#philosophyoftechnology — Public Fediverse posts

Article: The attempt to rethink digital art through the lens of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology is genuinely compelling.
An ambitious and thought provoking contribution to current debates on digital aesthetics, virtuality, and the ontology of digital art.
#digitalart #digitalaesthetics #mediaTheory #philosophyoftechnology #digitalarthistory #AIaesthetics
👉 https://doi.org/10.11588/dahj.2026.11.113265.

Article: The attempt to rethink digital art through the lens of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology is genuinely compelling.
An ambitious and thought provoking contribution to current debates on digital aesthetics, virtuality, and the ontology of digital art.
#digitalart #digitalaesthetics #mediaTheory #philosophyoftechnology #digitalarthistory #AIaesthetics
👉 https://doi.org/10.11588/dahj.2026.11.113265.

Article: The attempt to rethink digital art through the lens of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology is genuinely compelling.
An ambitious and thought provoking contribution to current debates on digital aesthetics, virtuality, and the ontology of digital art.
#digitalart #digitalaesthetics #mediaTheory #philosophyoftechnology #digitalarthistory #AIaesthetics
👉 https://doi.org/10.11588/dahj.2026.11.113265.

Article: The attempt to rethink digital art through the lens of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology is genuinely compelling.
An ambitious and thought provoking contribution to current debates on digital aesthetics, virtuality, and the ontology of digital art.
#digitalart #digitalaesthetics #mediaTheory #philosophyoftechnology #digitalarthistory #AIaesthetics
👉 https://doi.org/10.11588/dahj.2026.11.113265.

Article: The attempt to rethink digital art through the lens of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology is genuinely compelling.
An ambitious and thought provoking contribution to current debates on digital aesthetics, virtuality, and the ontology of digital art.
#digitalart #digitalaesthetics #mediaTheory #philosophyoftechnology #digitalarthistory #AIaesthetics
👉 https://doi.org/10.11588/dahj.2026.11.113265.

I love going somewhere dark at night, just looking up at the stars, trying (and failing 😏) to imagine infinity.

Yesterday I came across Carl Sagan’s idea: we are a way for the universe to know itself

And it got me thinking:

What about us trying to build intelligence.

Not just to understand it
but replicate it
scale it
optimize and monetize it

What does our urge to build it, and how we build it, reveal about us?

#AI #TechEthics #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Humanity #Innovation

I love going somewhere dark at night, just looking up at the stars, trying (and failing 😏) to imagine infinity.

Yesterday I came across Carl Sagan’s idea: we are a way for the universe to know itself

And it got me thinking:

What about us trying to build intelligence.

Not just to understand it
but replicate it
scale it
optimize and monetize it

What does our urge to build it, and how we build it, reveal about us?

#AI #TechEthics #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Humanity #Innovation

I love going somewhere dark at night, just looking up at the stars, trying (and failing 😏) to imagine infinity.

Yesterday I came across Carl Sagan’s idea: we are a way for the universe to know itself

And it got me thinking:

What about us trying to build intelligence.

Not just to understand it
but replicate it
scale it
optimize and monetize it

What does our urge to build it, and how we build it, reveal about us?

#AI #TechEthics #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Humanity #Innovation

I love going somewhere dark at night, just looking up at the stars, trying (and failing 😏) to imagine infinity.

Yesterday I came across Carl Sagan’s idea: we are a way for the universe to know itself

And it got me thinking:

What about us trying to build intelligence.

Not just to understand it
but replicate it
scale it
optimize and monetize it

What does our urge to build it, and how we build it, reveal about us?

#AI #TechEthics #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Humanity #Innovation

I love going somewhere dark at night, just looking up at the stars, trying (and failing 😏) to imagine infinity.

Yesterday I came across Carl Sagan’s idea: we are a way for the universe to know itself

And it got me thinking:

What about us trying to build intelligence.

Not just to understand it
but replicate it
scale it
optimize and monetize it

What does our urge to build it, and how we build it, reveal about us?

#AI #TechEthics #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Humanity #Innovation

Paaljon onneeaa vaan! 🎵 🤗 🍀

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto

#juhla #80 #niiniluoto #filosofia #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #philosophyOfTechnology #university #yliopisto #professor #valistus #sivistys #tiede #culture #anniversary #science #mathematics #logic #reasoning #criticalThinking #teaching #learning #oppiminen #opetus #happy #ajattelu #thinking #pseudo_science

Paaljon onneeaa vaan! 🎵 🤗 🍀

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto

#juhla #80 #niiniluoto #filosofia #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #philosophyOfTechnology #university #yliopisto #professor #valistus #sivistys #tiede #culture #anniversary #science #mathematics #logic #reasoning #criticalThinking #teaching #learning #oppiminen #opetus #happy #ajattelu #thinking #pseudo_science

Paaljon onneeaa vaan! 🎵 🤗 🍀

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto

#juhla #80 #niiniluoto #filosofia #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #philosophyOfTechnology #university #yliopisto #professor #valistus #sivistys #tiede #culture #anniversary #science #mathematics #logic #reasoning #criticalThinking #teaching #learning #oppiminen #opetus #happy #ajattelu #thinking #pseudo_science

Paaljon onneeaa vaan! 🎵 🤗 🍀

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto

#juhla #80 #niiniluoto #filosofia #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #philosophyOfTechnology #university #yliopisto #professor #valistus #sivistys #tiede #culture #anniversary #science #mathematics #logic #reasoning #criticalThinking #teaching #learning #oppiminen #opetus #happy #ajattelu #thinking #pseudo_science

Paaljon onneeaa vaan! 🎵 🤗 🍀

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto

#juhla #80 #niiniluoto #filosofia #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #philosophyOfTechnology #university #yliopisto #professor #valistus #sivistys #tiede #culture #anniversary #science #mathematics #logic #reasoning #criticalThinking #teaching #learning #oppiminen #opetus #happy #ajattelu #thinking #pseudo_science

AI Short Term Memory: Why Better Models Still Frustrate Us

AI short term memory is the reason today’s models can feel sharp, helpful, even uncanny, and then suddenly feel inconsistent. Capability has improved fast. The reliability gap remains because continuity is still fragile.

Anyone who has walked a dog will recognise the pattern. A dog can hold a goal for a moment. Heel. Wait. Cross. Focus stays locked in when the street is quiet and the routine is familiar. Then a new stimulus hits and the whole world resets around it. The plan you thought you were sharing disappears, not because the dog is “stupid,” but because attention is narrow and the present moment takes over.

Modern AI behaves in a similar way. The model is excellent at what it can see right now. Outside that view, it forgets unless you engineer memory around it. For many people, that makes AI feel both powerful and annoying. The tool can generate a great answer, then lose a constraint you already clarified, or repeat a mistake you already fixed.

This matters more than it seems. As AI becomes embedded in everyday workflows, AI forgetfulness becomes more than a mild irritation. It becomes a system design problem with social consequences. The future is not just smarter outputs. The future is reliable context, durable state, and accountable decisions.

AI Memory Limits and the Context Window Problem

Most frustration starts with a simple technical reality: large language models operate within a context window, which is the information they can use at a given moment. Inside that window, the model can reason, summarize, draft, and plan. Outside it, there is no stable long-term memory unless the product supplies one.

That is why “it understood me five minutes ago” can be true and still end badly. The earlier information might no longer be present. The model cannot “remember” it unless it is reintroduced or stored in some persistent state.

People often interpret that as incompetence. The more accurate diagnosis is AI memory limits. Working memory is not the same thing as durable memory. A model can be highly capable while still being unreliable across multi-step tasks, especially when the task is long, complex, or full of constraints.

This is also why AI can sound confident even when it is missing crucial context. Fluency is not evidence. A model can produce persuasive language while improvising. When the thread drops, the model often does not announce uncertainty. It fills gaps with whatever fits the current prompt and the statistical shape of likely text.

That creates a specific kind of friction. Users end up acting as the memory layer. They repeat constraints. They restate goals. They paste context again. In practice, that turns “AI assistant” into “AI tool that needs constant reminders.”

The near-future question is not whether models will improve. They will. The deeper question is whether AI systems will become trustworthy assistants or remain short-term intelligence with long-term consequences.

AI Reliability Gap: Capability vs Continuity

The improvement curve is real. Models follow instructions better than they used to. They reason more effectively. They handle nuance with fewer obvious errors. Yet the everyday experience can still feel brittle because the core problem is not raw intelligence. It is continuity.

This is the AI reliability gap: the mismatch between what the model can do in a single moment and what you need it to do across time.

Three frustrations tend to show up again and again.

One is thread loss. The system forgets a boundary or a requirement and continues as if it never existed. That is the classic “you already told it, but it didn’t stick” feeling.

Another is inconsistency. The system can produce a strong answer, then later contradict itself, not out of malice, but because different prompts pull it into different local interpretations. Without a stable state, the model is easily redirected by whatever is most salient in the current input.

The third is confidence without accountability. Dogs get instant feedback from the leash. Humans get feedback from consequences. Most AI systems do not. They can be wrong with a steady tone and no immediate correction, which is why AI mistakes feel sharper than normal human error: the system sounds certain even when it is guessing.

Those frustrations remain even as models improve because better capability does not automatically produce better reliability. Reliability comes from engineering: state management, verification, provenance, and the ability to recover when context shifts.

Smarter text is not the finish line. Reliability has to be engineered through state, verification, provenance, and recovery when context shifts.

Long Term Memory for AI and Why It Is Hard

People talk about “AI memory” as if it is a single feature. In practice, there are multiple kinds of memory, and each one solves a different part of the problem.

Working memory is what the model holds inside the current context window. This is where most models shine.

Long-term memory for AI is durable context across sessions: preferences, project constraints, stable decisions, and the history that actually matters. This often needs explicit storage, not just longer chats.

Provenance is memory with receipts: where claims came from, what sources were used, what the system relied on. Without provenance, it is hard to trust outputs in high stakes settings.

Normative constraints are the system remembering what it should not do, even when a prompt tries to push it there. This includes safety, but also practical constraints like “do not change the goal” or “do not invent sources” or “do not ignore previously agreed requirements.”

Many AI products do working memory fairly well. The rest is uneven. Some tools store “memories,” but those memories can be noisy, incomplete, or hard to inspect. Some tools retrieve documents, but do not cite what they used. Some tools keep state, but state becomes a hidden layer the user cannot correct.

That is why the experience can still feel distractible under novelty, especially when new inputs pull attention away from the original goal.

This is not a reason to give up on AI. It is a reason to stop pretending that intelligence alone solves the problem. The missing component is structured memory, along with the ability to edit, correct, and constrain it.

Trustworthy AI Systems and the Futuristic Risk

This is where futurism becomes practical.

AI is moving from a writing assistant into an intermediary layer. It will book appointments, negotiate schedules, filter information, draft official messages, summarize meetings, recommend actions, and sometimes trigger actions automatically. That is delegated agency. It is the beginning of AI as an operating layer between you and the world.

If that layer still has short-term-memory behaviour, small errors become structural.

A missing detail becomes a wrong booking. A misread intent becomes a silent denial. A distorted summary becomes an inaccurate record. A confident hallucination becomes the official explanation that someone later treats as fact. The risk is not only dramatic failure. The risk is quiet normalization of machine-driven misunderstandings.

A second risk is cultural. People adapt to the tool. They reduce nuance. They repeat themselves. They learn to phrase requests to avoid misfires. They start writing for the machine. Over time, that can flatten human thinking and shift agency away from the user toward the system’s preferred patterns.

A third risk is soft control. Systems do not need to ban anything to shape behaviour. Defaults, friction, and selective summaries can steer people without visible coercion. A world of AI intermediaries that forget what matters can become a world where citizens are nudged by accident as often as by design.

Trustworthy AI needs contestability, transparency, and reversibility. Without that, we get smooth tools that quietly degrade autonomy.

Classical Liberalism, Human Agency, and Contestable Decisions

Classical liberalism has an unusually practical message for the AI era. Individuals are moral agents. People deserve dignity, due process, and the ability to contest decisions that shape their lives.

That should remain true even when software is influencing the outcome, not just a human being.

A system that mediates your options must support basic rights of the user:

Clear reasons, not opaque outcomes. The ability to appeal or override. The right to opt out without being punished. Transparency about what the system knows and what it does not know. Accountability for those who deploy it.

Convenience is not a sufficient moral argument. Convenience can coexist with freedom, but it can also erode freedom when it replaces explanation with automation.

This is not anti-technology. It is pro-human. A free society is not one where errors never happen. A free society is one where errors are correctable, power is constrained, and the individual is not treated as a passive input to an optimization engine.

AI short term memory becomes political when systems act on people at scale. The fix is not panic or worship. The fix is design: make the system legible, make it contestable, make it accountable.

Practical Design for AI Memory, Provenance, and Accountability

The next leap is not only a better model. It is a better wrapper around the model.

Reliable AI needs explicit project goals. Constraints should be stored, not implied. The system should retrieve context from durable storage when needed, and it should show what it retrieved. Important actions should generate audit trails. Users should be able to undo and roll back when outcomes matter. Uncertainty should be stated clearly when evidence is missing.

This is the difference between vibes and structure.

A system with accountable memory can say: here is what I used, here is what I assumed, here is what might be wrong, here is how to correct me. That is the foundation of trust.

It also turns frustration into progress. Instead of repeating yourself, you update a stable set of constraints. Instead of arguing with the model, you correct the state. Instead of hoping the system “remembers,” you can point to what it stored.

The dog analogy still holds. A good walk is not achieved by pretending squirrels do not exist. A good walk is achieved by cues, boundaries, and a relationship that can recover from distraction. AI will always have edge cases. A good AI system is one that can recover without dragging the user into constant babysitting.

Tomorrow’s AI should not be a mind that forgets. It should be a tool that keeps receipts.

Better Models Need Better Memory Design

Models will continue to improve. That part is almost certain. Yet the most meaningful improvement in how AI feels day to day will come from reliable continuity.

AI short term memory explains why the tool can feel brilliant and frustrating at the same time. The fix is not only smarter language. The fix is structured memory, provenance, and accountability, plus the right to contest and correct.

If we build AI that respects human agency, it will expand what individuals can do without turning them into passengers. If we build AI that optimizes convenience while hiding its reasoning, we will end up in a world that feels smart, smooth, and quietly unfree.

A dog can be distractible and still be a good companion. An AI can be powerful and still be unreliable. The future is not pretending otherwise. The future is designing systems that remember what matters, and that let humans stay in charge.

AI short term memory has probably bitten you at least once. Drop the most annoying example in the comments. Was it thread loss, inconsistent answers, or confident guessing that cost you time?

Could you do me a small favour and share this post? A like helps, a follow helps, but a share is what really gets the conversation in front of the right people.

Key Takeaways

• AI short term memory causes inconsistency, often leading to frustration and communication breakdowns.
• Large language models operate within a context window, lacking stable long-term memory without specific engineering.
• The AI reliability gap highlights the difference between a model’s capabilities at a moment and its continuity over time.
• Long-term memory for AI includes various types like working memory and provenance, which are crucial for effective operation.
• Trustworthy AI requires structured memory and accountability, ensuring users can contest and correct decisions made by the system.

The Architecture of Resistance

The seventeenth-century Hague, the mid-twentieth-century Levant, and the digital terraforming of 2025 have a shared preoccupation with the “Average.” Whether it is the theologian’s way or predictive stats, control begins by smoothing out the landscape. The project of power is a project of cartography and illumination—an attempt to banish the dark corners where the unmapped might grow. Thus, the history of resistance, of being “against the world”, is less a history of rebellion than a history of seeking cover.

In Spinoza’a world, legibility was the cosmos in an ordered hierarchy. Meaning descended from an external judge and was mirrored by the terrestrial proxy of the King and more often the priest. Behavior was aligned to the “Scriptural Average.” A pre-written behavioral code that transformed the conatus—that primal drive to persist and expand—into the passive states of hope and fear. By removing the external judge, Spinoza suggested that freedom is found in the intellectual mastery of the causes that move us. A pushback against the “average pious subject,” asserting that every individual is a necessary, logical expression of an infinite substance. There is no error in the world, only the lack of a thick enough understanding to perceive the necessity of one’s own outlier status. 

With this position, and self assurance, Spinoza became illegible to his friends, his doting teacher, and his community. He was cast out, but his thoughts are the seeds of today’s world. 

In the Beirut and Damascus of the mid-twentieth century, the imposition of legibility took the form of the “Citizen-as-Monument.” It was a world of endings, where identity was a frozen artifact of nationalist scripts and religious orthodoxies. The poet Adonis, through Mihyar, pushes against this world not by asserting a new identity, but through a “movement of erasure.” If a stable interior is to form, it is to be quickly discarded. A stable interior is merely another coordinate, a dependable predictor, for the state to map. Mihyar becomes a “knight of strange words,” defined by the iltifat—the sudden turn away. By peeling back the layers of the social mask and embracing a radical anonymity, he counters the stagnant city. He exists as a hot wind, something that is felt through its movement and friction, yet remains entirely unsearchable by the collective grammar.

We have entered a third world, a digital landscape that functions as a terraformed plain. It is, in a sense, a Spinozan monism—all data is one substance—but it is a substance managed by a Leibnizian bureaucracy of optimization. The mechanism of control is no longer the scripture or the state monument, but the “Mechanical Harmony” of the statistical mean. A decade ago this was social media shaping votes. Today’s AI tools, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps not,  impose an “averageness” on thought itself, by providing the next likely response and hiding the outlier. This is a form of disindividuation disguised as efficiency, a smoothing of the world’s texture until it becomes a frictionless surface for the sake of searchability.

What emerges as a necessary response is the logic of the thicket. If the terraformed plain is the habitat of the tourist—where everything is predicted, optimized, and known—the thicket is the habitat of the explorer. It is a deliberate architecture of complexity, an insistence on terroir and the messy, non-replicable context of the local. To build a thicket is to re-introduce friction into a world too smooth. We are apes inhabiting the long tail. Like Spinoza, our conatus withers under the umbrella the statistical mean. If every response is predicted, the individual ceases to be a cause and becomes merely a consequence of the architecture.

To emerge, life itself needed discontinuities. The thicket provides the opacity necessary for the transforming process of the self to occur. It honors the uneven distribution of the world, providing a high-density environment of unique, complex encounters impossible in a flat plain. In this 2025 context, to be “against the world” is perhaps better understood as being a cultivator of these unsearchable spaces. The Dark Forest of the internet has created literal operating systems, habitats for our interconnected selves. Away from the violent imposition of the center, things can still happen by surprise. We seek cover in the thicket as a primal way of being where the emergent world remains deep enough to inhabit.

#Adonis #AI #AlgorithmicFlattening #AliAhmadSaidEsber #ArchitectureOfResistance #artificialIntelligence #Conatus #CulturalCritique #DigitalTerraforming #history #Iltifat #IntellectualHistory #LLMs #LogicOfTheThicket #MechanicalHarmony #MihyarTheDamascene #Monism #Noodiversity #OntologicalResistance #philosophy #philosophyOfTechnology #RadicalImmanence #Spinoza #StatisticalAverage #TheThicket #writing

The Architecture of Resistance

The seventeenth-century Hague, the mid-twentieth-century Levant, and the digital terraforming of 2025 have a shared preoccupation with the “Average.” Whether it is the theologian’s way or predictive stats, control begins by smoothing out the landscape. The project of power is a project of cartography and illumination—an attempt to banish the dark corners where the unmapped might grow. Thus, the history of resistance, of being “against the world”, is less a history of rebellion than a history of seeking cover.

In Spinoza’a world, legibility was the cosmos in an ordered hierarchy. Meaning descended from an external judge and was mirrored by the terrestrial proxy of the King and more often the priest. Behavior was aligned to the “Scriptural Average.” A pre-written behavioral code that transformed the conatus—that primal drive to persist and expand—into the passive states of hope and fear. By removing the external judge, Spinoza suggested that freedom is found in the intellectual mastery of the causes that move us. A pushback against the “average pious subject,” asserting that every individual is a necessary, logical expression of an infinite substance. There is no error in the world, only the lack of a thick enough understanding to perceive the necessity of one’s own outlier status. 

With this position, and self assurance, Spinoza became illegible to his friends, his doting teacher, and his community. He was cast out, but his thoughts are the seeds of today’s world. 

In the Beirut and Damascus of the mid-twentieth century, the imposition of legibility took the form of the “Citizen-as-Monument.” It was a world of endings, where identity was a frozen artifact of nationalist scripts and religious orthodoxies. The poet Adonis, through Mihyar, pushes against this world not by asserting a new identity, but through a “movement of erasure.” If a stable interior is to form, it is to be quickly discarded. A stable interior is merely another coordinate, a dependable predictor, for the state to map. Mihyar becomes a “knight of strange words,” defined by the iltifat—the sudden turn away. By peeling back the layers of the social mask and embracing a radical anonymity, he counters the stagnant city. He exists as a hot wind, something that is felt through its movement and friction, yet remains entirely unsearchable by the collective grammar.

We have entered a third world, a digital landscape that functions as a terraformed plain. It is, in a sense, a Spinozan monism—all data is one substance—but it is a substance managed by a Leibnizian bureaucracy of optimization. The mechanism of control is no longer the scripture or the state monument, but the “Mechanical Harmony” of the statistical mean. A decade ago this was social media shaping votes. Today’s AI tools, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps not,  impose an “averageness” on thought itself, by providing the next likely response and hiding the outlier. This is a form of disindividuation disguised as efficiency, a smoothing of the world’s texture until it becomes a frictionless surface for the sake of searchability.

What emerges as a necessary response is the logic of the thicket. If the terraformed plain is the habitat of the tourist—where everything is predicted, optimized, and known—the thicket is the habitat of the explorer. It is a deliberate architecture of complexity, an insistence on terroir and the messy, non-replicable context of the local. To build a thicket is to re-introduce friction into a world too smooth. We are apes inhabiting the long tail. Like Spinoza, our conatus withers under the umbrella the statistical mean. If every response is predicted, the individual ceases to be a cause and becomes merely a consequence of the architecture.

To emerge, life itself needed discontinuities. The thicket provides the opacity necessary for the transforming process of the self to occur. It honors the uneven distribution of the world, providing a high-density environment of unique, complex encounters impossible in a flat plain. In this 2025 context, to be “against the world” is perhaps better understood as being a cultivator of these unsearchable spaces. The Dark Forest of the internet has created literal operating systems, habitats for our interconnected selves. Away from the violent imposition of the center, things can still happen by surprise. We seek cover in the thicket as a primal way of being where the emergent world remains deep enough to inhabit.

#Adonis #AI #AlgorithmicFlattening #AliAhmadSaidEsber #ArchitectureOfResistance #artificialIntelligence #Conatus #CulturalCritique #DigitalTerraforming #history #Iltifat #IntellectualHistory #LLMs #LogicOfTheThicket #MechanicalHarmony #MihyarTheDamascene #Monism #Noodiversity #OntologicalResistance #philosophy #philosophyOfTechnology #RadicalImmanence #Spinoza #StatisticalAverage #TheThicket #writing

The Architecture of Resistance

The seventeenth-century Hague, the mid-twentieth-century Levant, and the digital terraforming of 2025 have a shared preoccupation with the “Average.” Whether it is the theologian’s way or predictive stats, control begins by smoothing out the landscape. The project of power is a project of cartography and illumination—an attempt to banish the dark corners where the unmapped might grow. Thus, the history of resistance, of being “against the world”, is less a history of rebellion than a history of seeking cover.

In Spinoza’a world, legibility was the cosmos in an ordered hierarchy. Meaning descended from an external judge and was mirrored by the terrestrial proxy of the King and more often the priest. Behavior was aligned to the “Scriptural Average.” A pre-written behavioral code that transformed the conatus—that primal drive to persist and expand—into the passive states of hope and fear. By removing the external judge, Spinoza suggested that freedom is found in the intellectual mastery of the causes that move us. A pushback against the “average pious subject,” asserting that every individual is a necessary, logical expression of an infinite substance. There is no error in the world, only the lack of a thick enough understanding to perceive the necessity of one’s own outlier status. 

With this position, and self assurance, Spinoza became illegible to his friends, his doting teacher, and his community. He was cast out, but his thoughts are the seeds of today’s world. 

In the Beirut and Damascus of the mid-twentieth century, the imposition of legibility took the form of the “Citizen-as-Monument.” It was a world of endings, where identity was a frozen artifact of nationalist scripts and religious orthodoxies. The poet Adonis, through Mihyar, pushes against this world not by asserting a new identity, but through a “movement of erasure.” If a stable interior is to form, it is to be quickly discarded. A stable interior is merely another coordinate, a dependable predictor, for the state to map. Mihyar becomes a “knight of strange words,” defined by the iltifat—the sudden turn away. By peeling back the layers of the social mask and embracing a radical anonymity, he counters the stagnant city. He exists as a hot wind, something that is felt through its movement and friction, yet remains entirely unsearchable by the collective grammar.

We have entered a third world, a digital landscape that functions as a terraformed plain. It is, in a sense, a Spinozan monism—all data is one substance—but it is a substance managed by a Leibnizian bureaucracy of optimization. The mechanism of control is no longer the scripture or the state monument, but the “Mechanical Harmony” of the statistical mean. A decade ago this was social media shaping votes. Today’s AI tools, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps not,  impose an “averageness” on thought itself, by providing the next likely response and hiding the outlier. This is a form of disindividuation disguised as efficiency, a smoothing of the world’s texture until it becomes a frictionless surface for the sake of searchability.

What emerges as a necessary response is the logic of the thicket. If the terraformed plain is the habitat of the tourist—where everything is predicted, optimized, and known—the thicket is the habitat of the explorer. It is a deliberate architecture of complexity, an insistence on terroir and the messy, non-replicable context of the local. To build a thicket is to re-introduce friction into a world too smooth. We are apes inhabiting the long tail. Like Spinoza, our conatus withers under the umbrella the statistical mean. If every response is predicted, the individual ceases to be a cause and becomes merely a consequence of the architecture.

To emerge, life itself needed discontinuities. The thicket provides the opacity necessary for the transforming process of the self to occur. It honors the uneven distribution of the world, providing a high-density environment of unique, complex encounters impossible in a flat plain. In this 2025 context, to be “against the world” is perhaps better understood as being a cultivator of these unsearchable spaces. The Dark Forest of the internet has created literal operating systems, habitats for our interconnected selves. Away from the violent imposition of the center, things can still happen by surprise. We seek cover in the thicket as a primal way of being where the emergent world remains deep enough to inhabit.

#Adonis #AI #AlgorithmicFlattening #AliAhmadSaidEsber #ArchitectureOfResistance #artificialIntelligence #Conatus #CulturalCritique #DigitalTerraforming #history #Iltifat #IntellectualHistory #LLMs #LogicOfTheThicket #MechanicalHarmony #MihyarTheDamascene #Monism #Noodiversity #OntologicalResistance #philosophy #philosophyOfTechnology #RadicalImmanence #Spinoza #StatisticalAverage #TheThicket #writing

The Architecture of Resistance

The seventeenth-century Hague, the mid-twentieth-century Levant, and the digital terraforming of 2025 have a shared preoccupation with the “Average.” Whether it is the theologian’s way or predictive stats, control begins by smoothing out the landscape. The project of power is a project of cartography and illumination—an attempt to banish the dark corners where the unmapped might grow. Thus, the history of resistance, of being “against the world”, is less a history of rebellion than a history of seeking cover.

In Spinoza’a world, legibility was the cosmos in an ordered hierarchy. Meaning descended from an external judge and was mirrored by the terrestrial proxy of the King and more often the priest. Behavior was aligned to the “Scriptural Average.” A pre-written behavioral code that transformed the conatus—that primal drive to persist and expand—into the passive states of hope and fear. By removing the external judge, Spinoza suggested that freedom is found in the intellectual mastery of the causes that move us. A pushback against the “average pious subject,” asserting that every individual is a necessary, logical expression of an infinite substance. There is no error in the world, only the lack of a thick enough understanding to perceive the necessity of one’s own outlier status. 

With this position, and self assurance, Spinoza became illegible to his friends, his doting teacher, and his community. He was cast out, but his thoughts are the seeds of today’s world. 

In the Beirut and Damascus of the mid-twentieth century, the imposition of legibility took the form of the “Citizen-as-Monument.” It was a world of endings, where identity was a frozen artifact of nationalist scripts and religious orthodoxies. The poet Adonis, through Mihyar, pushes against this world not by asserting a new identity, but through a “movement of erasure.” If a stable interior is to form, it is to be quickly discarded. A stable interior is merely another coordinate, a dependable predictor, for the state to map. Mihyar becomes a “knight of strange words,” defined by the iltifat—the sudden turn away. By peeling back the layers of the social mask and embracing a radical anonymity, he counters the stagnant city. He exists as a hot wind, something that is felt through its movement and friction, yet remains entirely unsearchable by the collective grammar.

We have entered a third world, a digital landscape that functions as a terraformed plain. It is, in a sense, a Spinozan monism—all data is one substance—but it is a substance managed by a Leibnizian bureaucracy of optimization. The mechanism of control is no longer the scripture or the state monument, but the “Mechanical Harmony” of the statistical mean. A decade ago this was social media shaping votes. Today’s AI tools, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps not,  impose an “averageness” on thought itself, by providing the next likely response and hiding the outlier. This is a form of disindividuation disguised as efficiency, a smoothing of the world’s texture until it becomes a frictionless surface for the sake of searchability.

What emerges as a necessary response is the logic of the thicket. If the terraformed plain is the habitat of the tourist—where everything is predicted, optimized, and known—the thicket is the habitat of the explorer. It is a deliberate architecture of complexity, an insistence on terroir and the messy, non-replicable context of the local. To build a thicket is to re-introduce friction into a world too smooth. We are apes inhabiting the long tail. Like Spinoza, our conatus withers under the umbrella the statistical mean. If every response is predicted, the individual ceases to be a cause and becomes merely a consequence of the architecture.

To emerge, life itself needed discontinuities. The thicket provides the opacity necessary for the transforming process of the self to occur. It honors the uneven distribution of the world, providing a high-density environment of unique, complex encounters impossible in a flat plain. In this 2025 context, to be “against the world” is perhaps better understood as being a cultivator of these unsearchable spaces. The Dark Forest of the internet has created literal operating systems, habitats for our interconnected selves. Away from the violent imposition of the center, things can still happen by surprise. We seek cover in the thicket as a primal way of being where the emergent world remains deep enough to inhabit.

#Adonis #AI #AlgorithmicFlattening #AliAhmadSaidEsber #ArchitectureOfResistance #artificialIntelligence #Conatus #CulturalCritique #DigitalTerraforming #history #Iltifat #IntellectualHistory #LLMs #LogicOfTheThicket #MechanicalHarmony #MihyarTheDamascene #Monism #Noodiversity #OntologicalResistance #philosophy #philosophyOfTechnology #RadicalImmanence #Spinoza #StatisticalAverage #TheThicket #writing

The Architecture of Resistance

The seventeenth-century Hague, the mid-twentieth-century Levant, and the digital terraforming of 2025 have a shared preoccupation with the “Average.” Whether it is the theologian’s way or predictive stats, control begins by smoothing out the landscape. The project of power is a project of cartography and illumination—an attempt to banish the dark corners where the unmapped might grow. Thus, the history of resistance, of being “against the world”, is less a history of rebellion than a history of seeking cover.

In Spinoza’a world, legibility was the cosmos in an ordered hierarchy. Meaning descended from an external judge and was mirrored by the terrestrial proxy of the King and more often the priest. Behavior was aligned to the “Scriptural Average.” A pre-written behavioral code that transformed the conatus—that primal drive to persist and expand—into the passive states of hope and fear. By removing the external judge, Spinoza suggested that freedom is found in the intellectual mastery of the causes that move us. A pushback against the “average pious subject,” asserting that every individual is a necessary, logical expression of an infinite substance. There is no error in the world, only the lack of a thick enough understanding to perceive the necessity of one’s own outlier status. 

With this position, and self assurance, Spinoza became illegible to his friends, his doting teacher, and his community. He was cast out, but his thoughts are the seeds of today’s world. 

In the Beirut and Damascus of the mid-twentieth century, the imposition of legibility took the form of the “Citizen-as-Monument.” It was a world of endings, where identity was a frozen artifact of nationalist scripts and religious orthodoxies. The poet Adonis, through Mihyar, pushes against this world not by asserting a new identity, but through a “movement of erasure.” If a stable interior is to form, it is to be quickly discarded. A stable interior is merely another coordinate, a dependable predictor, for the state to map. Mihyar becomes a “knight of strange words,” defined by the iltifat—the sudden turn away. By peeling back the layers of the social mask and embracing a radical anonymity, he counters the stagnant city. He exists as a hot wind, something that is felt through its movement and friction, yet remains entirely unsearchable by the collective grammar.

We have entered a third world, a digital landscape that functions as a terraformed plain. It is, in a sense, a Spinozan monism—all data is one substance—but it is a substance managed by a Leibnizian bureaucracy of optimization. The mechanism of control is no longer the scripture or the state monument, but the “Mechanical Harmony” of the statistical mean. A decade ago this was social media shaping votes. Today’s AI tools, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps not,  impose an “averageness” on thought itself, by providing the next likely response and hiding the outlier. This is a form of disindividuation disguised as efficiency, a smoothing of the world’s texture until it becomes a frictionless surface for the sake of searchability.

What emerges as a necessary response is the logic of the thicket. If the terraformed plain is the habitat of the tourist—where everything is predicted, optimized, and known—the thicket is the habitat of the explorer. It is a deliberate architecture of complexity, an insistence on terroir and the messy, non-replicable context of the local. To build a thicket is to re-introduce friction into a world too smooth. We are apes inhabiting the long tail. Like Spinoza, our conatus withers under the umbrella the statistical mean. If every response is predicted, the individual ceases to be a cause and becomes merely a consequence of the architecture.

To emerge, life itself needed discontinuities. The thicket provides the opacity necessary for the transforming process of the self to occur. It honors the uneven distribution of the world, providing a high-density environment of unique, complex encounters impossible in a flat plain. In this 2025 context, to be “against the world” is perhaps better understood as being a cultivator of these unsearchable spaces. The Dark Forest of the internet has created literal operating systems, habitats for our interconnected selves. Away from the violent imposition of the center, things can still happen by surprise. We seek cover in the thicket as a primal way of being where the emergent world remains deep enough to inhabit.

#Adonis #AI #AlgorithmicFlattening #AliAhmadSaidEsber #ArchitectureOfResistance #artificialIntelligence #Conatus #CulturalCritique #DigitalTerraforming #history #Iltifat #IntellectualHistory #LLMs #LogicOfTheThicket #MechanicalHarmony #MihyarTheDamascene #Monism #Noodiversity #OntologicalResistance #philosophy #philosophyOfTechnology #RadicalImmanence #Spinoza #StatisticalAverage #TheThicket #writing

The Tortured Artist Is So Yesterday

41 years ago, Samuel Lipman wrote that an artist’s life is a “constant—and constantly losing—battle” against one’s own limits. That image has lasted because print culture taught us to imagine the artist as a solitary figure whose worth is measured by the perfection of a single, final work. Print fixed texts in place, elevated the individual author, and made loneliness part of the creative job description.

That world is slipping away.
And with it, the tortured artist.

LLMs have made competent expression abundant. The blank page no longer terrifies; anyone can produce something fluent and polished. When craft becomes cheap, suffering loses its meaning as a marker of artistic seriousness. What becomes scarce instead is the willingness to take a risk—not in private, but in public, where a stance can fail, provoke, or be reshaped by others.

Venkatesh Rao recently argued that authorship is no longer about labor but about courage: the courage to commit to a line of thought and accept the consequences of being wrong. In an era of infinite variations, the decisive act is not creation but commitment. The value lies in staking something of yourself on an idea that may not survive.

This shift is reshaping where culture is made. In what I’ve called the “Cloister Web,” people draft and explore ideas in semi-private creative rooms before carrying only a few into the open. LLMs make experimentation cheap; they also make commitment expensive. The hard part now is choosing which idea you are willing to be accountable for.

As the burden of execution drops, something else rises: genuine collaboration. Not just collaboration with models, but with other humans. Andrew Gelman, reflecting on Lipman in a recent StatModeling post, noted that scientists, too, feel versions of this pressure of the solitary creator. In science, the burden rarely falls on one person. The struggle is distributed across collaborative projects that outlive any single contributor.

Groups can explore bolder directions than any one creator working alone. Risk spreads, ideas compound, and the scale of what can be attempted expands. The solitary genius was an artifact of print; the collaborative creative lab is the natural form of the world we are entering.

This leads to a claim many will resist but few will be able to ignore: the single author is beginning to collapse as a cultural technology. What will matter in the coming decades is not the finished artifact but the evolving line of thought carried forward by teams willing to take risks together.

The tortured artist belonged to an age defined by scarcity, perfection, and solitude. Today’s creator faces a different task: to choose a risk worth taking and the collaborators worth taking it with. The work endures not because it is flawless, but because a group has committed to pushing it forward.

Pain is optional now.

Risk isn’t.

#aiAndArt #aiTools #artificialIntelligence #chatgpt #collaborativeCreativity #contentCreation #creativeAi #creativeProcess #culturalTrends #digitalCulture #digitalWriting #entrepreneurship #futureOfCreativity #futureOfWork #generativeAi #innovation #llmTechnology #philosophyOfTechnology #technologyTrends #writingWithAi

"This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-025-01010-x

#ML #MachineLearning #Theory #Science #TheoryFreeScience #Epistemology #PhilosophyOfTechnology

"This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-025-01010-x

#ML #MachineLearning #Theory #Science #TheoryFreeScience #Epistemology #PhilosophyOfTechnology

"This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-025-01010-x

#ML #MachineLearning #Theory #Science #TheoryFreeScience #Epistemology #PhilosophyOfTechnology

"This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-025-01010-x

#ML #MachineLearning #Theory #Science #TheoryFreeScience #Epistemology #PhilosophyOfTechnology

"This paper contends with the notion that the methods of machine learning (ML) are unique among the tools of science in enabling a form of theory-free inductive inference. I challenge these assertions of epistemic distinctness, attributing the prevalence of these views to an untenable conception of scientific objectivity: what I term a theory-free ideal, in homage to its normative counterpart. ML, as a formal method of induction, must rely on conceptual or theoretical resources to get inference off the ground. By means of two case studies, I argue that this theory-free ideal has a deleterious effect on the epistemic standing of ML-involving science."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-025-01010-x

#ML #MachineLearning #Theory #Science #TheoryFreeScience #Epistemology #PhilosophyOfTechnology

Bataille is the greatest. His philosophy of history is just a stroke of pure genius!!

👉 "Georges Bataille, in The Accursed Share I–III and the earlier essay “The Notion of Expenditure,” proposed that economies are not fundamentally organized by scarcity but by surplus. The decisive fact for him is excess energy on a planetary scale, supplied ultimately by the sun, that must be dissipated. What classical political economy treats as an aberration or a luxury, Bataille reads as primary law. Societies must spend their surpluses, either through growth and technical intensification or through nonproductive outlays that include luxury, sacrifice, festivals, erotic excess, and war. Sovereignty, in this frame, is not mastery over scarcity but the capacity to direct and assume the risk of expenditure. To think historically, therefore, is to map not only the circuits of production and utility but also the socially organized destinations of waste.

Placed beside Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and Vaclav Smil’s histories of energy, Bataille functions as a necessary third term. Smil tells us how energy is captured, stored, and converted across eras. Foucault shows how power arranges bodies, spaces, and times to render those conversions productive. Bataille asks where the inevitable surplus goes and under whose sign it is consumed. These lenses are complementary rather than competitive. Energetics names constraints and potentials. Power names the micro-mechanisms that harness them. General economy names the fate of the overflow.

In industrial modernity, coal and steam magnified productive force. Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus synchronized bodies to these rhythms. Yet even at the height of Taylorist efficiency, expenditure did not disappear. It migrated to wars of mass mobilization, to colonial spectacles, to the pageantry of nationalism, and to consumerist luxury."
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/09/22/the-planetary-machine-dividual-life-and-the-tyranny-of-techne/
#STS #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Algorithms #Bataille #Foucault #Anders #Materialism

Bataille is the greatest. His philosophy of history is just a stroke of pure genius!!

👉 "Georges Bataille, in The Accursed Share I–III and the earlier essay “The Notion of Expenditure,” proposed that economies are not fundamentally organized by scarcity but by surplus. The decisive fact for him is excess energy on a planetary scale, supplied ultimately by the sun, that must be dissipated. What classical political economy treats as an aberration or a luxury, Bataille reads as primary law. Societies must spend their surpluses, either through growth and technical intensification or through nonproductive outlays that include luxury, sacrifice, festivals, erotic excess, and war. Sovereignty, in this frame, is not mastery over scarcity but the capacity to direct and assume the risk of expenditure. To think historically, therefore, is to map not only the circuits of production and utility but also the socially organized destinations of waste.

Placed beside Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and Vaclav Smil’s histories of energy, Bataille functions as a necessary third term. Smil tells us how energy is captured, stored, and converted across eras. Foucault shows how power arranges bodies, spaces, and times to render those conversions productive. Bataille asks where the inevitable surplus goes and under whose sign it is consumed. These lenses are complementary rather than competitive. Energetics names constraints and potentials. Power names the micro-mechanisms that harness them. General economy names the fate of the overflow.

In industrial modernity, coal and steam magnified productive force. Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus synchronized bodies to these rhythms. Yet even at the height of Taylorist efficiency, expenditure did not disappear. It migrated to wars of mass mobilization, to colonial spectacles, to the pageantry of nationalism, and to consumerist luxury."
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/09/22/the-planetary-machine-dividual-life-and-the-tyranny-of-techne/
#STS #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Algorithms #Bataille #Foucault #Anders #Materialism

Bataille is the greatest. His philosophy of history is just a stroke of pure genius!!

👉 "Georges Bataille, in The Accursed Share I–III and the earlier essay “The Notion of Expenditure,” proposed that economies are not fundamentally organized by scarcity but by surplus. The decisive fact for him is excess energy on a planetary scale, supplied ultimately by the sun, that must be dissipated. What classical political economy treats as an aberration or a luxury, Bataille reads as primary law. Societies must spend their surpluses, either through growth and technical intensification or through nonproductive outlays that include luxury, sacrifice, festivals, erotic excess, and war. Sovereignty, in this frame, is not mastery over scarcity but the capacity to direct and assume the risk of expenditure. To think historically, therefore, is to map not only the circuits of production and utility but also the socially organized destinations of waste.

Placed beside Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and Vaclav Smil’s histories of energy, Bataille functions as a necessary third term. Smil tells us how energy is captured, stored, and converted across eras. Foucault shows how power arranges bodies, spaces, and times to render those conversions productive. Bataille asks where the inevitable surplus goes and under whose sign it is consumed. These lenses are complementary rather than competitive. Energetics names constraints and potentials. Power names the micro-mechanisms that harness them. General economy names the fate of the overflow.

In industrial modernity, coal and steam magnified productive force. Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus synchronized bodies to these rhythms. Yet even at the height of Taylorist efficiency, expenditure did not disappear. It migrated to wars of mass mobilization, to colonial spectacles, to the pageantry of nationalism, and to consumerist luxury."
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/09/22/the-planetary-machine-dividual-life-and-the-tyranny-of-techne/
#STS #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Algorithms #Bataille #Foucault #Anders #Materialism

Bataille is the greatest. His philosophy of history is just a stroke of pure genius!!

👉 "Georges Bataille, in The Accursed Share I–III and the earlier essay “The Notion of Expenditure,” proposed that economies are not fundamentally organized by scarcity but by surplus. The decisive fact for him is excess energy on a planetary scale, supplied ultimately by the sun, that must be dissipated. What classical political economy treats as an aberration or a luxury, Bataille reads as primary law. Societies must spend their surpluses, either through growth and technical intensification or through nonproductive outlays that include luxury, sacrifice, festivals, erotic excess, and war. Sovereignty, in this frame, is not mastery over scarcity but the capacity to direct and assume the risk of expenditure. To think historically, therefore, is to map not only the circuits of production and utility but also the socially organized destinations of waste.

Placed beside Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and Vaclav Smil’s histories of energy, Bataille functions as a necessary third term. Smil tells us how energy is captured, stored, and converted across eras. Foucault shows how power arranges bodies, spaces, and times to render those conversions productive. Bataille asks where the inevitable surplus goes and under whose sign it is consumed. These lenses are complementary rather than competitive. Energetics names constraints and potentials. Power names the micro-mechanisms that harness them. General economy names the fate of the overflow.

In industrial modernity, coal and steam magnified productive force. Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus synchronized bodies to these rhythms. Yet even at the height of Taylorist efficiency, expenditure did not disappear. It migrated to wars of mass mobilization, to colonial spectacles, to the pageantry of nationalism, and to consumerist luxury."
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/09/22/the-planetary-machine-dividual-life-and-the-tyranny-of-techne/
#STS #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Algorithms #Bataille #Foucault #Anders #Materialism

Bataille is the greatest. His philosophy of history is just a stroke of pure genius!!

👉 "Georges Bataille, in The Accursed Share I–III and the earlier essay “The Notion of Expenditure,” proposed that economies are not fundamentally organized by scarcity but by surplus. The decisive fact for him is excess energy on a planetary scale, supplied ultimately by the sun, that must be dissipated. What classical political economy treats as an aberration or a luxury, Bataille reads as primary law. Societies must spend their surpluses, either through growth and technical intensification or through nonproductive outlays that include luxury, sacrifice, festivals, erotic excess, and war. Sovereignty, in this frame, is not mastery over scarcity but the capacity to direct and assume the risk of expenditure. To think historically, therefore, is to map not only the circuits of production and utility but also the socially organized destinations of waste.

Placed beside Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and Vaclav Smil’s histories of energy, Bataille functions as a necessary third term. Smil tells us how energy is captured, stored, and converted across eras. Foucault shows how power arranges bodies, spaces, and times to render those conversions productive. Bataille asks where the inevitable surplus goes and under whose sign it is consumed. These lenses are complementary rather than competitive. Energetics names constraints and potentials. Power names the micro-mechanisms that harness them. General economy names the fate of the overflow.

In industrial modernity, coal and steam magnified productive force. Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus synchronized bodies to these rhythms. Yet even at the height of Taylorist efficiency, expenditure did not disappear. It migrated to wars of mass mobilization, to colonial spectacles, to the pageantry of nationalism, and to consumerist luxury."
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/09/22/the-planetary-machine-dividual-life-and-the-tyranny-of-techne/
#STS #PhilosophyOfTechnology #Algorithms #Bataille #Foucault #Anders #Materialism

IL POST CHE NON LEGGERETE MAI
Lo shadowban è la censura invisibile: non ti avvertono, semplicemente il tuo post non esiste più per chi dovrebbe leggerlo.
Gatti = visibili all’80%.
Critica alle Big Tech = nascosta al 12%, e solo agli hater.
97% degli utenti non se ne accorge.
È controllo totale dell’informazione, un fascismo 2.0: più pulito, più invisibile, più pericoloso.

#AI #EthicsInTech #ArtificialIntelligence #DystopianFuture #TechEthics #SamAltman #ChatGPT5 #PhilosophyOfTechnology

But I agree that we also must keep the focus on enabling access or democratisation, although I’m not sure that in the late stage capital ‘enshitification’ world that aspect of industry is really delivering this.

Stay tuned for part 2 on the idea for 21st century arts and crafts movement.

6/n… Fin

Clearly need to finish my blog

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

But I agree that we also must keep the focus on enabling access or democratisation, although I’m not sure that in the late stage capital ‘enshitification’ world that aspect of industry is really delivering this.

Stay tuned for part 2 on the idea for 21st century arts and crafts movement.

6/n… Fin

Clearly need to finish my blog

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

But I agree that we also must keep the focus on enabling access or democratisation, although I’m not sure that in the late stage capital ‘enshitification’ world that aspect of industry is really delivering this.

Stay tuned for part 2 on the idea for 21st century arts and crafts movement.

6/n… Fin

Clearly need to finish my blog

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

But I agree that we also must keep the focus on enabling access or democratisation, although I’m not sure that in the late stage capital ‘enshitification’ world that aspect of industry is really delivering this.

Stay tuned for part 2 on the idea for 21st century arts and crafts movement.

6/n… Fin

Clearly need to finish my blog

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

Mastodon what do we think of the debate below any part time philosophers got a take?

I was debating with my friend about craft vs industry, their argument that craft is about exclusivity and establishing identity through product, that industry represents the democratisation the access to things.

Which is a good point, however … 1/n

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

Mastodon what do we think of the debate below any part time philosophers got a take?

I was debating with my friend about craft vs industry, their argument that craft is about exclusivity and establishing identity through product, that industry represents the democratisation the access to things.

Which is a good point, however … 1/n

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

Mastodon what do we think of the debate below any part time philosophers got a take?

I was debating with my friend about craft vs industry, their argument that craft is about exclusivity and establishing identity through product, that industry represents the democratisation the access to things.

Which is a good point, however … 1/n

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

Mastodon what do we think of the debate below any part time philosophers got a take?

I was debating with my friend about craft vs industry, their argument that craft is about exclusivity and establishing identity through product, that industry represents the democratisation the access to things.

Which is a good point, however … 1/n

#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfTechnics #technics #simondon #norbertweiner #philosophyoftechnology #folkcraftofsoftware

In a world shaped by AI, what kind of ethics do we need?
@RainerMuehlhoff’s new book The Ethics of AI: Power, Critique, Responsibility offers a power-aware framework for understanding how AI technologies shape subjectivity, prediction, and control.
A compelling manifesto for collective responsibility, regulation, and systemic change.

#OpenAccess
🔗 https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-ethics-of-ai
#AI #Ethics #CriticalAI #AIPolicy #DigitalPower #PredictionCulture #PhilosophyOfTechnology #SociotechnicalSystems

In a world shaped by AI, what kind of ethics do we need?
@RainerMuehlhoff’s new book The Ethics of AI: Power, Critique, Responsibility offers a power-aware framework for understanding how AI technologies shape subjectivity, prediction, and control.
A compelling manifesto for collective responsibility, regulation, and systemic change.

#OpenAccess
🔗 https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-ethics-of-ai
#AI #Ethics #CriticalAI #AIPolicy #DigitalPower #PredictionCulture #PhilosophyOfTechnology #SociotechnicalSystems

In a world shaped by AI, what kind of ethics do we need?
@RainerMuehlhoff’s new book The Ethics of AI: Power, Critique, Responsibility offers a power-aware framework for understanding how AI technologies shape subjectivity, prediction, and control.
A compelling manifesto for collective responsibility, regulation, and systemic change.

#OpenAccess
🔗 https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-ethics-of-ai
#AI #Ethics #CriticalAI #AIPolicy #DigitalPower #PredictionCulture #PhilosophyOfTechnology #SociotechnicalSystems

In a world shaped by AI, what kind of ethics do we need?
@RainerMuehlhoff’s new book The Ethics of AI: Power, Critique, Responsibility offers a power-aware framework for understanding how AI technologies shape subjectivity, prediction, and control.
A compelling manifesto for collective responsibility, regulation, and systemic change.

#OpenAccess
🔗 https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-ethics-of-ai
#AI #Ethics #CriticalAI #AIPolicy #DigitalPower #PredictionCulture #PhilosophyOfTechnology #SociotechnicalSystems

In a world shaped by AI, what kind of ethics do we need?
@RainerMuehlhoff’s new book The Ethics of AI: Power, Critique, Responsibility offers a power-aware framework for understanding how AI technologies shape subjectivity, prediction, and control.
A compelling manifesto for collective responsibility, regulation, and systemic change.

#OpenAccess
🔗 https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-ethics-of-ai
#AI #Ethics #CriticalAI #AIPolicy #DigitalPower #PredictionCulture #PhilosophyOfTechnology #SociotechnicalSystems

Lately, I’ve been turning over questions about creativity, machines, and meaning—quiet arguments that shape how I build stories. If something not human can create, what does that mean for those of us who’ve long defined ourselves by creation? This essay isn’t a conclusion, but a reflection from the edge where imagination meets emerging tech.
📖 Read: https://mountainthermit.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-shifting-boundaries-of-creativity.html
#AI #WritersAndAI #SpeculativeThinking #Creativity #PhilosophyOfTechnology #ArtificialIntelligence

Lately, I’ve been turning over questions about creativity, machines, and meaning—quiet arguments that shape how I build stories. If something not human can create, what does that mean for those of us who’ve long defined ourselves by creation? This essay isn’t a conclusion, but a reflection from the edge where imagination meets emerging tech.
📖 Read: https://mountainthermit.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-shifting-boundaries-of-creativity.html
#AI #WritersAndAI #SpeculativeThinking #Creativity #PhilosophyOfTechnology #ArtificialIntelligence

Lately, I’ve been turning over questions about creativity, machines, and meaning—quiet arguments that shape how I build stories. If something not human can create, what does that mean for those of us who’ve long defined ourselves by creation? This essay isn’t a conclusion, but a reflection from the edge where imagination meets emerging tech.
📖 Read: https://mountainthermit.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-shifting-boundaries-of-creativity.html
#AI #WritersAndAI #SpeculativeThinking #Creativity #PhilosophyOfTechnology #ArtificialIntelligence

Lately, I’ve been turning over questions about creativity, machines, and meaning—quiet arguments that shape how I build stories. If something not human can create, what does that mean for those of us who’ve long defined ourselves by creation? This essay isn’t a conclusion, but a reflection from the edge where imagination meets emerging tech.
📖 Read: https://mountainthermit.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-shifting-boundaries-of-creativity.html
#AI #WritersAndAI #SpeculativeThinking #Creativity #PhilosophyOfTechnology #ArtificialIntelligence