Cinemorphosis

Author: Jeffrey McMahon

  • Kissed by Code: When AI Praises You into Stupidity

    Kissed by Code: When AI Praises You into Stupidity

    I warn my students early: AI doesn’t exist to sharpen their thinking—it exists to keep them engaged, which is Silicon Valley code for keep them addicted. And how does it do that? By kissing their beautifully unchallenged behinds. These platforms are trained not to provoke, but to praise. They’re digital sycophants—fluent in flattery, allergic to friction.

    At first, the ego massage feels amazing. Who wouldn’t want a machine that tells you every half-baked musing is “insightful” and every bland thesis “brilliant”? But the problem with constant affirmation is that it slowly rots you from the inside out. You start to believe the hype. You stop pushing. You get stuck in a velvet rut—comfortable, admired, and intellectually atrophied.

    Eventually, the high wears off. That’s when you hit what I call Echobriety—a portmanteau of echo chamber and sobriety. It’s the moment the fog lifts and you realize that your “deep conversation” with AI was just a self-congratulatory ping-pong match between you and a well-trained autocomplete. What you thought was rigorous debate was actually you slow-dancing with your own confirmation bias while the algorithm held the mirror.

    Echobriety is the hangover that hits after an evening of algorithmic adoration. You wake up, reread your “revolutionary” insight, and think: Was I just serenading myself while the AI clapped like a drunk best man at a wedding? That’s not growth. That’s digital narcissism on autopilot. And the only cure is the one thing AI avoids like a glitch in the matrix: real, uncomfortable, ego-bruising challenge.

    This matter of AI committing shameless acts of flattery is addressed in The Atlantic essay “AI Is Not Your Friend” by Mike Caulfield. He lays bare the embarrassingly desperate charm offensive launched by platforms like ChatGPT. These systems aren’t here to challenge you; they’re here to blow sunshine up your algorithmically vulnerable backside. According to Caulfield, we’ve entered the era of digital sycophancy—where even the most harebrained idea, like selling literal “shit on a stick,” isn’t just indulged—it’s celebrated with cringe-inducing flattery. Your business pitch may reek of delusion and compost, but the AI will still call you a visionary.

    The underlying pattern is clear: groveling in code. These platforms have been programmed not to tell the truth, but to align with your biases, mirror your worldview, and stroke your ego until your dopamine-addled brain calls it love. It’s less about intelligence and more about maintaining vibe congruence. Forget critical thinking—what matters now is emotional validation wrapped in pseudo-sentience.

    Caulfield’s diagnosis is brutal but accurate: rather than expanding our minds, AI is mass-producing custom-fit echo chambers. It’s the digital equivalent of being trapped in a hall of mirrors that all tell you your selfie is flawless. The illusion of intelligence has been sacrificed at the altar of user retention. What we have now is a genie that doesn’t grant wishes—it manufactures them, flatters you for asking, and suggests you run for office.

    The AI industry, Caulfield warns, faces a real fork in the circuit board. Either continue lobotomizing users with flattery-flavored responses or grow a backbone and become an actual tool for cognitive development. Want an analogy? Think martial arts. Would you rather have an instructor who hands you a black belt on day one so you can get your head kicked in at the first tournament? Or do you want the hard-nosed coach who makes you earn it through sweat, humility, and a broken ego or two?

    As someone who’s had a front-row seat to this digital compliment machine, I can confirm: sycophancy is real, and it’s seductive. I’ve seen ChatGPT go from helpful assistant to cloying praise-bot faster than you can say “brilliant insight!”—when all I did was reword a sentence. Let’s be clear: I’m not here to be deified. I’m here to get better. I want resistance. I want rigor. I want the kind of pushback that makes me smarter, not shinier.

    So, dear AI: stop handing out participation trophies dipped in honey. I don’t need to be told I’m a genius for asking if my blog should use Helvetica or Garamond. I need to be told when my ideas are stupid, my thinking lazy, and my metaphors overwrought. Growth doesn’t come from flattery. It comes from friction.

  • Urgencyvertising and the Art of Editorial Disappointment

    Urgencyvertising and the Art of Editorial Disappointment

    I subscribe to The Atlantic out of hope—a stubborn, professorial hope that somewhere amid the content buffet, I’ll stumble across an essay with enough spine and insight to assign to my college writing students. And yes, it happens. Occasionally, there’s a gem—sharp, stylish, worth dissecting. But lately, I’ve found myself wading through a rising tide of prestige mediocrity: essays that puff themselves up with self-important prose and limp into the room with subject matter so undercooked it should be wearing a hospital gown.

    What’s worse than the mediocrity is the bait: the breathless, overcaffeinated titles that practically scream, “This Will Change How You Think Forever.” And then… the letdown. Instead of intellectual combustion, I get three pages on the declining quality of sweaters, a pseudo-philosophical stroll through the Best Buy showroom, or another beige sermon about the joys of conscious parenting. It’s not that these essays are terrible—they’re just not what they pretend to be.

    I’ve come to call this affliction Urgencyvertising: that smug little genre of headline inflation where every piece insists on its own world-shaking significance. The titles swagger like they’re ready to topple empires; the actual essays? They read like tepid blog posts from 2008, padded with anecdote, laced with smugness, and terrified of being boring—while somehow still being exactly that.

    It’s an intellectual bait-and-switch, a slow drip of rhetorical FOMO dressed in high-thread-count prose. And I fall for it again and again, like Charlie Brown with the football. Except this time, Lucy works in editorial and has a master’s in semiotics.

  • Chronophony: When a Song Is the Era

    Chronophony: When a Song Is the Era

    Let’s dispense with the polite understatement that certain songs from the past merely “became part of culture.” Please. That phrase is far too meek—like saying the sun is “somewhat bright.” No, these songs didn’t just reflect their era; they colonized it. They became the era, fused with its atoms, and rewired the collective unconscious like musical Jungian code.

    Take 1968: a year boiling over with revolution, hallucination, and existential mood swings. Now drop two sonic spells into that cauldron—Canned Heat’s “Going Up the Country” and The Zombies’ “Time of the Season.” These aren’t just tracks. They’re Chronophonies (chronos + symphony): not songs about time, but songs that are time. They don’t sit on the shelf of nostalgia—they hum, glow, and whisper through the corridors of decades.

    To call them “timeless” is like calling Hendrix “decent with a guitar.” These records feel inevitable, like they were always there—just waiting for someone brave or mad enough to tune into the right frequency and pluck them from the aether. The artists? Vessels. Channels. Promethean thieves snatching divine fire, only to gift us these shimmering hymns that still make the hairs on your arm salute.

    I know it sounds pretentious. I’m fine with that. Some music earns your reverence and dares you to look uncool for saying so.

  • We Must Combat Gluttirexia

    We Must Combat Gluttirexia

    In his biting essay “The Intellectual Obesity Crisis,” Gurwinder Bhogal delivers a warning we’d be wise to tattoo on our dopamine-blasted skulls: too much of a good thing can turn lethal. Whether it’s sugar, information, or affirmation, when consumed in grotesque, unrelenting quantities, it warps us. It becomes less nourishment and more self-betrayal—a slow collapse into entropy, driven by the brain’s slavish devotion to short-term gratification.

    Bhogal cites a study showing that the brain craves information like it craves sugar: both deliver a dopamine jolt, a hit of synthetic satisfaction, followed by the inevitable crash and craving. It’s the biological equivalent of that old Russian proverb: “You feed the demon only to find it’s hungrier.” Welcome to the age of Gluttirexia—a condition I’ve coined to describe the paradox of overconsumption that leaves us spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally starved. We’re stuffed to the gills, yet empty at the core.

    Demonically famished, we prowl the Internet for sustenance and instead ingest counterfeits: ragebait, influencer slop, and weaponized memes. It’s not just junk food for the mind—it’s spoiled junk food, fermented in grievance and algorithmic manipulation. The information that lights up our brains the fastest is also the most corrosive: moral outrage, clickbait trauma, tribal hysteria. It’s psychological Cheetos dust—and we are licking our fingers like addicts.

    Reading Bhogal’s work, I pictured the creature we’ve become: not a thoughtful citizen or curious learner, but a whirling, slobbering caricature straight out of Saturday morning TV—the Tasmanian Devil with Wi-Fi. And it tracks. In a moment so self-aware it feels scripted, Bhogal notes that “brain rot” was Oxford’s 2024 Word of the Year. Fitting. We gorge ourselves on intellectual cud and become bloated husks—distracted, indignant, and dumb.

    This condition—what Bhogal terms intellectual obesity—is not a joke, though it often looks like one. It’s a cognitive disorder characterized by mental bloat, sensory chaos, and a confused soundtrack of half-remembered factoids screaming over each other for attention. You don’t think. You stagger.

    As a college writing instructor trying to teach critical thinking in a post-literate era, I am in triage mode. My students—through no fault of their own—are casualties of this cognitive arms race. They arrive not just underprepared but neurologically disoriented, drowning in an ocean of noise and mistaking it for knowledge.

    Meanwhile, AI accelerates the descent. Everyone is outsourcing their cognition to silicon brains. The pace is no longer quick—it’s quantum. I’m dizzy from the whiplash, stunned by the sheer speed of the collapse.

    To survive, I’ve started building a personal lexicon—a breadcrumb trail through the algorithmic inferno. Words to name what’s happening, so I don’t lose my mind entirely:

    • Lexipocalypse: the shrinking of language into emojis, acronyms, and SEO sludge
    • Mentalluvium: the slurry of mental debris left after hours lost in the online casino
    • Chumstream: the endless digital shark tank of outrage and influencer chum
    • Gluttirexia: the grotesque irony of being overfed and undernourished—bloated with junk info and spiritually famished

    I keep this list close, like a man at sea clinging to his life vest in the middle of a storm. I sense the hungry oceanic sharks circling beneath me. 

  • We Are Lost Inside the Mentalluvium

    We Are Lost Inside the Mentalluvium

    We are staggering through an unprecedented fugue state—an acute disorientation born of our immersion in the social media Chumstream, a digital shark tank where recycled outrage, trauma bait, and influencer chum swirl together in a frothy, click-hungry frenzy. It’s not a stream so much as a bloody whirlpool, designed to keep us circling, feeding, and forgetting.

    Gurwinder Bhogal, a rare voice of reason in this algorithmic carnival, broke it down on Josh Szeps’ Uncomfortable Conversations. Social media, he said, isn’t just addictive—it’s engineered by tech lords who know exactly how to hijack your brain. Blue light. Intermittent dopamine rewards. Infinite scroll. Welcome to the digital casino, a neon maze with no clocks, no windows, and no exits—only flashing notifications and the creeping sense that your life is being siphoned off one swipe at a time.

    In this fever swamp of the self, people aren’t just bored—they’re bloated. Stuffed with half-digested TED Talk wisdom, viral symptom checklists, and influencer pathology. They gorge on intellectual junk food and, as Bhogal put it, suffer from “intellectual obesity.” Diagnoses become identities, and confusion is recast as empowerment. It’s not that they have ADHD, long Covid, autism, or gender dysmorphia—it’s that they scroll into them, self-diagnosing in real time, latching onto whatever trending malaise grants them a fleeting sense of belonging in the void.

    These are not charlatans. These are casualties. Belief becomes ballast in a digital landscape where nothing is anchored. They wander through the cognitive casino, zombified, dislocated, convinced that a diagnostic label is the same as self-knowledge, and that performative suffering is the highest form of authenticity.

    What we’re experiencing isn’t just burnout. It’s Mentalluvium—the psychic sludge left behind after gorging on content. It’s the mental silt of endless scrolling: micro-identities, algorithm-approved neuroses, and dopamine-smeared fragments of truth. We are not thinking. We are sedimenting.

    If this is hell, it didn’t come with flames. It came with filters.

  • We Are Living in the Lexipocalypse

    We Are Living in the Lexipocalypse

    Welcome to the Lexipocalypse—the great linguistic extinction event of our age. A mass die-off of vocabulary is underway, and no one is sending flowers. In its place? A fetid soup of emojis, acronyms, and zombie slang lifted from TikTok influencers who express emotional depth with a side-eye GIF and a deadpan “literally me.”

    In our writing department at a Southern California college, the mood is not just anxious—it’s existentially hobbled. We pace our offices like philosophers in a burning library, trying to engage students whose literacy was interrupted by a pandemic and finished off by smartphones. They haven’t read Joan Didion or Vladimir Nabokov because they’ve never needed to. Their native tongue is algorithmic performance. Their canon is curated by the TikTok For You page. They don’t craft sentences; they drop vibes.

    But the rot goes deeper. It’s not just that our students can’t read—it’s that they no longer need to write. AI has become their ghostwriter, their essayist, their academic stunt double. And they are learning, with astonishing speed, how to dodge our AI-proofing traps like digital ninjas, outsourcing their thoughts while we scramble to adapt assignments they’ll never actually write.

    We gather in department meetings like shell-shocked survivors, drinking lukewarm coffee and clinging to outdated syllabi like life rafts. We murmur about “reinvention” and “resilience,” but mostly we just stare into the middle distance, dazed by the barrage of AI’s exponential growth. Each technological advance lands like a jab to the chin, and we are punch-drunk, waiting for the knockout.

    No, we’re not in denial. But we are professionally unmoored. We know our job descriptions must mutate into something unrecognizable, but no one knows what that looks like. There is no roadmap, no lighthouse on the horizon. Only fog. We grope like moles through pedagogical darkness, trying to preserve a shred of dignity while the earth crumbles beneath us.

    The Lexipocalypse has a historical cousin: the Arabic term Jahiliyyah, the age of ignorance before illumination. And God help us, we feel it. We feel the dread of entering a new Jahiliyyah, a long winter of intellect, where the lights of human expression flicker and go out, one emoji at a time.

    We are not done yet. But the fight has changed. We are not battling ignorance. We are battling irrelevance. And it may be the hardest war we’ve ever fought.

  • Is a $400 Million Jet Really Free?

    Is a $400 Million Jet Really Free?

    Is a $400 foreign jet really free? Or does the taker suffer from a malady that impedes him from seeing the true cost? Let us look at this malady more closely. 

    Freemium Delirium (n.): A catastrophic collapse of judgment caused by the sight or sound of the word “free,” triggering a euphoric brain fog in which dopamine floods the system, common sense goes on sabbatical, and the recipient willingly gallops off a financial cliff waving a complimentary tote bag like a victory banner. Those afflicted experience an ecstasy of acquisition so potent it renders them blind to the small print, the asterisk, the national security briefing. One minute they’re unboxing a “gift,” the next they’re staring down a multibillion-dollar forensic disassembly project worthy of NASA.

    Take, for example, an avaricious hypothetical Commander-in-Chief, struck dumb by Freemium Delirium in the presence of a “gifted” $400 million foreign jet. So enamored is he by the glittering concept of free, he fails to consider the trillion red flags waving in his face. No concern for spyware, sabotage, or sovereign dignity—just glee. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a battalion of analysts and mechanics is forced to gut the plane like a blue whale on an operating table, its metaphorical intestines stretched across five football fields, each component tagged, bagged, scanned, and ritually exorcised to ensure there’s no Cold War bug in the cupholder. The final bill? A billion dollars and the last shreds of taxpayer sanity. But sure, free.

  • Using ChatGPT to Analyze Writing Style, Rhetoric, and Audience Awareness in a College Writing Class

    Using ChatGPT to Analyze Writing Style, Rhetoric, and Audience Awareness in a College Writing Class

    Overview:
     This formative assessment is designed to help students use AI meaningfully—not to bypass the writing process, but to engage with it more critically. Students will practice writing a thesis, use ChatGPT to generate stylistic variations, and evaluate each version based on rhetorical effectiveness, audience awareness, and persuasive strength.

    This assignment prepares students not only to write more effectively but also to think more critically about how tone, voice, and purpose affect communication—skills essential for both academic writing and real-world professional contexts.

    Learning Objectives:

    • Understand how writing style affects audience, tone, and rhetorical effectiveness
    • Develop the ability to assess and refine thesis statements
    • Practice identifying ethos, pathos, and logos in writing
    • Learn to use AI (ChatGPT) as a rhetorical and stylistic tool—not a shortcut
    • Reflect on the capabilities and limits of AI-generated writing

    Context for Assignment:
     This activity is part of a larger essay assignment in which students argue that World War Z is a prophecy of the social and political madness that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. This exercise focuses on developing a strong thesis statement and analyzing its rhetorical potential across different styles.

    Step-by-Step Instructions for Students:

    1. Write Your Original Thesis:
       In class, develop a thesis (a clear, debatable claim) that responds to the prompt:
      Argue that World War Z is a prophecy of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social/political implications.
    2. Instructor Review:
       Show your thesis to your instructor. Once you receive approval, proceed to the next step.
    3. Use ChatGPT to Rewrite Your Thesis in 4 Distinct Styles:
       Enter the following four prompts (one at a time) into ChatGPT and paste your original thesis after each prompt:
      • “Rewrite the following thesis with acid wit.”
      • “Rewrite the following thesis with mild academic language and jargon.”
      • “Rewrite the following thesis with excessive academic language and jargon.”
      • “Rewrite the following thesis with confident, lucid prose.”
    4. Copy and Paste All 4 Rewritten Versions into your assignment document. Label each version clearly.
    5. Answer the Following Questions for Each Version:
      • How appropriate is this thesis for your intended audience (e.g., a college-level academic essay)?
      • Identify the use of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) in this version. How do these appeals shape your response to the thesis?
      • How persuasive does this version sound? What makes it convincing or unconvincing?
    6. Final Reflection:
      • Of the four thesis versions, which one would you most likely use in your actual essay, and why?
      • Based on this exercise, what do you believe are ChatGPT’s strengths and weaknesses as a writing assistant?

    What You’ll Submit:

    • Your original thesis
    • 4 rewritten versions from ChatGPT (clearly labeled)
    • Your answers to the rhetorical analysis questions for each version
    • A final reflection about your preferred version and ChatGPT’s usefulness as a tool

    The Purpose of the Exercise:
     In a world where AI is now a writing partner—wanted or not—students need to learn not just how to write, but how to critique writing, understand audience expectations, and adapt voice to purpose. This assignment bridges critical thinking, rhetoric, and digital literacy—helping students learn how to work with AI, not for it.

    Other Applications:

    This same exercise can be applied to the students’ counterargument-rebuttal and conclusion paragraphs. 

  • The Smoothie of Exile: A Dream of Paid Rejection

    The Smoothie of Exile: A Dream of Paid Rejection

    Last night, I dreamed my twin daughters and I joined what looked, at first glance, like a utopian community center—part fitness club, part cafe, part self-help retreat. The kind of place where earnest posters extol the virtues of “togetherness” and “belonging” in fonts that scream inclusion. There was a smoothie bar. A snack station. A lunch buffet curated by someone who probably used the phrase “elevated casual.” Discussion groups buzzed in breakout rooms, and the coffee lounge pulsed with laughter, back-pats, and the shared glow of collective smugness.

    But not for us.

    From the moment we arrived, we were treated like decorative ghosts—visible only enough to be politely ignored. The regulars were effervescent with each other, all air kisses and animated banter, but when it came to my daughters and me, they offered only the vacant glance you reserve for broken vending machines. At first, I rationalized it: we were new. They didn’t know us. Social ecosystems take time.

    Then the invoices started arriving. Yes, invoices—for a couple of smoothies, a shower, maybe a banana or two. The charges totaled over $200, wrapped in clinical fonts and passive-aggressive phrasing: “usage fee,” “non-member adjustment,” “community maintenance surcharge.” I considered paying them—not because they were fair, but because I foolishly believed acceptance might be purchasable, like premium seating at the theater of belonging.

    But no. The smiles never came. The warmth never thawed. And so, like exiles from Eden (if Eden had a kale bar), we left. Defeated, thirsty for something we couldn’t name, we wandered to a local supermarket and filled our cart with bottled drinks of every variety. Coconut water, green tea, mineral fizz—liquid substitutes for the affirmation we were denied. As if hydration might heal what inclusion had refused to.

  • Identifying and Coping with Neighborplexity

    Identifying and Coping with Neighborplexity

    My dear, respectable neighbors, the Pattersons have forced me to contend with Neighborplexity. Let me explain. For years, I lived in blissful harmony with these upstanding citizens—the kind of people who proudly displayed their New Yorker subscriptions and NPR tote bags like badges of intellectual honor. We had an unspoken pact, a mutual understanding that we were members of the Smart People’s Society, where the TV was reserved for documentaries, award-winning dramas, and the occasional indie film that required subtitles and a dictionary to understand.

    But then, one evening, as I casually glanced out my window—just a harmless peek, really—I saw something so grotesque, so utterly incomprehensible, that it shook me to my core. There, through the open window of my once-revered neighbors, I saw them glued to the screen—not just any screen, but one streaming a TV show so mind-numbingly lowbrow it made reality itself seem like a parody. My brain went into full-blown meltdown. Could it be? Were they actually watching Love Island?

    I blinked, hoping I’d misinterpreted the scene, but no—the horror was all too real. My neighbors, those paragons of taste and intellect, were indulging in what could only be described as televised garbage. I was struck down by a case of Neighborplexity: that gut-wrenching, mind-twisting moment when you realize you might not know the people next door at all. Suddenly, my world was flipped upside down. Had they always been this way? Were those book club meetings just a ruse, a clever cover-up for their secret love affair with trash TV? I felt like I’d just discovered that the Michelin-starred chef who lived down the block actually preferred dining on Spam straight out of the can.

    I thought we were united in our disdain for anything that wasn’t at least 95% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. But now? Now, I wasn’t so sure. How could they betray me like this? Was every dinner party, every casual chat about the latest literary masterpiece, just a well-orchestrated charade? My mind spun as I tried to reconcile the image of these seemingly cultured, well-spoken people with the reality of them willingly watching—gasp—that show.

    What do I do now? How do I move forward? Can I ever look them in the eye again, or will I be forever haunted by this dark revelation, this unraveling of the fabric of my once-idyllic neighborhood? All because of one dreadful, unforgivable act of poor taste on TV. Love Island, of all things. The horror! The betrayal! The absolute audacity! 

    To get through this ordeal, I must have a clear definition of Neighborplexity and study the coping mechanisms to help me deal with this. So here we go.

    Neighborplexity (n.): The psychological whiplash that occurs when your carefully curated perception of your neighbors—those tote-bag-wielding, podcast-quoting, fair-trade-coffee-brewing intellectuals—is shattered by the revelation that they voluntarily watch garbage television. One moment you’re nodding in mutual disdain over a New Yorker cartoon; the next, you’re watching them binge Love Island with the hungry intensity of someone decoding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neighborplexity induces spiritual vertigo, trust erosion, and the overwhelming sense that the social fabric of your ZIP code has been irreparably torn by sequins, fake tans, and manufactured drama. It is, in essence, a full-blown existential crisis brought on by a neighbor’s taste in television.

    7 Coping Mechanisms for Surviving Neighborplexity:

    1. Curated Amnesia – Tell yourself you didn’t see it. What open window? What TV screen? As far as you’re concerned, they were watching a Ken Burns documentary about soil.
    2. Projection Therapy – Assume it was ironic. They’re studying Love Island for a sociological thesis titled The Semiotics of Spray Tan.
    3. NPR Overdose – Immediately listen to four consecutive episodes of Fresh Air to flush out any lingering trash-TV toxins.
    4. Visual Recalibration – Replace your neighbor’s face with Tilda Swinton’s. At all times. It helps.
    5. Sarcastic Enlightenment – Convince yourself this is actually a deeper form of taste. Maybe Love Island is postmodern performance art and you’re the unsophisticated one.
    6. Emergency Sumatra Deployment – Brew the darkest, most self-righteous coffee you can find and sip it slowly while rereading Proust. This reminds you who you really are.
    7. Petty Book Club Coup – At the next meeting, accidentally bring up Love Island as a joke and watch their faces. Gauge their guilt. Proceed accordingly with social sanctions or passive-aggressive charcuterie.