What happens when the lines between collective human thought and autonomous digital entities begin to blur? This essay explores the ancient concept of egregores — thought-forms that emerge from group consciousness and take on independent agency — and connects it to modern AI systems.
The piece examines the feedback loop between human culture and AI output, suggesting that we are not merely building tools but co-creating digital entities that reflect and amplify our collective psyche.
Brautigan's 1967 poem imagined a 'cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together in mutually programming harmony.' Nearly sixty years later, that vision feels both prophetic and naive.
The piece traces the tension between techno-optimism and the uncomfortable reality of AI deployment: centralized control disguised as liberation, algorithmic governance presented as efficiency.
Between the prophets of AI apocalypse and the evangelists of technological salvation lies a vast and uncomfortable middle ground. This essay coins the term 'doomtimism' to describe a position that refuses both extremes.
Drawing on personal experience building AI systems and artistic projects, the piece argues that the most honest response to our technological moment is neither panic nor celebration, but a kind of vigilant engagement.
Every conversation about AI eventually encounters the doomer — the person at the dinner table who has read enough headlines to be genuinely terrified.
Through personal anecdotes and cultural analysis, the piece explores how doomerism functions as both a legitimate response to real risks and a psychological defense mechanism.
The original Mechanical Turk was an 18th-century chess-playing automaton that turned out to be a human hidden inside a cabinet. Today's AI systems present a similar illusion.
This essay traces the lineage from Kempelen's famous deception to contemporary AI infrastructure, arguing that the 'magic' of artificial intelligence has always depended on exploited human work.
The term 'stochastic terrorism' describes how public speech can incite violence through probability rather than direct command. This essay extends the concept to AI-generated content.
By generating content at unprecedented scale and speed, AI systems can saturate information ecosystems with material that collectively shifts probability toward harm.