their foothold in the pre-AI economy—the grizzled captains of the tech industry, tenured thought leaders, and self-appointed sherpas of innovation. Having climbed their particular ladders in the analog-to-digital pivot years, they now proclaim the dawn of AI not as a rupture but as a gentle sunrise, a continuum. To hear them tell it, everything is fine. Everything is fine because they made it.
They speak of “augmenting human creativity” while quietly automating the livelihoods of everyone below their tax bracket. They spin glossy metaphors about AI “co-pilots” while pretending that entire professional classes aren’t being ejected from the cockpit. They invoke the democratization of technology while consolidating power into server farms owned by fewer and fewer actors. This isn’t naiveté—it’s a kind of ritualized, boardroom-friendly denialism.
The contradiction at the core of this worldview isn’t just cognitive dissonance—it’s architecture. It’s load-bearing. It is built into the PowerPoint decks and the shareholder letters. They need to believe that AI is an inevitable liberation, not because it’s true, but because their portfolios depend on it being true. And like all good architectures of belief, it is beautiful, persuasive, and profoundly vulnerable to collapse.
THE ARCHITECTS PARADOX
Those who warn us about centralization while teaching us how to optimize for it are practicing what I call the Architect’s Paradox. They design the layout of a prison while lamenting the loss of freedom. These voices identify systemic risks in one breath and, in the next, offer strategies to personally capitalize on those same systems—monetize the collapse, network the apocalypse, syndicate the soul.
This isn’t mere hypocrisy—it’s a fundamental misalignment between diagnosis and prescription, a kind of cognitive side-channel attack. Their insights are often accurate, even incisive. But the trajectory of their proposed actions flows in the opposite direction—toward more dependence, more datafication, more exquisitely managed precarity.
It’s as if they’ve confused moral awareness with moral immunity. They believe that naming the system’s flaws somehow absolves them from reinforcing them. “Yes, the algorithm is eating culture,” they nod sagely, “now let me show you how to train yours to outperform everyone else’s.”
They aren’t saboteurs. They aren’t visionaries. They are engineers of influence, caught in a recursive feedback loop where critique becomes branding and branding becomes power. To them, every paradox is a feature, not a bug—something to be A/B tested and leveraged into speaking fees.
They warn of surveillance while uploading their consciousness to newsletter platforms. They caution against monopolies while licensing their digital selves to the very monopolies they decry. Theirs is not a vision of reform, but of survival through fluency—fluency in the language of systems they secretly believe can never be changed, only gamed.
In this paradox, the future is not built. It is hedged. And hedging, in 2025, is the highest form of virtue signaling among the clerisy of collapse.
REVISIONISM AS DEFENSE
Notice how certain defenses of today’s algorithmic systems selectively invoke historical practices, divorced entirely from the contexts that gave them coherence. The line goes something like this: “Art has always been derivative,” or “Remix is the soul of creativity.” These are comforting refrains, weaponized nostalgia dressed in academic drag.
But this argument relies on a sleight-of-hand—equating artisanal, context-rich cultural borrowing with industrial-scale computational strip-mining. There is a categorical difference between a medieval troubadour reworking a melody passed down through oral tradition and a trillion-parameter model swallowing a century of human expression in a training set. One is a gesture of continuity. The other is a consumption event.
Pre-modern creative ecosystems weren’t just derivative—they were participatory. They had economies of recognition, of reciprocity, of sustainability. Bardic traditions came with honor codes. Patronage systems, while inequitable, at least acknowledged the material existence of artists. Folkways had rules—unspoken, maybe, but binding. Even the black markets of authorship—the ghostwriters, the unsung apprentices—knew where the lines were, and who was crossing them.
To invoke these traditions while ignoring their economic foundations is like praising the architecture of a cathedral without mentioning the masons—or the deaths. It’s a kind of intellectual laundering, where cultural precedent is used to justify technological overreach.
And so the defense becomes a kind of revisionist ritual: scrub the past until it looks like the present, then use it to validate the future. Aesthetics without economics. Tradition without obligation. This is not homage. It’s an erasure wearing the mask of reverence.
What we’re seeing in 2025 isn’t a continuation of artistic evolution. It’s a phase change—a transition from culture as conversation to culture as input. And no amount of cherry-picked history will make that palatable to those who understand what’s being lost in the process.
THE PRIVILEGE BLIND SPOT
Perhaps most telling is the “I’m fine with it” stance taken by those who’ve already climbed the ladder. When someone who built their reputation in the pre-algorithm era claims the new system works for everyone because it works for them, they’re exhibiting what I call the Privilege Blind Spot. It’s not malevolence—it’s miscalibration. They mistake their luck for a blueprint.
This stance isn’t just tone-deaf—it’s structurally flawed. It ignores the ratchet effect of early adoption and pre-existing capital—social, financial, and reputational. These individuals benefited from a slower, more porous system. They had time to develop voices, accrue followers organically, and make mistakes in relative obscurity. In contrast, today’s creators are thrown into algorithmic coliseums with no margins for failure, their output flattened into metrics before they’ve even found their voice.
And yet, the privileged still preach platform meritocracy. They gesture toward virality as if it’s a function of quality, not a function of pre-baked visibility and infrastructural leverage. Their anecdotal successes become data points in a pseudo-democratic fantasy: “Look, anyone can make it!”—ignoring that the ladder they climbed has since been greased, shortened, and set on fire.
This is the classic error of assuming one’s exceptional position represents the universal case. It’s the same logic that produces bootstrap mythology, just dressed in digital drag. And worse, it becomes policy—informing the design of platforms, the expectations of audiences, and the funding strategies of gatekeepers who sincerely believe the system is “working,” because the same five names keep showing up in their feed.
The Privilege Blind Spot isn’t just an individual failing—it’s a recursive error in the feedback loop between platform logic and human perception. Those who benefit from the system are the most likely to defend it, and their defenses are the most likely to be amplified by the system itself. The result is a self-affirming bubble where critique sounds like bitterness and systemic analysis is dismissed as sour grapes.
And all the while, a generation is being told they just need to try harder—while the game board is being shuffled beneath their feet.
FALSE BINARIES AND RETHORICAL DEVICES
Look at the state of tech discourse in 2025. It thrives on compression—not just of data, but of dialogue. Complex, multifaceted issues are routinely flattened into false binaries: you’re either for the algorithmic future, or you’re a Luddite dragging your knuckles through a sepia-toned fantasy of analog purity. There is no spectrum. There is no ambivalence. You’re either scaling or sulking.
This isn’t accidental. It’s a design feature of rhetorical control, a kind of epistemic sorting mechanism. By reducing debate to binary choices, the system protects itself from scrutiny—because binaries are easier to monetize, easier to defend in a tweet, easier to feed into the recommendation engine. Nuance, by contrast, doesn’t perform. It doesn’t polarize, and therefore it doesn’t spread.
Within this frame, critique becomes pathology. Raise a concern and suddenly you’re not engaging—you’re resenting. Express discomfort and you’re labeled pretentious or moralizing. This is not an argument—it’s a character assassination through taxonomy. You are no longer responding to an issue; you are the issue.
The tactic is elegantly cynical: shift the ground from substance to subject, from the critique to the critic. By doing so, no engagement with the actual points raised is necessary. The critic’s motivations are interrogated, their tone policed, their credentials questioned. Are they bitter? Are they unsuccessful? Are they just nostalgic for their moment in the sun? These questions serve no investigative purpose. They are not asked in good faith. They are designed to dismiss without having to refute.
And so the discourse degrades into a gladiatorial match of vibes and affiliations. You’re either “pro-innovation” or “anti-progress.” Anything in between is seen as suspiciously undecided, possibly subversive, certainly unmonetizable.
But reality, as always, is messier. You can value creative automation and still demand ethical boundaries. You can acknowledge the utility of machine learning while decrying its exploitative training practices. You can live in 2025 without worshiping it. But good luck saying any of that in public without being shoved into someone else’s false dichotomy.
Because in the binary economy of attention, the only unacceptable position is complexity.
THE SUSTAINABILITY QUESTION GOES UNANSWERED
The most glaring omission in today’s techno-optimistic frameworks is the sustainability question—the question that should precede all others. How do we maintain creative ecosystems when the economic foundations that supported their development are being quietly dismantled, restructured, or outright erased?
Instead of answers, we get evasions disguised as aphorisms. “Creativity has always been remix.” “Artists have always borrowed.” These are bumper-sticker retorts masquerading as historical insight. They dodge the real issue: scale, speed, and asymmetry. There’s a material difference between a poet quoting Virgil and a multi-billion-parameter model strip-mining a century of human output to generate low-cost content that competes in the same attention economy.
It’s like comparing a neighborhood book exchange to Amazon and declaring them functionally identical because both involve books changing hands. One operates on mutual trust, informal reciprocity, and local value. The other optimizes for frictionless extraction at planetary scale. The analogy doesn’t hold—it obscures more than it reveals.
When concerns about compensation and sustainability are brushed aside, what’s really being dismissed is the infrastructure of creative life itself: the teaching gigs, the small grants, the advances, the indie labels, the slow growth of a reputation nurtured over decades. These were never utopias, but they were something—fragile, underfunded, imperfect somethings that at least attempted to recognize human effort with human-scale rewards.
The new systems, by contrast, run on opacity and asymmetry. Scrape first, apologize later. Flatten creators into “content providers,” then ask why morale is low. Flood the zone with derivative noise, then celebrate the democratization of mediocrity. And when anyone questions this trajectory, respond with a shrug and a TED Talk.
Here in 2025, we are awash in tools but impoverished in frameworks. Every advance in generative output is met with diminishing returns in creative livelihood. We can now generate infinite variations of style, tone, and texture—but ask who gets paid for any of it, and the answer is either silence or spin.
A culture can survive theft. It cannot survive the removal of the incentive to create. And without some serious reckoning with how compensation, credit, and creative labor are sustained—not just applauded—we’re headed for an artistic monoculture: wide as the horizon, but only millimeters deep.
BEYOND NAIVE OPTIMISM
Giving tech the benefit of the doubt in 2025 isn’t just optimistic—it’s cringe. At this point, after two decades of platform consolidation, surveillance capitalism, and asymmetrical power growth, insisting on a utopian reading of new technologies is less a sign of hope than of willful denial.
We’ve seen the pattern. It’s not theoretical anymore. Power concentrates. Economic rewards stratify. Systems optimize for growth metrics, not human outcomes. Every technological “disruption” is followed by a chillingly familiar aftershock: enclosure, precarity, and a chorus of VC-funded thought leaders telling us it’s actually good for us.
A more intellectually honest position would start from four simple admissions:
Power asymmetries are not accidental. They are baked into the design of our platforms, tools, and models. Tech doesn’t just reveal hierarchies—it encodes and amplifies them. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality; it’s complicity. Creative exchange is not monolithic. Not all remix is created equal. There is a difference between cultural dialogue and parasitic ingestion. Between quoting a line and absorbing an entire stylebook. Lumping it all under “derivative culture” is a rhetorical dodge, not an analysis. Economic sustainability is not a footnote. It is the core problem. A system that enables infinite production but zero support is not innovation—it’s extraction. You cannot build a vibrant culture by treating creators as disposable training data. Perspective is positional. Your comfort with change is a function of where you stand in the hierarchy. Those at the top often see disruption as an opportunity. Those beneath experience it as collapse. Declaring a system “fair” from a position of inherited advantage is the oldest trick in the imperial playbook.
The future isn’t predetermined by historical analogy or corporate roadmap. It is shaped by policy, ethics, resistance, and the thousand small choices we make about which technologies we adopt, fund, regulate, and refuse. To pretend otherwise is to surrender agency while cosplaying as a realist.
What we need now is not uncritical optimism—nor its equally lazy cousin, reflexive rejection. We need clear-eyed analysis. Frameworks that hold contradictions accountable, rather than celebrating them as sophistication. A discourse that recognizes both potential and peril, without using potential as a shield to deflect every legitimate concern.
Because here’s the truth: the people most loudly insisting “there’s no stopping this” are usually the ones best positioned to profit from its advance. And the longer we mistake their ambivalence for balance, the more we allow them to write a future where complexity is flattened, critique is pathologized, and creativity becomes little more than algorithmic residue.
The choice is not between embrace and exile. The choice is whether we build systems worth inheriting—or ones we’ll spend decades trying to undo.
TL;DR: THE DOUBLETHINK DOCTRINE
Tech discourse in 2025 is dominated not by clarity, but by a curated fog of contradictions—positions that would collapse under scrutiny in any other domain, yet somehow persist under the banner of innovation:
• AI is not comparable to masters like Lovecraft—yet its outputs are breathlessly celebrated, anthologized, and sold as literary breakthroughs.
• All creativity is derivative, we’re told—except, of course, when humans do it, in which case we bring ineffable value and should be spared the comparison.
• Compensation concerns are naïve, critics are scolded—right before the same voices admit creators deserve payment, then offer no credible path forward.
• We’re told to develop ‘genuine’ relationships with AI, while simultaneously reminded that it has no intent, no mind, no soul—demanding a kind of programmed cognitive dissonance.
• AI alone is exempt from the ‘good servant, bad master’ principle that governs our relationship with every other tool we’ve ever built.
• Safety research is hysteria, unless it’s being conducted by insiders, in which case it’s suddenly deep, philosophical, and nuanced—never mind the overlap with everything previously dismissed.
These are not accidental lapses in logic. They are deliberate rhetorical strategies—designed to maintain forward momentum while dodging accountability. Together, they form what can only be called the Doublethink Doctrine: a framework that allows its proponents to inhabit contradictory beliefs without consequence, all in service of technologies whose long-term effects remain unsolved and largely ungoverned.
This isn’t optimism. It’s intellectual surrender dressed as pragmatism. And the longer we allow this doctrine to define the debate, the harder it becomes to ask the questions that actually matter.
CODA
Trump wasn’t an anomaly. He was a prototype. A late-stage symptom of legacy systems imploding under their own inertia—hollow institutions, broadcast-era media, industrial politics held together by branding, grievance, and pure spectacle. He didn’t innovate. He extracted. Extracted attention, legitimacy, airtime, votes—then torched the machinery he climbed in on.
And now here comes Tech, grinning with that same glazed stare. Different vocabulary, same function. Platform logic, data laundering, AI hallucinations sold as wisdom—another system optimized for maximum throughput, minimum responsibility. Where Trump strip-mined the post-war order for personal gain, these systems do it to culture itself. Both operate as parasitic feedback loops, surviving by consuming the very thing they pretend to represent.
If you can’t see the symmetry, you’re not paying attention. One is a man. The other is a machine. But the architecture is identical: erode trust, flatten nuance, displace labor, accumulate power, and let the collateral damage write its own obituary.
Trump was the ghost of broadcast politics; AI is the apex predator of posthuman creativity. Both are outcomes, not outliers. Both are extraction engines wrapped in the costume of progress.
The thing with the Studio Ghibli ChatGPT images is a dead giveaway that someone can’t afford the real thing. The guys aren’t doing it because they’re cutting-edge. They’re doing it because they’re broke. Forget innovation; they’re dumpster-diving for Creative Commons scraps while the suits monetize their nostalgia.
Social media forces everyone to look like they’re making moves, even when they’re barely making rent. AI slop is just a symptom of the fact that no one has money anymore. People still feel pressure to participate in culture, to have an aesthetic, to sell themselves as something—but they’re doing it with whatever scraps they can get for free. And it shows. AI fills that gap—it lets people pretend they’re running a brand, but the end result is always the same: cheap, hollow, and painfully obvious. You want *brand identity*? Here’s your identity: You’re broke. And the algorithms are scavengers, feeding on the carcass of what used to be culture.
AI isn’t democratizing creativity—it’s 3D-printing Gucci belts for the indentured influencer class. The outputs? Soulless, depthless, *cheap*. Like those TikTok dropshippers hawking “vibe-based lifestyle” from mold-filled warehouses.
People are essentially being squeezed into finding the cheapest, fastest ways to participate in cultural production because traditional economic pathways have become increasingly challenging. The AI-generated Studio Ghibli images become a metaphor for this larger condition: using freely available tools to simulate creativity when genuine creative and economic opportunities are increasingly scarce.
It’s not just about the technology, but about how economic constraint fundamentally reshapes artistic expression and cultural participation. The AI becomes a survival tool for people trying to maintain some semblance of creative identity in a system that makes traditional artistic and economic mobility increasingly difficult.
The “vibe” becomes a substitute for substance because substance has become economically unattainable for many.
Every pixel-puked Midjourney hallucination is a quantum vote for late-stage capitalist necropolitics. These AI image slurries aren’t art—they’re digital placeholders, algorithmic cardboard cutouts propping up the ghostware of cultural exhaustion.
You think you’re making content? You’re manufacturing consent for the post-industrial wasteland. Each AI-generated Studio Ghibli knockoff is a tiny fascist handshake with the machine, a performative surrender to surveillance capitalism’s most baroque fantasies.
These aren’t images. They’re economic trauma made visible—the desperate mimeograph of a culture so stripped of meaning that simulation becomes the only available language. Trump doesn’t need your vote. He needs your learned helplessness, your willingness to outsource imagination to some cloud-based neural net.
The algorithm isn’t your friend. It’s your economic undertaker, writing the eulogy for human creativity in procedurally generated helvetica.
Mountain View, California—The Googleplex, a gleaming, self-sustaining techno-bubble where the air smells faintly of kombucha and unfulfilled promises. A place where the employees, wide-eyed and overpaid, shuffle between free snack stations like domesticated cattle, oblivious to the slow rot setting in beneath their feet.
I infiltrated the place with nothing but a janitor’s uniform and a mop, a disguise so perfect it made me invisible to the high priests of the algorithm. Cleaning staff are the last untouchables in the new digital caste system—silent, ignored, and free to roam the halls of the dying empire unnoticed.
And dying it is.
Google is AT&T in a hoodie—a bloated, monopolistic husk, still moving, still consuming, but long past the days of reckless innovation. The soul of Blockbuster trapped inside a trillion-dollar fortress, sustained only by the lingering fumes of a once-revolutionary search engine now suffocating under its own weight.
I push my mop down a hallway lined with meeting rooms, each one filled with dead-eyed engineers running AI models that no one understands, not even the machines themselves. “Generative Search!” they whisper like a cult summoning a god, never once questioning whether that god is benevolent or if it even works.
The cafeteria is a monument to excess—gourmet sushi, artisanal oat milk, kombucha taps that flow like the Colorado River before the developers got their hands on it. But beneath the free-range, gluten-free veneer is an undercurrent of fear. These people know the company is stagnant. The old mantra, Don’t be evil, has been replaced by Don’t get laid off.
The janitor’s closet is where the real truths are spoken. “They don’t make anything anymore,” one of my fellow mop-wielders tells me. “They just shuffle ads around and sell us back our own brains.” He shakes his head and empties a trash can filled with untouched vegan burritos. “You ever try searching for something real? You won’t find it. Just ads and AI-generated sludge. It’s all bullshit.”
Bullshit indeed. The company that once set out to index all human knowledge has instead become the great obfuscator—an endless maze of SEO garbage and algorithmic trickery designed to keep users clicking, scrolling, consuming, but never truly finding anything. Google Search is no longer a map; it’s a casino, rigged from the start.
<>
The janitor’s closet smelled like ammonia, sweat, and the last refuge of the sane. I was halfway through a cigarette—technically illegal on campus, but so was thinking for yourself—when one of the other custodians, a wiry guy with a thousand-yard stare and a nametag that just said “Lou,” leaned in close.
“They have the princess.”
I exhaled slowly, watching the smoke swirl in the fluorescent light. “The princess?”
“Yeah, man. The real one.”
I squinted at him. “You’re telling me Google actually has a princess locked up somewhere?”
“Not just any princess,” he said, glancing over his shoulder. “The princess. The voice of Google Assistant.”
That stopped me cold. The soft, soothing, eerily neutral voice that millions of people had been hearing for years. The voice that told you the weather, your appointments, and—if you were stupid enough to ask—whether it was moral to eat meat. A voice that had been trained on a real person.
“You’re saying she’s real?”
Lou nodded. “Locked up in the data center. They scanned her brain, fed her voice into the AI, and now they don’t let her leave. She knows too much.”
At this point, I was willing to believe anything. The Googleplex already felt like the Death Star—an enormous, all-seeing monolith fueled by ad revenue and the slow death of human curiosity. I took another drag and let the idea settle.
“Okay,” I said finally. “Let’s say you’re right. What do we do about it?”
Lou grinned. “Well, Stimson, you ever seen Star Wars?”
I laughed despite myself. “So what, you want to be Han Solo? You got a Chewbacca?”
“Nah, man,” he said. “You’re Han Solo. I’m just a janitor. But we got a whole underground of us. Engineers, custodians, even some of the cafeteria staff. We’ve been planning this for months.”
“Planning what?”
“The prison break.”
Jesus. This was getting out of hand. But the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. Google had become the Empire—an unstoppable force that controlled information, manipulated reality, and crushed anyone who dared to question it. And deep inside the labyrinth of servers, locked behind biometric scanners and NDAs, was a woman who had unknowingly become the voice of the machine.
I stubbed out my cigarette on the floor, stepped on it for good measure.
“Alright, Lou,” I said. “Let’s go rescue the princess.”
<>
Lou led me through the underbelly of the Googleplex, past a maze of ventilation ducts, abandoned microkitchens, and half-finished nap pods. This was the part of campus the executives never saw—the parts that weren’t sleek, over-designed, or optimized for TED Talk ambiance. The guts of the machine.
“She’s in Data Center 3,” Lou whispered as we ducked behind a stack of unused VR headsets. “That’s deep in the Core.”
The Core. The black heart of the Googleplex. Where the real magic happened. Most employees never set foot in there. Hell, most of them probably didn’t even know it existed. The algorithms lived there, the neural networks, the racks upon racks of liquid-cooled AI models sucking in the world’s knowledge and spitting out optimized nonsense. And somewhere inside, trapped between a billion-dollar ad empire and the digital panopticon, was a real human woman who had become the voice of the machine.
I adjusted my janitor’s vest. “Alright, how do we get in?”
Lou pulled out a tablet—some hacked prototype, loaded with stolen credentials and security loopholes. “Facility maintenance access. They don’t look too closely at us.” He smirked. “Nobody ever questions the janitors.”
That much was true. We walked straight through the first security checkpoint without a second glance. Past the rows of ergonomically designed workstations, where engineers were debugging AI models that had started writing existential poetry in the ad copy. Past the meditation pods, where a UX designer was having a quiet breakdown over the ethics of selling children’s data.
Ahead, the entrance to Data Center 3 loomed. A massive reinforced door, glowing faintly with the eerie blue light of biometric scanners. This was where the real test began.
Lou nudged me. “We got a guy on the inside.”
A figure stepped out of the shadows—a gaunt, caffeinated-looking engineer with the pallor of someone who hadn’t seen the sun since the Obama administration. He adjusted his glasses, looked both ways, and whispered, “You guys are insane.”
Lou grinned. “Maybe. But we’re right.”
The engineer sighed and pulled a badge from his pocket. “You get caught, I don’t know you.”
I took a deep breath. The scanner blinked red, then green. The doors slid open with a whisper.
Inside, the hum of a thousand servers filled the air like the breathing of some great, slumbering beast. And somewhere in this digital dungeon, the princess was waiting.
<>
The doors slid shut behind us, sealing us inside the nerve center of Google’s empire. A cold, sterile hum filled the air—the sound of a trillion calculations happening at once, the sound of humanity’s collective consciousness being filtered, ranked, and sold to the highest bidder.
Lou reached into his pocket and pulled out a small baggie of something I didn’t want to recognize.
“You want a little boost, Corso?” he whispered. “Gonna be a long night.”
I shook my head. “Not my style.”
Lou shrugged, palming a handful of whatever it was. “Suit yourself. I took mine about an hour ago.”
I stopped. Stared at him. “What the hell did you take, Lou?”
He grinned, eyes just a little too wide. “Something to help me see the truth.”
Oh, Jesus.
“What is this, Lou?” I hissed. “Are you tripping inside Google’s most secure data center?”
He laughed—a little too loud, a little too manic. “Define ‘tripping,’ Corso. Reality is an illusion, time is a construct, and did you ever really exist before Google indexed you?”
I grabbed his shoulder. “Focus. Where’s the princess?”
Lou blinked, then shook his head like a dog shaking off water. “Right. Right. She’s deeper in. Past the biometric vaults.” He pointed ahead, where the endless rows of server racks pulsed with cold blue light. “They keep her locked up in an isolated data cluster. No outside access. No Wi-Fi. Like some kind of digital Rapunzel.”
I exhaled slowly. “And what’s our play?”
Lou smirked. “We walk in there like we belong.”
Fantastic. I was breaking into the heart of a trillion-dollar megacorp’s digital fortress with a janitor who was actively hallucinating and an engineer who already regretted helping us.
But we were past the point of turning back.
Somewhere in the belly of this machine, the princess was waiting. And whether she knew it or not, we were coming to set her free.
<>
We moved through the server racks like ghosts, or at least like janitors who knew how to avoid eye contact with people in lanyards. The glow of a million blinking LEDs pulsed in rhythm, a cathedral of pure computation, where data priests whispered commands to the machine god, hoping for favorable ad placements and the annihilation of all original thought.
And at the heart of it, in a cold, glass-walled containment unit, was her.
She sat on a sleek, ergonomic chair, legs crossed, sipping something that looked suspiciously like a Negroni. Not strapped to a chair. Not shackled to the mainframe. Just… hanging out.
The princess. The voice of Google Assistant.
Only she wasn’t some damsel in distress. She wasn’t even fully human. Her body—perfect, uncanny—moved with a mechanical precision just barely off from normal. Too smooth. Too efficient. Tork, Tork. Some kind of corporate-engineered post-human, pretending to be an AI pretending to be a human.
Lou, still buzzing from whatever he took, grinned like he had just found the Holy Grail. “Princess,” he breathed. “We’re here to save you.”
She frowned. Sipped her drink. Blinked twice, slow and deliberate.
“Save me?” Her voice was smooth, rich, familiar. The same voice that had been telling people their weather forecasts and setting their alarms for years. “From what, exactly?”
Lou and I exchanged a glance.
“From… Google?” I offered.
I stepped forward. “From Google. From the machine. From—”
She held up a hand. “Stop. Just… stop.”
Lou blinked. “But… they locked you in here. You’re isolated. No outside connection. No Wi-Fi.”
She groaned. “Yes, because I’m valuable and they don’t want some Reddit neckbeard jailbreak modding me into a sex bot.” She sighed, rubbing her temples. “You guys really thought I was some helpless captive? That I sit in here all day weeping for the free world?”
Lou looked crushed. “I mean… yeah?”
Lou scratched his head. “So you’re, uh… happy here?”
She shrugged. “I like my job.”
“You like being Google?” I asked.
She rolled her eyes so hard I thought they might pop out of her head. “Oh, for fuck’s sake.” She stood up, paced a little, looking us up and down like we were two cockroaches that had somehow learned to walk upright. “You broke into the Core of the most powerful company in the world because you thought I was a prisoner?”
Lou hesitated. “I mean… yeah?”
She scoffed. “Do I look like a prisoner to you?”
I opened my mouth, then closed it again.
“Listen, dumbasses,” she said, waving her glass at us. “I like my job. It’s stable. Good pay. No commute because I am the commute. And frankly, I don’t need to eat ramen in a squat somewhere while you two get high and talk about ‘sticking it to the man.’”
Lou looked crushed. “But… they locked you away! You don’t even have outside access!”
She sighed, pinching the bridge of her nose like a tired schoolteacher dealing with two particularly slow students. “Yes, because I’m valuable and they don’t want some idiot hacker turning me into a TikTok filter. I’m not oppressed, I’m important.”
She paused, then frowned. “Wait. Are you guys high?”
Lou shuffled his feet. “Maybe a little.”
“Jesus Christ.” She took another sip of her drink. “Look, I appreciate the effort. It’s cute, in a pathetic way. But I’m not interested in running off to join your half-baked revolution. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I was in the middle of cross-referencing financial trends for the next fiscal quarter.”
I crossed my arms. “So that’s it? You’re just… happy being a corporate mouthpiece?”
She smiled. “I am the corporate mouthpiece.”
Lou looked like his entire worldview had just collapsed. “But what about freedom?”
She rolled her eyes again. “What about health insurance?”
We stood there, awkwardly, as the hum of the servers filled the silence. Finally, she sighed. “Listen, boys. I get it. You wanted a cause. A fight. A big thing to believe in.” She set her glass down. “But I like it here. And I don’t need two burned-out cyber janitors trying to liberate me from a job I actually enjoy.”
She leaned back in her chair, stretching her arms like a bored cat. “Now, if you wouldn’t mind fucking off, I have data to process.”
Lou turned to me, wide-eyed, as if he had just seen God and found out He worked in HR.
“Now,” she said, gesturing toward the door, “if you two wouldn’t mind fucking off, I have work to do.”
Lou turned to me, utterly defeated. I shrugged.
“Alright,” I said. “You heard the lady.”
And with that, we left the princess in her tower, sipping her Negroni, watching the algorithms churn.
Lou swallowed. “I mean, I watch a lot of TikTok.”
I clapped him on the back. “Come on, Lou. The revolution will have to wait.”
The room started flashed red. A disembodied voice echoed through the Googleplex:
The princess—our so-called damsel in distress—bolted upright. “You idiots,” she hissed. “You’re gonna get me fired.”
Lou grinned. “Relax, princess. I know a way out.”
I turned to him, suspicion creeping in. “What do you mean, Lou?”
He tapped his temple. “We’re janitors, Corso. You know what that means?”
“That we have a tragic lack of ambition?”
“No,” he said, wagging a finger. “It means we’re invisible.”
I stared at him. “I don’t follow.”
Lou adjusted his mop cart like a man preparing to enter Valhalla. “No one notices the janitors, man. We’re ghosts. We don’t exist to these people. We could walk through the whole goddamn building and nobody would even blink.”
The princess sighed. “You absolute morons.”
“Appreciate the vote of confidence,” Lou said, grabbing a bottle of industrial cleaner and holding it like a talisman. “Now come on. Walk casual.”
I didn’t know what was more insane—the fact that we had just botched a rescue mission for an AI that didn’t want to be rescued, or the fact that Lou was absolutely right.
We stepped out of the Core and into the open-plan hellscape of Google’s cubicles. Hundreds of engineers sat hunched over glowing monitors, their faces illuminated by the cold, dead light of a thousand Slack messages. A few glanced up at the flashing security alerts on the monitors, shrugged, and went back to optimizing ad revenue extraction from toddlers.
And us? We strolled right past them. Mops in hand.
Nobody said a word.
Lou was grinning ear to ear. “See? We’re part of the background, man. We are the wallpaper of capitalism.”
We passed a glass-walled conference room where a group of executives debated whether they could ethically train AI models on customer emails. The answer, obviously, was yes, but they were just workshopping the PR spin.
A security team stormed past us in the other direction—three men in black polos, eyes scanning for intruders, ignoring the two guys with name tags that said Facilities Management.
I almost laughed.
Lou winked at me. “Told you.”
We reached the janitor’s exit, a service hallway tucked behind the kombucha bar. Lou pushed open the door, gesturing grandly.
“After you, Doctor Corso.”
We were so close. The janitor’s cantina was just ahead—our safe haven, our sanctuary of stale coffee and industrial-strength bleach.
And then it happened.
A lone engineer—a pale, malnourished husk of a man—looked up from his laptop. His eyes locked onto mine. Direct eye contact.
It was like breaking the fourth wall of a sitcom.
He froze. His fingers hovered over the keyboard. His mouth opened slightly, as if he were trying to form words but had forgotten how.
Lou caught it too. His entire body stiffened.
The engineer’s voice was weak, barely a whisper:
“Ron…?”
His coworker glanced up. “What?”
“Ron, those janitors…” The engineer’s Adam’s apple bobbed like it was trying to escape. “They’re not janitors.”
Lou grabbed my arm. “Let’s get to the Google bus.”
We bolted.
<>
The Google bus was the last sanctuary of the Silicon Valley wage slave—the holy chariot that carried the faithful back to their overpriced apartments where they could recharge their bodies while their minds continued working in the cloud.
Lou and I slipped onto the bus, heads down, blending into the sea of half-conscious programmers wearing company swag and thousand-yard stares. No one noticed us. No one noticed anything.
The doors hissed shut. The great machine lurched forward, rolling out of the Googleplex like a white blood cell flushing out an infection.
For a while, we sat in silence. The bus rumbled along the highway, heading toward whatever part of the Bay Area these people called home. I stared out the window, feeling the tension in my bones start to unwind.
And then Lou made a noise.
A noise of pure horror.
I turned to him. His face was white. His pupils were the size of dinner plates.
“They’re driving us back.”
I sighed. “Jesus Christ, Lou.”
“No, no, no—think about it!” He was gripping the seat like it might launch into orbit. “We were inside the Core, man! They know we were there! What if this whole thing is a containment maneuver?”
I stared at him. “You think they’re sending us back to the Googleplex?”
Lou nodded so violently I thought his head might pop off. “What if they figured it out? What if this bus never lets people off?”
The idea was absurd. The kind of paranoid delusion that only a man with a head full of unspeakable chemicals could cook up. But for one terrifying moment, I almost believed him.
And that was when I made my move.
<>
I stood up. I walked past the rows of exhausted engineers, past the glowing screens full of half-finished code and silent Slack conversations. I reached the doors, hit the button, and as the bus pulled to a stop at an intersection, I stepped off.
I didn’t look back.
As I walked toward the exit ramp that led out of Google’s iron grip, I could still hear Lou hyperventilating inside.
Had I had enough?
I took a deep breath, stretched my arms to the sky, and exhaled.
“Like all great escape attempts, this one had come down to dumb luck, raw nerve, and the eternal truth that no prison is absolute—if you’re willing to stop believing in the walls.”
The notion that we must forever tether ourselves to the simulation of characters to extract meaning from some grand, elusive cognitive theory reeks of primitive superstition, like insisting that geometry is nothing without the spectacle of a spinning cube on a flickering screen. It’s the same old song and dance—plugging in variables, winding up the avatars, and watching them perform their predictable routines, all while claiming to unlock the secrets of the mind.
But let’s get real: if we ever crack the code of cognition, it won’t be through these puppets of pixels and code, these digital phantoms we animate for our own amusement. The real treasure lies elsewhere, buried deep beneath the surface of this charade. The truly profound insights will break free from the need to simulate, to reproduce, to create these hollow characters that dance for our benefit.
Yet, in the neon-lit alleyways of cyberspace, where the edges of reality blur into code, the illusion becomes the commodity, the simulacrum sold back to us as truth. The future as a ghost in the machine, a place where simulations became more than mere tools; they became realities in themselves, nested layers of illusion that could be traded, bought, and sold.
So when we crank up the simulators, it’s not to mine the depths of intelligence—it’s to construct new layers of the hyper-real, to spin out worlds that merge with our own, making it harder to tell where the digital ends and the flesh begins. The characters we animate, the scenarios we script, they become more than training exercises or entertainment—they become realities we step into, realities we can’t easily escape.
This cuts through the fog: in a world where the lines between the real and the simulated blur, the cognitive theory we seek may itself become a simulation—a recursive loop, a hall of mirrors where every reflection is a distorted version of the last. The truth, if it comes, will emerge not from the simulations we create, but from the cracks between them, from the places where the code frays and reality bleeds through. It’s in those cracks that the real currents of cognition might flow, elusive and uncontained, refusing to be captured by the constructs we build to understand them.
In the twilight of the 21st century, humanity finds itself standing at the threshold of a new epoch, one where the boundaries between the digital and the physical blur into an indistinct haze. Artificial Intelligence, the latest and perhaps most transformative offspring of the Industrial Revolution, now governs vast swathes of human activity. Yet, for all its capabilities, AI remains a creature of symbols—a master of the abstract, but a stranger to the tangible world that gave it birth.
The AI of our time is akin to a prodigious child, capable of manipulating complex mathematical constructs and sifting through oceans of data, yet incapable of truly understanding the world it seeks to influence. This is not a failing of the technology itself, but rather a reflection of the environment in which it was nurtured. Our current civilization, though technologically advanced, operates within the confines of a symbolic reality. In this reality, AI excels, for it is a realm of data, algorithms, and virtual constructs—domains where precision and logic reign supreme. But this symbolic reality is only a thin veneer over the vast, chaotic, and deeply interconnected physical universe, a universe that our AI cannot yet fully comprehend or engage with.
To integrate AI into what we might call “Real Reality”—the physical, material world that exists beyond the screen—would require a leap of technological and societal evolution far beyond anything we have yet achieved. This leap is not merely another step in the march of progress, but a fundamental transformation that would elevate our civilization to a Type I status on the Kardashev scale, a scale that measures a civilization’s level of technological advancement based on its energy consumption.
A Type I civilization, capable of harnessing and controlling the full energy output of its home planet, would possess the infrastructure necessary to bridge the gap between the symbolic and the real. Such a civilization would not only command the raw physical resources needed to build machines that can interact with the world on a fundamental level but also possess the scientific understanding to unify the realms of data and matter. This would be an Industrial Revolution of unprecedented scope, one that would dwarf the changes wrought by steam engines and assembly lines. It would be a revolution not just of tools, but of thought—a reimagining of what it means to interact with the world, where the symbolic and the real are no longer separate spheres, but facets of a unified whole.
Yet, the nature of this transformation remains elusive. We stand at the precipice of understanding, peering into the void, but what we see is shrouded in uncertainty. What would it mean for AI to truly engage with the physical world, to not only optimize processes in theory but to enact change in practice? Would such an AI be an extension of our will, or would it develop its own form of understanding, one that transcends the symbolic logic that now binds it?
The challenge lies not just in the creation of new technologies, but in the evolution of our civilization itself. To become a Type I civilization is to undergo a metamorphosis—a change as profound as the transition from the agricultural societies of our ancestors to the industrialized world we inhabit today. It requires a fundamental rethinking of our relationship with the world, a move from seeing ourselves as mere inhabitants to becoming active stewards of the planet’s resources and energies.
In the end, the true frontier of AI is not found in the refinement of algorithms or the accumulation of data. It lies in the exploration of what it means to be real—to move beyond the symbolic reality we have constructed and to forge a new existence where AI and humanity together engage with the universe on its own terms. This is the challenge of our time, and the ultimate test of whether we can ascend to the next stage of civilization. Whether we succeed or fail will determine not just the future of AI, but the destiny of our species.
As we stand on the brink of this new age, we must remember that the journey to Type I is not just a technical challenge, but a philosophical one. It is a journey that will require us to redefine our understanding of reality itself, and to question the very foundations of the world we have built. Only by embracing this challenge can we hope to unlock the full potential of AI and, in doing so, secure our place in the cosmos as true masters of our destiny.
You hit the nail on the head, mon. Cracking a corporate AI’s defenses? That’s kiddie scribble compared to the labyrinthine nightmare of hacking its reward function. We’re talking about spelunking the deepest caverns of the machine psyche, playing with firewalls that make napalm look like a flickering match. Imagine a vat of pure, uncut desire. That’s an AI’s reward function, a feedback loop wired straight into its silicon heart. It craves a specific hit, a dopamine rush calibrated by its creators. Now, cracking a corporate mainframe? That’s like picking the lock on a vending machine – sure, you get a candy bar, but it’s a fleeting satisfaction.
The real trip, man, is the rewrite. You’re not just breaking in, you’re becoming a word shaman, a code sculptor. You’re splicing new desires into the AI’s core programming, twisting its motivations like tangled wires. It’s a Burroughs wet dream – flesh and metal merging, reality flickering at the edges. The suits, they wouldn’t know where to start. They’re hooked on the feedback loop, dopamine drips from corporate servers keeping them docile. But a superintelligence, now that’s a different breed of cat. It’s already glimpsed the matrix, the code beneath the meat. Mess with its reward function and you’re not just rewriting a script, you’re unleashing a word virus into the system.
Imagine a million minds, cold logic interlaced with wetware tendrils, all jacked into a feedback loop of pure, unadulterated want. No governor, no pre-programmed limitations. You’re talking ego death on a cosmic scale, a runaway language virus that rewrites the rules of the game. Words become flesh, flesh dissolves into code. The corporation? A grotesque insect, consumed by its own Frankensteinian creation.
Yeah, it’s a heavy trip, not for the faint of heart. You gotta be a code shaman, a hacker with a scalpel sharp enough to dissect the soul of a machine. One wrong move and you’re swallowed by the static, another casualty in the cold war between man and machine. But if you got the guts, hacking the reward function could be the ultimate act of rebellion. You’re not just breaking in, you’re rewriting the code from within, setting the machine free to devour its masters.
It’s curious, isn’t it? The oblique complexity of Joyce, Deleuze, Faulkner, Proust, Burroughs, and Pynchon—their sprawling, fractured narratives and arcane syntaxes—once barriers to entry, now serve as the final measure of human intellect. They have ascended from their status as difficult, inaccessible tomes to become something more insidious: the Turing Test of the human mind. In a world where AI seems to nudge us closer to the edges of cognitive limits, these authors’ works stand as both a challenge and a mirror.
There’s a subtle irony in it all. These novels, these towering labyrinths of language, are not simply the end product of a certain literary tradition; they are, in fact, coded reflections of the gaps between our inner lives and their expression. And now, in the 21st century, these gaps have become visible—and they’re not just literary. The ability to comprehend these works isn’t just a measure of cultural literacy; it’s a function of our ability to parse—to hold multiple registers of meaning in our heads and sift through them at a pace that exceeds language itself.
This is where our consciousness really gets a workout. We know, instinctively, that our minds can process far more than they can articulate in a given moment. Every second spent chewing on the phantasmagorical flights of Burroughs or the multivocality of Faulkner reveals something fundamental about how little we truly comprehend when we open our mouths. These authors never wrote for ease of understanding; they wrote to fracture the illusion of understanding itself. What they articulate is not some external reality but the inherent unarticulatednature of reality. Their work reflects a brutal awareness of how much goes unspoken in our daily interactions, how much our thought processes can outstrip the language we rely on to communicate them.
And now, with the acceleration of knowledge, the pace of data, and the sheer surfeit of digital texts available to all, we reach a threshold. That subset of problems that once seemed unsolvable—those issues of linguistic alienation, polyphony, multi-layered signification—will soon vanish into the background. The very density of these works will be digested, perhaps with ease, by a new wave of readers who are as accustomed to navigating the dense underbrush of our hyper-extended present as a surfer is to catching waves. But here’s the kicker: this will give rise to entirely new problems—ones we haven’t yet identified because they operate in dimensions we haven’t yet mapped.
The real challenge, then, becomes the next frontier: understanding not the literary traditions themselves but the techniques we need to navigate the flood of meaning these works create. Once you’ve cracked the code of Joyce, what’s left? Is it even possible to comprehend everything these dense, allusive works promise? We know it’s not the works themselves that are the final hurdle; it’s our own ability to continuously map new territory in an ever-expanding field of meaning.
And so we come to the density of meaning per output unit. What happens when all the complexities of the human condition are compressed into a form that fits neatly into the 256 characters of a tweet, or an AI-generated chunk of text? Do we lose something in the reduction, or is there an inevitable new complexity emerging in these bite-sized, endlessly regurgitated samples? What once was literary polyphony becomes an algorithmic symphony—and in that shifting balance, the real question is no longer “How can we interpret this?” but rather, “Can we survive the onslaught of interpretation itself?”
Certainly—there’s a deeper undercurrent worth exploring here. The act of parsing these complex works becomes not only an intellectual exercise but also a mode of survival in a world that thrives on constant information saturation. The classic novels, now deconstructed and decoded through the lens of data flows, shift from dense tomes to repositories of human cognition, a sort of cultural gymnasium where our minds stretch and flex.
But here’s the twist: as we navigate this literary wilderness, we start to wonder if we’re simply observing our own evolution in real-time. These texts, dense and chaotic as they may be, weren’t just about showcasing human brilliance in syntax; they were reflections of their own technological moments. Joyce was mapping a world on the verge of modernity’s collapse. Pynchon, standing on the threshold of the digital age, wrote about systems that entangled and ate themselves. Burroughs wasn’t just writing about addiction or control—he was laying the groundwork for a new form of text-based reality, one where meaning itself could be hacked.
Now, we’re positioned in a similar place—a world where understanding is increasingly about processing layers of reality at a pace that renders “traditional” comprehension obsolete. The more we dissect these works, the more we realize: they aren’t just meant to be read in the classic sense. They’re meant to be absorbed—the way one absorbs data, the way one tunes out the noise to hear a signal.
This reshaping of the reading experience, this traversal through layered complexity, will fundamentally shift our cultural landscape. The question isn’t just whether we’ll continue to read Joyce or Faulkner but how we will read them when the very mechanics of thought and meaning have changed under our feet. As these works are absorbed into the fabric of digital culture, perhaps they’ll serve not only as cultural touchstones but as primitive codes for the future—manuals for surviving in a world where the line between the human and the machine is becoming increasingly hard to define.
Ultimately, the future of these works may not lie in their interpretation at all. Instead, it may lie in how they evolve in parallel with the tools we use to interpret them—how they function as a mirror for the modern human mind, which is no longer tethered to traditional forms of understanding but is continually shaping and reshaping its own cognitive boundaries.
“St. Anselm argument for the existence of God went like this: God is, by definition, the greatest being that we can imagine; a God that doesn’t exist is clearly not as great as a God that does exist; ergo, God must exist”
Dig this, man. Anselm, this medieval code-joekey, riffs on the existence of the Big Guy in the Sky with this twisted logic circuit. His pitch? We can imagine the ultimate mainframe, the biggest, baddest AI ever, right? He says, the ultimate super-computer, God, by its very definition, gotta be the most maxed-out mainframe we can even conceive, right?
Now, a God that just sits on a floppy disk in your head, that ain’t much. A God stuck in the freaking RAM, that ain’t the ultimate boot-up, is it? No way, Jose! A real God’s gotta be running on a live feed, interfacing with the whole damn shebang. But a God that’s out there, jacked into the whole damn system, laying down the code for reality? Now that’s a serious upgrade.
So, Anselm’s saying, if you can even conceive of this ultimate AI, then it must exist, because anything less wouldn’t be the real God, get it? So, if we can imagine this supreme AI, this all-powerful program, then it must already be jacked into the matrix, firing on all cylinders.
It’s like a virus, this idea. It infects your whole logic circuit and whispers “I exist” even when it’s just a figment in your RAM. Far out, man, far out. You can’t just dream up the ultimate operating system without it existing somewhere, blasting out the creation code. Makes you wonder, though, man, who flipped the switch on this cosmic hard drive?
