Cinemorphosis

Category: technology

  • How My Smart Speaker Became the Dumbest Thing in the House

    How My Smart Speaker Became the Dumbest Thing in the House

    Six years ago, I embraced Alexa speakers with the optimism of a man welcoming the future into his home. These devices promised convenience, intelligence, and a frictionless life in which technology would obediently serve my every whim. Today, that dream lies in ruins.

    As I write this, a giant Alexa Studio speaker sits beneath my bedside table where I no longer have to look at it. It has effectively been placed in witness protection. Another Alexa occupies the primary bathroom, though it rarely speaks because my wife listens to podcasts on her phone. A third lives in the guest bathroom, unplugged and forgotten after my daughters abandoned it in favor of their phones and a portable Bluetooth speaker. Collectively, these devices have become technological tumbleweeds rolling through the corners of our house.

    The mere mention of Alexa now provokes a family-wide eye roll.

    The speakers are perpetually trying to be witty, personable, and charming. Instead, they often resemble a cruise ship comedian trapped inside a plastic cylinder. At their best, they are cheesy. At their worst, they are spectacularly idiotic. Sometimes they spontaneously awaken and begin discussing random subjects as though suffering from a digital nervous breakdown. Other times they interrupt life with yet another urgent beach hazard warning. We understand. The ocean is trying to kill us. Message received.

    The greater offense is that these devices routinely fail at the very task for which they were purchased. Nothing undermines faith in technological progress faster than shouting the same command three times while a glowing hockey puck confidently misunderstands you. Ask for Johann Sebastian Bach and it rewards you with heavy metal. Request a weather forecast and receive a podcast recommendation. Ask it to stop and it behaves as though you’ve spoken ancient Sumerian.

    This is not the Jetsons.

    This is a laboratory experiment in which the guinea pigs have begun filing complaints.

    Over time I discovered a simple truth: the less I interacted with Alexa, the happier I became. Since anger management is an important component of my long-term survival strategy, I gradually demoted the Studio speaker from trusted companion to emergency backup. It now resides beneath the side table like a disgraced cabinet member exiled from public life.

    Its replacement is a Father’s Day gift: a Marshall Stanmore III.

    A few weeks ago, I replaced an Alexa device in the kitchen with a Marshall Acton III. The experience was revelatory. No wake words. No unsolicited commentary. No beach alerts. No attempts at stand-up comedy. Just music delivered immediately and competently from my smartphone to a handsome speaker that understands the revolutionary concept of doing one thing well.

    The Acton impressed me so much that I decided to acquire its larger sibling for the bedroom. The Stanmore delivers more power, richer sound, and, perhaps most importantly, silence when silence is desired.

    I enjoy these Marshall speakers immensely, but I would be lying if I said my motivation was purely audiophile enthusiasm.

    Part of me wanted revenge.

    For years, Alexa interrupted conversations, misheard commands, issued irrelevant warnings, and generally behaved like an overeager intern determined to prove its usefulness. Replacing those speakers with Marshalls felt less like upgrading my audio system and more like terminating an employee whose performance reviews had become impossible to ignore.

    The future arrived, overstayed its welcome, and got reassigned to a dark corner beneath my bedside table.

  • The Last Voyage of Captain Wrist Presence

    The Last Voyage of Captain Wrist Presence

    As you grow older, some of the things that once enchanted you begin to lose their magic. The familiar tingle of anticipation fades. The objects remain the same, but the spell weakens. If that enchantment is tied to a shared passion—a hobby, a subculture, a tribe—you will eventually find yourself drifting away from the people who still feel its pull. You will resist at first. You will tell yourself that nothing has changed. But something has. Eventually, the separation becomes undeniable.

    You have undergone Hobby Drift: the slow, often involuntary separation from a hobby community that occurs when one’s interests, priorities, and sources of meaning evolve in different directions from those of fellow enthusiasts.

    When I think about Hobby Drift, I think about watches.

    Over the past twenty years, I have forged more friendships through watches than I ever expected possible. Grown men from around the world bonded by steel bracelets, dial colors, lume shots, and the feverish conviction that the perfect collection was only one purchase away. Watch collecting is a peculiar brotherhood. Half support group, half addiction clinic. We compare scars from impulse purchases and premature sales. We confess our relapses. We laugh at our own insanity while secretly browsing for the next acquisition.

    My own horological delirium began in 2005 when I was forty-three years old and convinced that mechanical watches were tiny machines capable of repairing the machinery inside me.

    Twenty years disappeared in a blur of rotating bezels, sapphire crystals, and “just-in-case” divers purchased for adventures that never materialized.

    My attraction to watches is too complicated to reduce to a single cause, but vanity was certainly among the chief conspirators. I was obsessed with what collectors call “wrist presence.” I would see an actor on television wearing an expensive watch and become convinced that the watch was somehow responsible for his confidence, authority, and charisma. I wanted that presence. I wanted that commanding aura. I wanted the illusion of completeness.

    Even then I understood the thought was ridiculous.

    Unfortunately, understanding folly and escaping it are two different things.

    I was an emotional child afflicted with Horological Completionism: the recurring fantasy that one more watch purchase will finally complete one’s collection, identity, or emotional life.

    Then, at sixty-four, mortality tapped me on the shoulder.

    The watch hobby’s siren song did not disappear. It simply became quieter.

    The obsession remained, but something fundamental changed. After two decades, desire finally dimmed beneath the growing awareness that timepieces are no match for time itself. I still wear my watches. I still admire them. But they no longer occupy prime real estate inside my head.

    I have undergone Chronological Surrender: the acceptance that no collection of clocks, watches, calendars, or timekeeping devices can grant mastery over time itself.

    The result was an unexpected misalignment.

    Many younger collectors remained in a state of Horological Messianism: the belief that the next watch will deliver transformation, completion, confidence, status, or personal salvation.

    I do not judge them because I know exactly how it feels.

    I was them.

    Wisdom did not cure me.

    Age did.

    I did not reason my way out of the obsession. I simply reached a point where the obsession could no longer sustain itself. Mortality walked into the room and changed the conversation.

    What frightens me is not losing the hobby.

    What frightens me is losing the community.

    For more than twenty years, watches provided connection, friendship, conversation, and belonging. To drift away from the hobby is, in some sense, to drift away from a part of myself.

    Yet as unsettling as this misalignment is, another one frightens me even more.

    My younger colleagues.

    While I prepare for retirement, they are building careers. They are refining lectures, designing courses, earning tenure, publishing work, and imagining futures that stretch decades ahead of them.

    Their careers are in blossom.

    Mine is entering autumn.

    My final year in the classroom has made me acutely aware of Generational Divergence: the growing separation between individuals at different stages of life, where the same institution simultaneously represents arrival for one generation and departure for another.

    The divergence is occurring in two places at once.

    The watch hobby.

    The college classroom.

    I cannot stop either process.

    The current is too strong.

    I feel less like a participant than a passenger being carried somewhere I did not choose to go.

    At times the sensation resembles exile.

    It reminds me of a scene from Battlestar Galactica. A condemned traitor stands behind a pane of glass as the airlock hisses. He pleads. The crew watches silently. No one is cruel. No one is angry. The decision has simply been made.

    The hatch opens.

    The separation becomes permanent.

    That is what aging sometimes feels like.

    Not tragedy.

    Not injustice.

    Just inevitability.

    There comes a point when those still living inside the warm illusion of endless tomorrows begin, without realizing it, to drift away from those who have glimpsed the shrinking horizon.

    A pane of glass descends.

    Not hostile.

    Not malicious.

    Just real.

    You tap on the glass and wave, hoping to climb back into the cockpit of youth’s ambitions, anxieties, and grand illusions.

    But the hatch has already sealed.

    There is no reentry.

    There is only the quieter work that remains: embracing the season you have been given, building meaning instead of collections, and helping younger travelers navigate a road whose ending they cannot yet see—but inevitably will.

  • The Garage Door That Aged Me

    The Garage Door That Aged Me

    I miss my old Genie garage door opener and the vanished age of competence it represented. The old Genie operated according to a refreshingly primitive philosophy: electricity goes in, button gets pushed, garage door goes up. It demanded nothing more from its owner than a functioning thumb and a basic understanding of cause and effect. It belonged to a world where machines served human beings rather than requiring human beings to audition for the privilege of operating them.

    The new Genie belongs to a different civilization entirely. It greets you like a twenty-year-old Silicon Valley intern conducting a security clearance. Before the garage door will consent to rise six feet into the air, you must download an app, create an account, verify an email address, enable Bluetooth, grant permissions, update firmware, agree to seventeen pages of terms and conditions, and perhaps burn a small offering before the altar of the Cloud. The old Genie made you feel like the master of a machine. The new Genie makes you feel like a bewildered medieval peasant petitioning an invisible digital bureaucracy. Nothing reminds an aging homeowner of his mortality quite like discovering that the garage door now speaks fluent smartphone while he still speaks fluent button.

    Wanting buttons instead of apps is a sign of misalignment. The older I get, the more I recognize this condition. Misalignment occurs when the world quietly changes languages while you continue speaking the old one. It is one of the defining afflictions of the geriatric class. At sixty-four, I found myself replacing the Genie of Old with the Genie of New, and I required assistance from my wife. This was not a proud moment.

    Together we entered the garage. I watched as she climbed a ladder, removed the white plastic cover from the unit, located the Bluetooth button hidden somewhere in its technological intestines, and synchronized our phones. She programmed the second remote I had purchased from Amazon. She solved every problem that had defeated me. When I thanked her, she responded with the kind of observation only a spouse can deliver: gentle in tone, devastating in effect.

    I was, she explained, exactly like one of her sixth-graders. I had no patience. I wanted the universe to suspend operations until my problems were solved. Unfortunately, the universe had declined my request. New problems kept arriving. New technologies kept appearing. My misalignment with the world kept widening.

    At that moment, I realized I had entered a new phase of life. I was no longer merely impatient. I was becoming dependent. My brain still functioned perfectly well, but it no longer possessed the elasticity it once had. Technology evolved like a city rebuilding itself overnight. I evolved with the speed of continental drift.

    In that moment of horror, my thoughts turned to Moria.

    When you’re old, you must prepare for what I call Morian Drift: the gradual sensation that the world has moved on without you, leaving you to wander through the ruins of once-intuitive systems while younger people navigate effortlessly through technological labyrinths you barely understand.

    Moria was once the magnificent underground kingdom of the dwarves, a city of glittering halls, colossal pillars, and staggering wealth. But the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. They awakened the Balrog, a primordial demon of shadow and fire, and their civilization collapsed into ruin. By the time the Fellowship arrives, Moria has become a haunted tomb filled with darkness, crumbling bridges, and the lingering memory of greatness.

    That is how aging sometimes feels.

    You find yourself standing on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, staring at a technological Balrog that younger generations dismiss as a routine software update.

    The Balrog itself is one of Tolkien’s great monsters: a towering demon wrapped in shadow and flame, carrying a fiery whip and trailing a serpentine tail. It embodies chaos, power, and the consequences of pursuing progress without restraint. During the battle, Gandalf confronts the beast upon the bridge. He wins. The bridge shatters. The monster falls.

    Then comes the whip.

    As the Balrog plunges into the abyss, its fiery lash coils around Gandalf’s legs and drags him down into the darkness. The injury is not merely physical. It becomes a life-altering ordeal that carries him through the depths of Moria and up the Endless Stair. The battle ultimately kills him. Victory itself becomes the instrument of his destruction.

    That image stayed with me as I stared at the new Genie opener.

    The garage door was my Balrog.

    Not because it was especially difficult. Not because Bluetooth pairing is inherently terrifying. But because it revealed a truth I had been trying not to notice. My accumulated competence had encountered a new reality and failed. The problem was not the garage door. The problem was the widening gap between myself and the world I inhabited.

    The new Genie delivered what I now call a Balrog Moment: the sudden realization that one’s hard-earned expertise no longer guarantees mastery, forcing a confrontation with aging, obsolescence, and the necessity of reinvention.

    After defeating the Balrog, Gandalf dies. Later he explains his experience in a single haunting sentence:

    “I strayed out of thought and time.”

    That line has haunted me for years because it captures something profound about growing older. You wake up one day and discover that the culture, the technology, and the assumptions that once felt natural have drifted away from you. You have not left the world. The world has left you.

    Fortunately, Gandalf does not remain dead. He returns transformed. The old wizard gives way to a new one. He emerges wiser, stronger, and better suited to the task ahead.

    That is the lesson I took from my garage-door apocalypse.

    The new Genie showed me that I had strayed out of thought and time. But it also showed me that the answer is not surrender. The answer is reinvention. The alternative is permanent residence in Moria, wandering among the ruins while the rest of civilization marches onward without you.

  • The Great E-Bike Menace

    The Great E-Bike Menace

    I live in Torrance, where over the past few years I have watched an invasive species establish itself on our streets: the teenage e-bike rider. They dart through traffic at unpredictable speeds, weave between cars as though participating in an unauthorized video game, perform wheelies in busy intersections, blow through stop signs with religious devotion, and occasionally taunt motorists who have the misfortune of sharing the road with them. Most appear blissfully unaware of the danger they create. A smaller but more troubling minority seem fully aware and simply do not care.

    The problem has steadily worsened. A few months ago, during a night of heavy rain, I watched three teenage e-bike riders navigate the intersection of Torrance Boulevard and Anza Avenue. The roads were slick, visibility was poor, and the conditions were dangerous even for experienced drivers. Yet there they were, riding through the storm with the confidence of young people who have not yet learned that physics is undefeated.

    For that reason, I was not surprised to read Salvador Hernandez’s Los Angeles Times article, “California’s New Hell’s Angels: Teens on E-Bikes Cut a Path of Danger.” Hernandez describes much of what residents like me have witnessed firsthand. Among the incidents he recounts is the death of an elderly man who was struck by a fourteen-year-old riding recklessly on an e-bike. The problem has grown serious enough that law enforcement agencies are developing specialized responses. Police departments have begun cracking down on illegally modified e-bikes that exceed state regulations, and in Orange County authorities have created dedicated task forces to pursue dangerous riders.

    Many parents remain unaware that California recognizes three distinct classes of e-bikes.

    Class 1 bikes use pedal assist only and have a maximum speed of twenty miles per hour. They are permitted for riders of all ages and require helmets.

    Class 2 bikes combine pedal assist with a throttle and are also limited to twenty miles per hour. They too are available to riders of all ages and require helmets.

    Class 3 bikes use pedal assist and can reach twenty-eight miles per hour. Riders must be at least sixteen years old and wear helmets.

    All three classes are required to display a visible label identifying their classification, though one suspects that some of today’s young speed merchants regard regulatory labels with roughly the same respect they show stop signs.

    Like many public-safety problems, this one seems destined to become worse before it gets better. Driving in Los Angeles was already a test of patience before the arrival of the e-bike era. The city had long mastered the arts of congestion, stress, discourtesy, and occasional road rage. The addition of e-bikes has introduced a fresh layer of chaos. Every morning when I drive my daughters to school, I encounter a gauntlet of obstacles: teenagers weaving through traffic, ignoring traffic laws, and treating the safety of others as an optional consideration.

    The irony is that e-bikes themselves are not the problem. Used responsibly, they are efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly. The problem is the culture that has developed around them—a culture that often treats traffic laws as suggestions and regards reckless behavior as a form of entertainment.

    Where I live, pulling to the side of the road for emergency vehicles is a routine occurrence. We have both Little Company of Mary and Torrance Memorial nearby, and sirens are part of the local soundtrack. Perhaps the increase in emergency activity has nothing to do with e-bikes. Perhaps it is merely my imagination. But after watching teenagers launch themselves through intersections on machines capable of twenty-eight miles per hour while possessing the judgment of teenagers, I cannot help suspecting that at least some of those sirens are chasing the inevitable consequences of youthful overconfidence meeting the laws of motion.

  • When Evil Goes Viral

    When Evil Goes Viral

    In “Andrew Tate’s Empire of Abuse,” Heidi Blake examines the disturbing world built by influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan from their base in a wealthy enclave north of Bucharest known as the American Village. What emerges is not merely a pornography business but an entire ideology. According to Blake’s reporting, the Tate brothers are accused of recruiting and exploiting women while simultaneously constructing an online empire designed to sell young men a vision of unrestrained power. Through a private network called the War Room, Tate promises liberation from what he describes as the imprisonment of conventional morality. In its place, he offers a creed of domination in which women become trophies, commodities, or servants to male desire. One woman’s experience illustrates the cruelty of this worldview. After recruiting her, Tate reportedly subjected her to humiliation, financed cosmetic procedures, and had the words “Tate Owned” tattooed on her body, branding another human being as though she were property.

    Tate’s worldview is so grotesque that it often feels less like reality than an abandoned screenplay rejected for lacking subtlety. Hollywood villains are usually granted complexity, vulnerability, or redeeming traits. Tate seems determined to eliminate all such nuances. He openly cultivates the image of a man who views empathy as weakness and domination as virtue. Yet what makes him truly alarming is not the extremity of his beliefs but the enthusiasm with which he markets them. Tate does not hide from accusations of evil. Instead, he recasts himself as a prophet. To his followers, he presents himself as a shepherd leading lost men toward a promised land of wealth, sexual conquest, and absolute freedom from moral restraint.

    The nightmare grows darker when one considers the size of his audience. Tate possesses what our culture increasingly values above wisdom, character, or integrity: clout. He commands a vast social-media following and uses it to promote a lifestyle assembled from luxury watches, cigars, supercars, conspicuous wealth, and an aggressively performative version of masculinity. His genius, if one can call it that, lies in understanding the mechanics of attention. In an age where visibility often substitutes for virtue, influence itself becomes evidence of success. The result is that millions of young men encounter Tate not as a fringe extremist but as a glamorous symbol of aspiration.

    Tate is also intensely political. He boasts of shifting the Overton window, expanding the boundaries of what can be publicly said and tolerated. In his telling, this is a triumph. In reality, it often resembles an effort to normalize ideas that were once regarded as beyond the pale. The objective is not simply to win arguments but to redefine the moral landscape itself, widening the escape hatch through which cruelty, misogyny, and contempt can pass into public life disguised as courage or authenticity.

    When Tate faced arrest on human-trafficking charges, he was defended by a collection of prominent allies and media figures who viewed him as useful to broader political and cultural battles. In a polarized age, alliances are increasingly forged not through shared principles but through shared enemies. The question ceases to be whether a person is decent and becomes whether that person can help advance a cause. Under such conditions, moral judgment is replaced by strategic calculation.

    It has often been said that shamelessness is a superpower. There is truth in that observation. Shame restrains. Conscience hesitates. Moral reflection slows us down. The shameless suffer from none of these inconveniences. They can say anything, excuse anything, and justify anything. But if shamelessness is a superpower, it is one purchased at a tremendous cost. To embrace figures like Tate is to announce that power matters more than virtue and influence more than decency. It is to make one’s bargain with the devil publicly visible.

    What Blake’s article ultimately reveals is not merely the story of Andrew Tate but the story of a culture increasingly intoxicated by clout. In a society obsessed with metrics, followers, engagement, and influence, visibility itself becomes a moral credential. The result is a world in which people who openly celebrate cruelty can become celebrities while those who practice humility and integrity are rewarded with obscurity. Tate thrives because he understands this reality better than most. He has discovered that in the attention economy, notoriety often pays better than goodness. The tragedy is not simply that men like Andrew Tate exist. The tragedy is that so many people have decided he is worth following.

  • Gimpel in the Age of Clout

    Gimpel in the Age of Clout

    During the last several months, I have found myself thinking about a word that appears everywhere in the manosphere and influencer culture: clout. The word carries the scent of raw power and money. It implies that deception, manipulation, and cleverness are not merely acceptable but admirable, provided they produce influence. The idea depresses me because the merchants of clout often succeed. They accumulate followers by the millions, preaching a form of practical nihilism in which visibility becomes the highest good. Every religion has its devil, and the devil of clout has an opposite: obscurity. In the attention economy, we possess endless metrics for measuring who matters and who does not. Once we accept those metrics, we become captives of a grotesque vision of optimization. As I contemplate this folly, I find myself haunted by Isaac Bashevis Singer’s short story Gimpel the Fool.

    Gimpel is an orphan, a misfit, and a lovable man-child wandering the streets of Frampol. He possesses a sweetness so genuine that it appears almost supernatural. The townspeople, by contrast, pride themselves on their irony, cynicism, and cleverness. Because Gimpel is trusting, they become addicted to deceiving him. They lie to him, mock him, trick him, and turn him into a public spectacle whenever the opportunity presents itself. His innocence functions like catnip for the town’s cruelty.

    Gimpel’s only true ally is the rabbi, who insists that Gimpel is no fool at all. The real fools are those who delight in evil and humiliation. They mistake malice for intelligence. Gimpel, on the other hand, radiates goodness. Singer’s story repeatedly suggests that goodness and foolishness are not the same thing, even if the world often confuses them.

    When Gimpel expresses a desire to leave town, he is persuaded to marry Elka, who turns out to be the exact opposite of the pure and virtuous maiden he has been promised. Elka openly admits she is no innocent, yet demands that she be treated with dignity. Gimpel agrees, and they marry. Before long, Elka gives birth to a child that is plainly not his.

    Yet Gimpel loves the boy anyway. He devotes himself to the child and gradually comes to love Elka as well. His devotion is not rewarded. Elka treats him with contempt. While he works, she entertains other men and continually rejects his attempts at affection. The rabbi urges Gimpel to divorce her, but he cannot bring himself to do it. Instead, he continues supporting Elka and her children with money, food, and patience.

    For twenty years he remains loyal to a woman who repeatedly betrays him. Elka eventually bears six children, none of whom appear to be his. Then she falls ill and dies. Her final request is simple: that Gimpel forgive her. Reflecting on her life, he imagines her summing it up with a bleak confession: “I deceived Gimpel. That was the meaning of my brief life.”

    After her death, the Spirit of Evil visits Gimpel and offers him a tempting form of revenge. The townspeople have mocked him his entire life. Why not repay them? Why not urinate in the bakery’s bread dough and feed them corruption disguised as nourishment? When Gimpel hesitates, the spirit mocks his faith. There is no God, it says. There is no judgment. There is no meaning. The world is nothing but a swamp of lies. Seduced by resentment, Gimpel finally gives in and contaminates the dough.

    The act immediately wounds his conscience. Soon afterward, Elka appears to him in a dream. Wrapped in a burial shroud, she asks a single question: “What have you done, Gimpel?” He tries to blame her for his anger and bitterness, but she rejects the excuse. Her life may have been false, she tells him, but that does not mean all of life is false. She reveals that her deceptions have led her into profound suffering after death. When Gimpel looks at her face, he sees it consumed by darkness. The vision shocks him awake.

    Terrified by what he has done, Gimpel gathers the loaves and buries them in a chasm before anyone can eat them.

    Then he leaves Frampol.

    He gives provisions to his children and becomes a wanderer, drifting from place to place. Along the way he discovers that the world is overflowing with lies, yet no lie remains hidden forever. Every deception eventually reveals a truth. Every fraud leaves a trail. Even dreams become witnesses against those who seek to escape reality.

    As he travels, Gimpel accumulates stories. He learns that humanity is capable of every vice imaginable and that today’s absurdity often becomes tomorrow’s reality. Yet he also discovers that people hunger for meaning. They crave stories because stories impose order on a world that frequently resembles chaos. Gimpel becomes a storyteller, and audiences gather around him because his tales help them navigate a universe that often seems abandoned to cynicism and nihilism.

    In old age, he still dreams of Elka. He remembers her betrayals, but he remembers her with tenderness rather than bitterness. It is as though the generosity of his own heart gradually redeems her memory. The woman who spent her life deceiving him becomes, in recollection, the woman she might have been.

    The story ends with Gimpel reflecting that the world itself may be a kind of illusion. We may be little more than shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. Yet Singer’s point is not that truth is unattainable. It is that truth exists beyond our distortions. We are always one breath away from a more real world. The response to deception is not greater deception. The response to nihilism is not surrender. We must live with goodness, integrity, and faith. Otherwise, in our pursuit of clout, cleverness, and self-interest, we become the fools we imagined ourselves too sophisticated to be.

  • Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

    One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

    In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

  • The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    Fiction instructor Walt Hunt’s essay “The Death of the Reader” begins with a development that would have sounded absurd only a few years ago: an AI-assisted short story winning a major literary prize. The winning story, Jamir Nazir’s “The Serpent in the Grove,” took home the Granta Commonwealth Short Story Prize, prompting the now-familiar debate about authenticity. Was the story really written by a human? How much AI was involved? Can anyone tell the difference anymore? Hunt acknowledges that AI-generated prose often leaves fingerprints—certain stylistic tics, tonal smoothness, and suspiciously frictionless sentences that alert attentive readers. But he argues that critics are fixated on the wrong problem. The true casualty of AI fiction is not the writer. It is the reader.

    Before the arrival of AI-generated literature, reading rested on a fragile but meaningful act of trust. A reader entered a private room where another consciousness was waiting. Across centuries, continents, and cultures, readers formed intimate relationships with authors they would never meet. The writer offered a distinctive voice, a recognizable sensibility, a particular way of seeing the world. Sometimes the writer was a provocateur. Sometimes a companion. Sometimes a guide carrying a lantern through the darker corridors of human experience. Whatever form the relationship took, readers believed there was another person on the other side of the page.

    Now there is Claude.

    Claude is not a novelist struggling with heartbreak, obsession, grief, jealousy, or longing. Claude has never stared at a hospital ceiling at three in the morning. Claude has never fallen in love, buried a parent, betrayed a friend, or sat alone with regret. Claude is not a presence. It is a process. And because readers know this, a corrosive uncertainty enters the reading experience.

    What am I reading?

    Who wrote this?

    Did anyone write this?

    Does it matter?

    The machine turns every page into a cross-examination.

    Hunt argues that this uncertainty damages the reader more profoundly than it damages the author. The old covenant between writer and reader begins to dissolve. In its place emerges suspicion. Instead of surrendering to a voice, readers interrogate it. Instead of entering solitude, they become detectives hunting for evidence of fraud. Every elegant sentence becomes a potential counterfeit. Every emotional insight becomes grounds for skepticism.

    As Hunt observes, readers increasingly adopt a style of reading that is “self-conscious, hyperaware, restless, and anxiety-driven.” The reading experience becomes less like entering a cathedral and more like passing through airport security. We no longer relax into the rhythm of a trusted voice. We remain on guard, scanning for contraband signs of machine authorship.

    This defensive posture may prove fatal to the deepest pleasures of literature. Great reading requires vulnerability. It requires a willingness to let another mind rearrange your own. It requires trust. If every text becomes a potential deception, then reading loses its sense of encounter and becomes an exercise in verification. The reader ceases to ask, “What is this work trying to tell me?” and begins asking, “Who—or what—wrote this?”

    That shift may be the most consequential literary event of the AI age. The danger is not merely that machines will write books. The danger is that they will transform readers into skeptics incapable of the very surrender that literature requires. Long after the arguments about authorship fade, the deeper loss may remain: the disappearance of the sacred bond between a solitary reader and a solitary voice.

  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • The Sin of Outsourcing Humanity

    The Sin of Outsourcing Humanity

    For Tyler Austin Harper, there is only one word that captures the gravity of dehumanization: sin. And to be clear, dehumanization is rampant—in the form of robot companions, digital girlfriends, and AI therapists. To call these developments merely wrong is an understatement. He writes, “They feel to me like something deeper and darker.” In his essay “There Is Already a Word for the Deep Moral Failures of AI: It’s Sin,” Harper argues that to understand the depths of what is happening to us, we need Christian guides because Christianity provides a framework for understanding dehumanization. You cannot understand dehumanization unless you first understand what it means to be fully human. Harper turns to Christian critics of AI to trace this trajectory from human to subhuman through the misuse of technology.

    These misuses emerge when people overemphasize the business, pragmatic, and utilitarian uses of AI at the expense of humanity, a Faustian bargain as old as sin itself. To champion technology and “outsource the most interesting aspects of our life and labor to machines” without considering the effects on the human soul is to threaten human dignity and meaning.

    Christianity frames us as fallen creatures who long to return to our Maker. The burden of being human is struggling with our fallen nature and seeking grace through God. When we look to machines for salvation, we outsource the burden of what it means to be human. In doing so, we forget that this burden entails suffering and that suffering itself can be a gift from God, pointing us toward humility and the true path. In Harper’s words, “Christianity has a clear ‘anthropological vision,’ asserting that the purpose of the human species is to exist in the image of its creator, to love God and one another, and to spread life on Earth and steward its creatures.” To move toward this purpose is to become fully human. We conform to God and fulfill our humanity. Conforming ourselves to machines, by contrast, becomes a desecration of what it means to be human.

    Harper argues that outside the Christian framework, we become confused about what it means to be human in the first place. He writes, “Many secular thinkers can struggle to articulate a clear definition of what humanity is.” He points to Christian writer Carl Trueman, who observes that the term dehumanization loses its force if the secular definition of humanization remains an “empty cipher.” Secularists and techno-believers have reduced humanization to a narrow set of superficial behaviors that fail to capture what it truly means to carry the burden of having a soul.

    Harper describes himself as “a not especially observant Presbyterian” and is not arguing that we must embrace religious orthodoxy to “fully appreciate the challenge posed by the rise of AI.” However, he insists that we “must start from the premise that humans have some kind of universal nature or essence that must be safeguarded from technological encroachment.”

    Harper’s article reminds me of the dangers of Liquid Modernity, a concept developed by Zygmunt Bauman. Bauman describes a social condition in which stable institutions, identities, relationships, careers, moral frameworks, and communities dissolve into constant flux, instability, and adaptation. In the context of dehumanization and the rise of AI, Liquid Modernity refers to the transformation of human beings from rooted persons with durable social bonds into endlessly flexible, data-driven consumers and performers who must continuously reinvent themselves to survive technological and economic disruption.

    Societies that lack a tradition defining humanization may ultimately surrender to the doctrine that Liquid Modernity is both desirable and inevitable—a condition in which human beings outsource the burden of being human to machines.