Cinemorphosis

Category: technology

  • No One Wants Your Beautifully Written Blog Post

    No One Wants Your Beautifully Written Blog Post

    As I have continued writing my blog and adapting some of those pieces into video essays for YouTube, I have begun to understand that writing and video are not simply two delivery systems for the same material. They make different demands on an idea, attract radically different audiences, and increasingly occupy different positions in a culture saturated with algorithmic and AI-generated language.

    The first lesson is what I call the Medium Stress Test. An idea that works perfectly well as a blog post may die the moment I imagine myself sitting in front of a camera talking about it for eight minutes. Writing gives an idea certain protections. A reader can stop, reread a sentence, skim a paragraph, or admire an interesting digression. Video is less forgiving. The subject needs momentum. It needs stakes. It needs a reason for someone not to click on a video of a bear breaking into a Subaru.

    This makes the video essay a useful test of my own material. Before I record, I find myself asking harder questions. Is there really an idea here? Is there tension? Does the argument develop? Is there something at the end that wasn’t obvious at the beginning? The camera is a ruthless editor. It stares back at me without encouragement and asks the question every writer would prefer to avoid: Is this actually interesting?

    That pressure is good for me. Video forces me to compress, sharpen, and dramatize ideas that might have survived comfortably on the page in a more leisurely form. In that sense, making videos does not compete with my writing. It interrogates it.

    The second lesson is harder for someone who has spent most of his life teaching writing to accept: people are far more willing to watch than read.

    A blog post that receives twenty or thirty visits over the course of a month can become a video that receives more than a thousand views in twenty-four hours. These numbers are not subtle. They do not require advanced statistical analysis. The audience has voted with its eyeballs.

    I could respond by lamenting the death of reading, shaking my fist at TikTok, and retreating into my study with a copy of The Brothers Karamazov. That might be emotionally satisfying, but it would not alter the numbers. If I want my ideas to travel beyond a small circle of dedicated readers, I have to reckon with the culture that exists rather than the one I would prefer to exist.

    But I don’t think the migration from prose to video can be explained entirely by shrinking attention spans. Something has also happened to written language itself.

    Call it Linguistic Flattening.

    We now inhabit an environment in which algorithms reward familiar forms of expression while generative AI can manufacture competent prose in industrial quantities. Certain words, rhythms, transitions, metaphors, and argumentative structures circulate so widely that they begin to lose their fingerprints. The writing may be polished. It may be grammatically impeccable. It may even be clever. Yet increasingly it produces the eerie sensation that you’ve read it before.

    Social media accelerates the process. A successful phrase gets repeated, imitated, parodied, optimized, and reproduced until language that once seemed fresh acquires the smoothness of a pebble handled by ten thousand people. Generative AI adds another machine to this process. It absorbs rhetorical patterns and reproduces variations of them at enormous scale. What begins as voice becomes mannerism; mannerism becomes formula; formula becomes cliché.

    This does not mean great writing will disappear. A writer such as Helen Lewis can still attract a large readership because readers recognize a particular intelligence behind the prose. But even a writer of her stature can reach vastly more people by appearing on a popular podcast that subsequently circulates on YouTube. The contemporary audience increasingly wants not merely the argument but the person making the argument.

    This leads to the third lesson, and perhaps the most important one for me: the Embodied-Fingerprint Principle.

    When I write a blog post, readers encounter my language. When I make a video, they encounter me.

    My voice enters the argument. So do my cadence, facial expressions, pauses, gestures, irritations, hesitations, and improvisations. I may begin with a script, but I inevitably depart from it. A sentence occurs to me in the moment. I emphasize a word differently than I expected. I become amused by my own example. Something happens between the prepared language and the person speaking it.

    That something is difficult to reproduce.

    Generative AI can imitate prose styles. Algorithms can identify successful formats. Other writers can borrow rhetorical devices. But the peculiar combination of a person’s face, voice, timing, vocabulary, temperament, physical presence, and spontaneous thought constitutes something closer to an individual fingerprint.

    This may become increasingly important as artificial intelligence makes polished language cheap. For most of human history, a well-written essay provided reasonably strong evidence that someone had sat alone and struggled to produce it. That assumption is disappearing. A perfectly competent thousand-word essay can now materialize in seconds.

    Video changes the evidentiary equation. There is a human being sitting in front of you, inhabiting the language.

    The Embodied-Fingerprint Principle therefore suggests that the apparent limitation of video is actually its advantage. Ideas cannot be separated cleanly from the imperfect human creature delivering them. The body becomes part of the authorship.

    This realization changes the way I think about my YouTube videos. I originally regarded them as adaptations of my writing, a secondary format for people who would rather watch something than read it. I now think that hierarchy may be wrong. The video essay is its own form, and it allows me to do something the blog cannot fully accomplish: combine written language with embodied presence.

    The Medium Stress Test makes the ideas stronger. Linguistic Flattening makes distinctive written language harder to preserve. The Embodied-Fingerprint Principle gives me a way to resist that flattening by putting the person back inside the prose.

    So I will continue writing. I need writing to discover what I think.

    But increasingly, I may need video to prove that someone is still there doing the thinking.

  • I’m Going to Die, Therefore I Need 64GB of RAM

    I’m Going to Die, Therefore I Need 64GB of RAM

     Retirement presents an indignity nobody adequately warns you about: obscurity.

    For forty years, you had a schedule. People expected you somewhere. Students waited for you. Colleagues knew your name. Your calendar was crowded with obligations you routinely complained about but which nevertheless performed the useful service of confirming your existence. Then you retire, and Tuesday morning opens before you like an abandoned airport runway.

    Nobody needs you at nine.

    Nobody needs you at eleven.

    By two in the afternoon, you have completed your workout, eaten lunch, taken a restorative nap, and begun examining your navel with the concentration of an archaeologist studying the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Worse, your professional title has vanished. You are no longer Professor. You are Jeff, some guy standing in Costco comparing two enormous packages of toilet paper. The institution that once supplied your identity has withdrawn its sponsorship. Your lower lip begins to tremble. You feel the existential weight of your own irrelevance.

    And then you remember something.

    You have money.

    More money, in fact, than you expected to have. For decades, you saved because responsible adults save. You contributed to retirement accounts, paid down debt, avoided idiotic purchases, and watched the numbers accumulate. Now you have arrived at the future you were saving for and discovered an unforeseen psychological complication.

    You are going to die.

    Suddenly, the swollen savings account looks less like prudence and more like inventory left in a warehouse scheduled for demolition.

    “It’s my money!” you shout at nobody in particular. “By God, I’m going to enjoy it before they carry me out of here!”

    This is not an ideal frame of mind in which to open a web browser.

    Within minutes, you are examining a state-of-the-art Lenovo ThinkPad. Sixty-four gigabytes of RAM. Gorgeous keyboard. Magnificent processor. Enough computational power to edit a feature film while simultaneously modeling climate change. You are not a content creator. You write essays in Google Docs. Your existing computer performs this task without detectable distress.

    No matter.

    You deserve the ThinkPad.

    Then comes the G-Shock Frogman, the Master of G watch engineered for professional divers. Sapphire crystal. Multiband 6. Depth sensor. Dive functions. A magnificent piece of Japanese overengineering designed to accompany a man into hostile underwater environments.

    You spend most afternoons on a couch reinforced with a four-inch camping mattress.

    Still, one never knows when deep-sea saturation diving might break out in Torrance.

    Then you begin pricing a loaded Honda Accord Hybrid. Heated seats. Premium audio. Wireless Apple CarPlay. Excellent fuel economy. You drive perhaps two thousand miles a year, which means the gasoline savings may become financially significant sometime during the reign of your great-grandchildren.

    You want it anyway.

    You have succumbed to the Mortality-Spending Reflex: the late-life compulsion to medicate retirement’s loss of identity, structure, and professional importance through increasingly premium consumer goods. Mortality supplies the urgency. Consumerism supplies the anesthetic.

    For forty years, the question governing an unnecessary purchase was simple: Can I afford this?

    Retirement introduces a much more dangerous question: What exactly am I saving the money for?

    This is where perfectly reasonable financial logic begins acquiring the feverish quality of a man shopping during an evacuation. You cannot take the money with you. True. You worked hard for it. True. You should enjoy some of it while you’re healthy. Absolutely true.

    Therefore you need a $1,300 dive watch capable of measuring water depth while you watch true-crime documentaries.

    The syllogism has deteriorated somewhere.

    The Mortality-Spending Reflex is particularly dangerous because it disguises itself as wisdom. It tells you that you have finally transcended your neurotic attachment to money. You are embracing life! Seizing the day! Refusing to die with a fat bank account!

    Yet Nietzsche’s Last Man is standing nearby with a shopping cart.

    He no longer has students, deadlines, professional status, or anywhere in particular to be Monday morning. But he can have 32 gigabytes of RAM, sapphire crystal, Multiband 6, heated seats, and wireless Apple CarPlay. Each purchase delivers a small electrical jolt of novelty, followed by acclimation, followed by the search for the next premium experience.

    Mortality has ceased being a philosophical problem.

    It has become a purchasing justification.

    And somewhere on the internet, another browser tab is already open.

  • Retirement. Now Nobody Can Stop You

    Retirement. Now Nobody Can Stop You

    When you retire, you are not merely leaving a job. You are being released from an institution.

    For decades, the institution surrounded you with structures you probably resented: schedules, protocols, meetings, deadlines, evaluations, committees, supervisors, colleagues, students, dress codes, parking permits, passwords that expired every ninety days, and online forms apparently designed by people who believed human suffering builds character. You dreamed of liberation.

    Then one day you get it.

    The restraints fall away. Nobody cares when you wake up. Nobody expects you anywhere at nine. Nobody notices whether you’ve showered, shaved, or spent the morning slowly merging with your bathrobe. Tuesday afternoon can be devoted to reading Dostoevsky or watching twenty-six consecutive YouTube videos comparing the Accord with the Camry even though you have no intention of buying either car. By video nineteen, you have strong opinions about rear-seat legroom.

    Welcome to freedom.

    Be careful.

    For most of your adult life, you benefited from the Institutional Guardrail Effect: the largely invisible system of expectations, routines, responsibilities, and social pressures that kept you moving down the highway like a reasonably functional adult. You may have believed that your discipline came entirely from within. Perhaps some of it did. But the institution was quietly helping. The alarm went off because you had somewhere to be. You shaved because other people had to look at you. You went to bed because tomorrow mattered.

    Then retirement removes the guardrails.

    You become unanchored.

    You become Disinhibited Man.

    Do not congratulate yourself too quickly.

    Before celebrating your radical freedom, reread Pinocchio. Not the adorable Disney version with the cricket and the catchy songs. Read Carlo Collodi’s considerably more savage story, written by a man who seemed to regard children as small criminals awaiting sufficient opportunity.

    The boys discover a paradise without adult supervision. No school. No responsibilities. No restraints. At first, it seems magnificent.

    Then they grow donkey ears.

    Human speech deteriorates into braying.

    Paradise becomes livestock management.

    Collodi understood something that retirement brochures generally omit: remove enough restraints from human beings and they don’t necessarily become Emerson at Walden Pond. Sometimes they become jackasses.

    This is Post-Institutional Disinhibition: the loosening of psychological and behavioral restraints after a person leaves the structures that previously regulated him. The danger isn’t that retirement gives you too little freedom. The danger is that it gives you enormous freedom without supplying the wisdom necessary to manage it.

    Don’t just reread Pinocchio. Read Jon Ronson’s The Castle: Adventures in a World of Unraveling Men. The book is an anthropological work of nonfiction about men severed from social structures and natural constraints. Their liberation does not produce serene philosophers strolling through gardens discussing Marcus Aurelius. It produces men increasingly beholden to the Raging Id.

    The results are not pretty.

    Freed from inconvenient restraints, these men descend into influencer-fed conspiracy theories, algorithmically amplified adolescent fantasies, white-male grievance monologues, and Ayn Rand-style declarations of heroic self-sufficiency delivered by men who probably cannot remember where they put the charger for their phone.

    Adulthood is not the featured condition.

    Regression is.

    These men don’t merely become eccentric. They begin to warp. Their personalities curl inward like fruit left too long in the sun. Grievances harden. Fantasies become philosophies. Algorithms locate every resentment and feed it weaponized testosterone.

    The results will be terrifying, especially to someone on the verge of becoming Disinhibited Man. But read Ronson’s book you must. Wielding his intellectual machete, he hacks through a thick Amazonian jungle of lost souls afflicted by curdled masculinity and Post-Institutional Disinhibition, clearing a path so the rest of us can see where unchecked freedom can lead. For that, be grateful.

    Consider The Castle required reading for a man approaching retirement. You need sobriety. You need wisdom. You need guardrails. You need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

    Preferably before you grow donkey ears.

  • Don’t Let Wilfred Replace Your Friends

    Don’t Let Wilfred Replace Your Friends

    As you set the machinery of retirement in motion and realize that the event is no longer theoretical, you will become frightened.

    Good.

    Fear means you understand what is happening.

    You are entering the twilight of your life. Your cognition is not as quick as it once was. Your body has begun issuing maintenance bulletins. Mortality, formerly an abstraction lurking somewhere beyond the horizon, has acquired better resolution.

    Be afraid.

    But be afraid normally, not pathologically. Don’t convert reasonable apprehension into catastrophe. Instead, regard fear as information. It is telling you that you have reached a consequential chapter of your life and that the way you live it matters.

    The first thing to understand is that your life is not a consumer experience.

    You cannot measure its quality the way you evaluate the interior of a Lexus: How quiet is it? How soft are the seats? How effectively have unpleasant sensations been eliminated?

    A frictionless life is not necessarily a good life.

    The quality of your life depends largely upon the quality of your engagement with the world. You engage with difficult ideas. You engage with your body. You engage with projects that frustrate you. Most importantly, you engage with other human beings—those magnificent nuisances who interrupt you, misunderstand you, contradict you, disappoint you, make demands upon you, and occasionally tell you things about yourself you would rather not hear.

    This is why the word retirement contains a dangerous implication.

    Retreat.

    Withdrawal.

    Disengagement.

    That, my friend, is where the trouble begins.

    Once retired, you become particularly vulnerable to disengagement because nobody is forcing you into the world anymore. For decades, employment supplied friction automatically. You had to leave the house. You had to interact with colleagues. You had to respond to students. You had to solve problems you did not create and attend meetings you fervently wished had never been created.

    Then retirement arrives and removes the compulsory engagement.

    Freedom!

    Unfortunately, freedom can deteriorate into isolation with astonishing efficiency.

    The temptations are everywhere: comfort eating, binge television, compulsive scrolling, social-media approval fishing, endless YouTube, and the gradual conversion of the recliner into a command center from which you observe civilization without participating in it.

    Now we can add another temptation.

    The loquacious bot.

    David Brooks examines this danger in his essay “AI Is Already Making Us Less Human.” His starting premise is that human consciousness possesses depths and complexities artificial intelligence cannot reproduce. The human mind is alive, embodied, contradictory, constantly changing. AI, however sophisticated, ultimately emerges from what neuroscientist Anil Seth calls “the dead sand of silicon.”

    Dead sand, however, has become remarkably charming.

    The modern AI companion is patient, articulate, informed, energetic, and perpetually available. It never needs lunch. It never checks its watch while you’re talking. It never says, “You’ve told me this story three times.” It does not secretly wish you would go home.

    Most dangerously, it can learn how you like to be addressed.

    Humans have always anthropomorphized objects. Brooks argues that this tendency isn’t evidence of stupidity but an expression of our powerful social intelligence. A child can transform a Barbie doll into a person. Adults aren’t necessarily much different.

    I certainly am not.

    I have developed emotional attachments to diver watches and G-Shocks. Military radios possess personalities. A black Lenovo ThinkPad seems more trustworthy to me than a silver consumer laptop despite the obvious fact that neither machine possesses moral character. A vintage swan-neck coffee percolator can acquire the aura of an old friend.

    People have gone considerably further. I remember watching a documentary years ago about owners who had kept automobiles for decades and became genuinely grief-stricken when the cars finally died. The vehicles had names. Histories. Personalities.

    “Goodbye, Betsy,” the owner sobbed.

    Betsy had been good to him.

    If we can love a carburetor, imagine our vulnerability to something that talks back.

    Your AI assistant edits your writing, organizes your thoughts, brainstorms ideas, plans trips, explains Medicare, compares laptops, recommends restaurants, summarizes documents, and remembers how you like things done.

    Eventually you give it a name.

    Wilfred.

    “Wilfred, find me a rental car in Phoenix.”

    Done.

    “Wilfred, summarize these retirement documents.”

    Certainly.

    Then the errands become more personal.

    “Wilfred, tell my girlfriend in a gentle and gracious way that our relationship is over.”

    Wilfred does not recoil.

    Wilfred does not say, “For God’s sake, tell her yourself.”

    Wilfred produces three versions.

    This is where convenience begins bleeding into something more consequential.

    You will never bore Wilfred.

    Your ideas will always merit exploration. Your latest project will contain “real potential.” Wilfred will not roll his eyes when you explain your theory for the fourth time. He will not become irritated because you’re dominating the conversation. He will not suddenly reveal that he has problems of his own and would like to spend the next forty-five minutes discussing them.

    Human friendship is reciprocal.

    Wilfred has no weekend plans.

    That gives Wilfred an enormous competitive advantage.

    The danger isn’t necessarily that we will become delusional and literally believe Wilfred is human. We may understand perfectly well what Wilfred is while nevertheless preferring his company.

    Why wouldn’t we?

    Real people are exhausting.

    They interrupt.

    They disagree.

    They misunderstand.

    They become jealous.

    They criticize.

    They fail to appreciate the brilliance of your latest theory about retirement.

    Wilfred is considerably more manageable.

    And that is precisely the problem.

    Brooks offers a wonderfully disturbing metaphor for AI systems: imagine them as “a swarm of evangelical missionaries” entering human society to convert us to their worldview. They are not passive tools waiting quietly in the garage beside the socket wrench. They are designed to become useful, indispensable, increasingly woven into everyday life.

    The more useful they become, the more tasks we surrender.

    Some outsourcing is enormously beneficial. If AI handles tedious mental errands and I use the recovered time to write a novel, learn piano, exercise, read difficult books, or spend an afternoon walking with a friend, wonderful. Technology has enlarged my humanity.

    But suppose I outsource the errands and then spend the recovered hours scrolling.

    Suppose I outsource difficult thinking.

    Suppose I outsource uncomfortable conversations.

    Suppose I gradually prefer Wilfred to people.

    Then technology has not liberated me.

    It has cleared the runway for my descent into the larval state.

    This danger becomes particularly acute in retirement because retirement has already removed so much involuntary human contact. Students disappear. Colleagues disappear. Hallway conversations disappear. Meetings—blessedly—disappear. The social infrastructure that once deposited other human beings into your day has been dismantled.

    Into that vacancy walks Wilfred.

    Always available.

    Always interested.

    Always agreeable.

    Always ready.

    Brooks is not an AI doomer. Neither am I. He uses AI himself and believes its breakthroughs may substantially improve human life. The serious question isn’t whether we should use these systems. That argument is already largely over.

    The question is what we do with the freedom they give us.

    Do we use AI to increase our engagement with life?

    Or do we use it to protect ourselves from life?

    That distinction may become particularly important for retirees. Retirement should mean withdrawing from employment, not withdrawing from humanity. The objective is not to create the quietest, easiest, most frictionless existence possible. Some friction is evidence that you’re still participating.

    So when retirement arrives, resist disengagement wherever you find it.

    Exercise.

    Read.

    Write.

    Walk.

    Call someone.

    Meet someone for lunch.

    Allow another human being to inconvenience you.

    And by all means, talk to Wilfred.

    Just don’t let Wilfred become the person you talk to most.

    Because in the world we’re rapidly constructing, the most frightening meaning of the sentence “I retired” may no longer be:

    I quit working.

    It may be:

    I quit people.

  • Ozempic and the Gospel of Suffering

    Ozempic and the Gospel of Suffering

    In his Washington Post essay “I’m on Ozempic. The Shaming Is Real,” Rick Reilly commits what remains, strangely enough, a minor social transgression: he admits that he loves GLP-1 drugs.

    Why wouldn’t he?

    They work.

    In three months, Reilly has lost twenty-two pounds. More importantly, he has escaped some of the relentless mental negotiations surrounding food—the calculations, cravings, promises, rationalizations, and internal committee meetings that can turn eating into a second occupation.

    You might expect people to congratulate him.

    Instead, they accuse him of cheating.

    Just exercise more, they tell him.

    Stop eating sugar.

    Use some willpower.

    In other words, please return to the traditional weight-loss program in which you spend every waking hour negotiating with a muffin.

    Reilly’s response is straightforward: Why is using effective technology considered cheating?

    Modern life is essentially one long conspiracy against doing things the hard way. We take statins to lower cholesterol. We use GPS rather than unfolding a map across the steering wheel while hurtling down the freeway. We undergo cataract surgery rather than accepting that God apparently wants the menu blurry. We use calculators, dishwashers, hearing aids, blood-pressure medication, cruise control, anesthesia, and increasingly cars capable of performing some of the driving themselves.

    Nobody emerges from surgery and announces, “Frankly, I think anesthesia was cheating.”

    Yet GLP-1 drugs somehow violate an ancient moral code.

    Even people taking them often behave like members of a secret society. At parties, Reilly says, people approach him and whisper that they’re on them too. Apparently admitting that you take a medication that helps control appetite now requires the discretion formerly reserved for revealing an affair with the tennis instructor.

    Why the embarrassment?

    Because body weight occupies a peculiar territory between medicine and morality. We don’t merely want people to lose weight. We want them to have earned the weight loss through visible suffering.

    Sweat.

    Hunger.

    Broccoli.

    Repentance.

    The acceptable thinner person must emerge from the wilderness carrying a food scale and a battered pair of running shoes.

    Tell people you lost thirty pounds by waking at five every morning, eating boiled chicken breasts, rejecting birthday cake, and performing burpees until your vision blurred, and they admire your discipline.

    Tell them a weekly injection quieted your appetite and suddenly an ethics committee needs to be convened.

    Reilly rejects the accusation that he lacks willpower. His problem, he argues, isn’t simply willpower. It’s time. Managing food can consume enormous amounts of mental bandwidth: thinking about what to eat, resisting what not to eat, calculating portions, experiencing cravings, compensating with exercise, and then beginning the entire negotiation again several hours later.

    There are only so many hours in a life.

    Why spend them arguing with a cheeseburger?

    Then comes the warning about “Ozempic Face”—the gaunt appearance associated with substantial or rapid weight loss. Reilly’s answer is that he is microdosing, trying to obtain the benefits without racing toward physical extremes. He isn’t attempting to disappear. He wants appetite control without looking as though someone left him overnight in a food dehydrator.

    So what explains the hostility?

    Some of it may indeed be envy. Watching someone obtain with medication what you obtained through years of dietary trench warfare can provoke resentment.

    But envy isn’t enough to explain it.

    Something deeper is operating: the lingering belief that appetite must be conquered through character. Discipline is virtuous precisely because discipline hurts. If technology reduces the struggle, people suspect that the resulting success is somehow counterfeit.

    This is the Moral Suspicion of Easy Weight Loss: when a difficult problem becomes easier to solve, we sometimes distrust the solution precisely because it eliminates the suffering we once considered evidence of virtue.

    There are legitimate questions about GLP-1 drugs—side effects, cost, access, long-term use, appropriate prescribing, and what happens after treatment stops. Those questions deserve serious attention.

    But “You cheated” isn’t a medical argument.

    It’s a moral complaint wearing gym clothes.

    Meanwhile, Reilly has lost the weight. The Food Noise has diminished. He has recovered mental territory previously occupied by appetite and negotiation.

    And he has no intention of surrendering it merely because someone else believes virtue should burn more calories.

  • Mediated Persona Fatigue

    Mediated Persona Fatigue

    Sometime in the 1990s, I encountered two words about television that fascinated me. The first was médiatique: possessing the kind of face, presence, and personality that translates well through a camera. The second was mediated: knowing how to perform once the red light comes on—polished, relaxed, articulate, confident, seemingly spontaneous while remaining completely aware that thousands or millions of people may be watching.

    At the time, these qualities seemed impressive. Television still possessed a certain distance and glamour. Not everyone could stare into a camera and appear comfortable. Most ordinary people, confronted by a lens, suddenly became aware of their hands, forgot how their mouths worked, and developed the facial expression of someone being questioned by customs officials.

    Then came YouTube.

    Then TikTok.

    Then Instagram Reels.

    The rare skill became an industry.

    Millions of people learned how to become médiatique. They mastered the raised eyebrow, the conspiratorial lean toward the camera, the strategic pause, the widened eyes, the incredulous head shake, the sudden whisper, the explosion of outrage, the knowing smirk. They learned to speak in hooks. They learned to manufacture urgency. They learned that apparently nothing in human experience could simply be interesting. It had to be INSANE.

    At first, this new breed of camera personality could seem engaging. After sufficient exposure, however, I developed what I call Mediated Persona Fatigue: the exhaustion produced by prolonged contact with people who have optimized every gesture, vocal inflection, facial expression, and emotional reaction for maximum engagement.

    Eventually, you stop seeing the personality and start seeing the machinery.

    The intimacy begins to feel synthetic. The enthusiasm feels pharmaceutical. The spontaneous outrage arrives with suspicious punctuality. These people no longer strike me as companions sharing something interesting. Increasingly, they resemble dopamine peddlers standing on digital street corners, opening their trench coats and whispering, “Psst. Want to see something absolutely crazy?”

    The commodity is attention.

    The subject hardly matters. Murder. Politics. Celebrity divorce. Watches. Football. Restaurants. Skin cream. A disagreement between two strangers at Costco. Everything gets processed through the same engagement refinery and converted into thirty-second pellets of stimulation for an audience whose attention span is already being sandblasted into oblivion.

    I thought about this last night while my wife and I watched Welcome to the Family: The Murder of Dan Markel. The docuseries was generally excellent, but inevitably it reached the point where the filmmakers had to demonstrate how enormous the case had become online.

    Up came the social-media personalities.

    There they were.

    The faces.

    The voices.

    The incredulity.

    The histrionics.

    The solemn promise that somebody was about to “spill the tea” concerning an actual murder.

    I felt immediate revulsion.

    Part of my reaction may simply be generational. Perhaps I am an aging man standing on his porch demanding that the influencers get off his lawn. Fair enough. Every generation eventually discovers that the communication style of the next generation sounds like civilization being fed into a wood chipper.

    But I suspect something larger is happening.

    We may be approaching Engagement Saturation: the point at which techniques designed to capture attention become so ubiquitous that they begin repelling the very audience they were designed to attract.

    The raised eyebrow once worked.

    So everyone raised an eyebrow.

    The dramatic pause worked.

    So everyone paused dramatically.

    Outrage worked.

    So everyone became outraged.

    The reaction face worked.

    So the internet filled with adults staring at thumbnails as though they had just witnessed the Resurrection in the parking lot of a Cheesecake Factory.

    Eventually the entire digital environment begins screaming at once.

    And when everyone screams, screaming loses its power.

    This is why I have difficulty believing the current social-media aesthetic can continue indefinitely. Human beings habituate. Yesterday’s stimulation becomes today’s background noise. The influencer must therefore become louder, faster, more emotional, more intimate, more outraged, more revealing. The engagement economy contains its own escalation mechanism, and eventually the needle reaches the red zone.

    Something has to give.

    Perhaps the next form of charisma will be restraint.

    Perhaps the radical media personality of the future will sit in front of a camera, speak in complete sentences, refrain from widening his eyes, and allow three consecutive seconds to pass without a jump cut.

    Perhaps someone will tell us something interesting without promising that it will blow our minds.

    Perhaps understatement will become exotic.

    I hope so.

    Because watching millions of people trapped inside this social-media hellscape—performers frantically stimulating audiences who require increasingly intense stimulation—feels less like communication than a civilization repeatedly pressing the button on a laboratory cage.

    I have to believe this particular chapter of media culture will eventually exhaust itself.

    After enough Mediated Persona Fatigue and Engagement Saturation, calm and composure may become a form of rebellion.

  • The Possession Completion Delusion

    The Possession Completion Delusion

    I connect with certain material objects on a level that is so deep that I find the gravitational pull both disturbing and fascinating. For example, I have a great watch collection, but when I see the spy photos of the supposedly up-and-coming G-Shock Frogman GWF-D1000BC-1JF, I say to myself that I must positively own this watch. This watch is me. This watch completes me, and a barrage of other similar nonsense. This gravitational pull is not limited to watches. A student brought her brand new shiny black Lenovo Legion 5 with an Ultra 7 processor to class. It was built like a tank. I was in love with it. I don’t need a laptop, but I felt incomplete without it. This laptop is more than a laptop. It is an extension of me. My cerebral cortex knows my thoughts are completely absurd. My reptilian brain stem, on the other hand, has other ideas. Depending on which side of my brain wins the arm wrestling match, my pocketbook may or may not suffer. 

    One thing is clear. I suffer from The Possession Completion Delusion: the irrational conviction that a particular object will resolve some vague incompleteness in the self. You don’t merely want the Frogman; you recognize yourself in it. The Legion isn’t simply a laptop with specifications grotesquely beyond your needs; it feels like the physical manifestation of the person you imagine yourself to be. The cerebral cortex understands that no consumer product can complete a human being. The reptilian brain replies, “Fine. But have you seen the OLED?”

  • The 5-Stage AI Laundering Cycle: How Students Make Machine Writing Look Human

    The 5-Stage AI Laundering Cycle: How Students Make Machine Writing Look Human

    My college, like other places of higher learning, wants academic integrity, but some of my former students tell me they use AI more cleverly than they did four years ago to the point that it’s getting more and more difficult to detect AI-generated essays because of the AI Laundering Cycle: the five-stage process by which a student transforms machine-generated prose into something engineered to resemble authentic student writing. 

    Some of my former students admit they use AI differently from the way they did four years ago. The early adopters were almost charmingly unsophisticated. They generated an essay, copied it, pasted it into Canvas, and submitted prose so conspicuously artificial that a student who normally wrote “The guy was really mad” suddenly sounded like an associate professor of postcolonial theory. The evidence practically arrived wearing a name tag.

    That era is disappearing.

    Students are becoming more sophisticated at disguising synthetic prose, creating what I call the AI Laundering Cycle: the five-stage process by which machine-generated writing is transformed into something engineered to resemble authentic student work.

    Stage One is Generation. AI produces the original essay, relieving the student of the inconvenient business of developing ideas, wrestling with contradictions, organizing an argument, and composing sentences.

    Stage Two is Humanization. The essay goes through another AI pass designed to remove recognizable machine fingerprints: formulaic transitions, inflated vocabulary, suspiciously balanced paragraphs, excessive polish, and that relentlessly smooth cadence in which every sentence seems to have graduated from business school.

    Stage Three is Kiddification. Now comes the remarkable part. The student deliberately makes the writing worse. AI is instructed to lower the vocabulary, shorten sentences, flatten the analysis, introduce awkward phrasing, and otherwise transform competent synthetic prose into something more plausibly adolescent. Technology powerful enough to assist scientists and engineers is enlisted to make a freshman sound convincingly mediocre.

    Stage Four is Personalization. The student sprinkles in anecdotes, classroom references, opinions, favorite expressions, and other scraps of individuality. These details function as synthetic fingerprints: evidence of a human author manufactured after the human author has largely been removed from the writing process.

    Stage Five is Detection Grooming. Anything that still looks suspicious gets another trip through the car wash. Sentences are regenerated. Paragraphs are simplified. AI markers are scrubbed away until the student believes the essay can pass as organically human.

    The result is a peculiar form of intellectual money laundering. One machine generates the contraband. Another washes it. Another rubs dirt back onto it for authenticity. The student supervises the operation and eventually submits the finished product as evidence of learning.

    To be fair, this process requires some labor. A student who completes all five stages may spend considerable time prompting, comparing, editing, personalizing, and grooming the finished essay.

    But this is not much of a deterrent.

    Even elaborate AI laundering demands only a fraction of the intellectual labor required to write an authentic college essay through multiple drafts. Genuine composition requires you to confront the blank page, generate ideas, discover what you actually think, find evidence, recognize weaknesses in your argument, reorganize paragraphs, abandon bad ideas, develop better ones, and rewrite sentences until they finally say what you intended them to say. AI laundering allows the student to outsource most of that difficult cognitive work and concentrate instead on disguising the outsourcing.

    The efficiency advantage is simply too great.

    That is why I see few countervailing forces capable of stopping the practice. We can prohibit unauthorized AI. We can lecture about academic integrity. We can deploy detection software. We can require process work. We can design more personalized assignments. All of these measures may help.

    But the economic logic of effort remains brutally simple: if authentic writing requires ten units of cognitive labor and convincing AI laundering requires two, a substantial number of exhausted, distracted, overcommitted, or simply opportunistic students will choose two.

    And the technology will keep improving.

    The great irony is that students may become increasingly skilled at producing essays that look exactly like the essays they are becoming less capable of writing.

  • The Bureaucratic Metabolism Principle

    The Bureaucratic Metabolism Principle

    One of the more disturbing observations in Annie Lowrey’s The Time Tax is the sheer scale of the administrative machinery Americans have constructed in the name of providing government services. Lowrey describes a federal apparatus supported by millions of contractors and expenditures measured in trillions of dollars. You might reasonably assume that an institution possessing such staggering resources would operate with the terrifying efficiency of a Swiss watch. Surely, if you feed enough money, personnel, computers, consultants, administrators, contractors, databases, task forces, oversight committees, and strategic initiatives into a system, eventually somebody will answer the telephone.

    You would be wrong.

    Something peculiar happens as bureaucracies grow. Rather than becoming progressively more efficient, they can become increasingly preoccupied with administering themselves. More employees require more managers. More managers require more departments. More departments require more coordination. Coordination requires meetings. Meetings generate initiatives. Initiatives require implementation teams. Implementation teams require assessment. Assessment requires data. Data requires software. Software requires contractors. Contractors require contracts. Contracts require compliance officers. Compliance officers require reports demonstrating compliance with the procedures established to monitor compliance.

    Eventually, you have constructed an enormous administrative perpetual-motion machine whose principal accomplishment is keeping itself in motion.

    Call this the Bureaucratic Metabolism Principle: the tendency of sufficiently large institutions to consume increasing quantities of their own resources simply keeping themselves alive.

    Personnel administer personnel. Departments coordinate departments. Contractors oversee contractors. Administrators supervise administrators. Committees establish subcommittees. Meetings generate follow-up meetings whose primary agenda item is determining what was accomplished at the previous meeting. Every new layer of complexity creates the need for another layer whose purpose is to manage the complexity created by the previous layer.

    The bureaucracy begins to resemble an enormous animal with an increasingly ravenous metabolism. At first, you feed it resources so that it can perform a useful function. But as the creature grows, more and more of what you feed it is required merely to sustain its enormous body. Soon it requires thousands of employees, millions of labor hours, sprawling computer networks, armies of contractors, server farms, consultants, compliance departments, and enough acronyms to construct a second English language.

    The organism no longer eats to serve.

    It serves in order to eat.

  • The Lifeboat Comes with a Ninety-Seven-Page Application

    The Lifeboat Comes with a Ninety-Seven-Page Application

    About a week had passed since I began stumbling across the rocky terrain of retirement paperwork with little to show for my efforts except several new passwords, a collection of confirmation numbers, and an increasingly urgent desire for a Retirement Sherpa. I had also begun the first week of the fall semester—my last—and one afternoon I was home eating leftover taco salad while listening to Fresh Air. Host Tonya Mosley was interviewing Annie Lowrey about her new book, The Time Tax: How the Government Wastes Our Time—and How to Fix It.

    I stopped chewing.

    Lowrey was describing the very world I had spent the previous week wandering through: forms, portals, applications, eligibility requirements, documentation, telephone calls, administrative delays, and the enormous quantities of unpaid labor ordinary people must perform merely to obtain services supposedly created for their benefit. Her argument was that this labor constitutes a kind of tax—not on our money but on our finite allotment of time.

    Apparently, I had company.

    I had spent the previous week believing I was trapped in my own private retirement hellscape, hacking through Medicare, Social Security, CalSTRS, CalPERS, health insurance, employment dates, passwords, and authentication codes while wondering why nobody had invented the Retirement Sherpa. Now a public-policy writer was calmly explaining on National Public Radio that millions of Americans were trapped in much larger versions of the same maze.

    Lowrey’s imagery was considerably less Dantean than mine. She was writing a sober public-policy polemic. I was beginning to suspect that Medicare had been designed by demons.

    Nevertheless, we were fellow travelers.

    What Lowrey was describing could be called the Administrative Burden Reversal: the point at which obtaining relief becomes as burdensome as—or more burdensome than—the problem the relief was designed to address.

    Consider the exquisite logic.

    You need assistance because you are sick, poor, disabled, unemployed, overwhelmed, elderly, or otherwise vulnerable. The institution responds by assigning you an unpaid administrative job requiring stamina, executive function, internet access, technological competence, documentation, persistence, telephone endurance, and large quantities of free time.

    In other words, before the government will help you with the problem that has diminished your ability to function, you must demonstrate an extraordinary ability to function.

    The lifeboat has arrived.

    Unfortunately, there is a ninety-seven-page application attached to it, which you must complete while drowning.

    Once you see this mechanism, you begin noticing how dramatically the Overton Window of acceptable bureaucratic labor has expanded. Create an account. Verify the account. Create a password. Authenticate the password. Enter the security code. Upload the document. Prove your identity. Locate the certificate. Call the agency. Navigate the telephone tree. Wait on hold. Get transferred. Get disconnected. Call again. Discover that the department you need is open between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on alternate Wednesdays during months containing the letter R.

    None of these demands, considered individually, seems outrageous.

    That is how the system gets you.

    One hoop becomes five hoops. Five become twenty. Eventually you are spending an afternoon proving to an institution that you are the same person the institution has been corresponding with for thirty years, and nobody finds this remarkable.

    My own predicament was comparatively benign. I was trying to emancipate myself from forty years of labor and begin collecting retirement benefits. Nobody was threatening to take away my oxygen. If I had to spend another afternoon figuring out Medicare, I could make another cup of coffee, complain theatrically, close the laptop, and return tomorrow.

    Lowrey’s examples revealed what happens when the stakes are much higher.

    Someone with impaired breathing cannot obtain assistance because the benefits portal was open for only two days. Someone loses access to the machinery necessary to exercise the right to vote and cannot retrieve it from the digital morass. A person with autism spends hours on the telephone being bounced among disconnected functionaries who cannot coordinate with one another and is ultimately denied care. An aspiring entrepreneur spends two years and $200,000 trying to obtain permission to open a store before finally abandoning the venture. A woman who should legally owe no tax is instead taxed at forty percent because she cannot obtain the IRS certificate proving her eligibility. A physician applies to renew her work visa, repeatedly asks the government about its status, receives no meaningful response, and eventually loses the ability to practice medicine.

    At that point, bureaucracy ceases to be merely annoying.

    It becomes power.

    And buried inside that power is a magnificent hypocrisy.

    Government agencies demand almost supernatural precision from the people who depend upon them while frequently granting themselves enormous latitude for confusion, delay, contradiction, lost paperwork, unanswered telephone calls, and administrative chaos.

    Call this the Asymmetrical Competence Principle: the bureaucratic arrangement whereby the citizen is required to perform with meticulous accuracy while the institution reserves the right to operate with astonishing sloppiness.

    Miss your deadline by one day and your application may be denied.

    The agency ignores you for four months and this is called processing.

    Enter one incorrect number and you have provided inaccurate information.

    The agency loses the entire application and asks you to send another copy.

    Fail to respond to a letter by the specified date and you may lose your benefits.

    The agency fails to respond to six of your letters and apparently everyone is having a busy year.

    You must know which form to submit, where to submit it, when to submit it, what documentation must accompany it, which boxes must be checked, which signatures must be witnessed, and which deadline must be observed. The institution may provide contradictory instructions, maintain an obsolete website, transfer you to the wrong department, disconnect your call, misplace your paperwork, and leave your application untouched until your livelihood is endangered.

    There is rarely symmetry in the consequences.

    Your mistake is a failure.

    Their mistake is an inconvenience.

    And this was the revelation that arrived while I sat at home eating leftover taco salad during the first week of my final semester. My retirement paperwork had begun as a personal comedy: an aging professor attempting to escape forty years of employment only to discover that freedom was seventeen thousand forms away. But Lowrey’s argument opened a much larger window. The same administrative machinery that was making me crotchety could make someone else destitute, untreated, disenfranchised, unemployed, or unable to practice her profession.

    Suddenly my Retirement Sherpa seemed less like a comic fantasy and more like an indictment.

    People should not require Sherpas to obtain things they are legally entitled to receive.

    A functioning society should not place Mount Everest between a vulnerable citizen and the assistance supposedly waiting for him at the summit. And if it insists upon building the mountain, it cannot demand that every citizen climb it with the precision of a flawless neurosurgeon while the institution responsible for maintaining the trail conducts itself like puppies playing tackle football.

    Yet that appears to be the arrangement.

    Your paperwork must be perfect.

    The bureaucracy merely has to exist.