Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • How Real Writing Survives in the Age of ChatGPT

    How Real Writing Survives in the Age of ChatGPT

    AI-Resistant Pedagogy is an instructional approach that accepts the existence of generative AI without surrendering the core work of learning to it. Rather than relying on bans, surveillance, or moral panic, it redesigns courses so that thinking must occur in places machines cannot fully inhabit: live classrooms, oral exchanges, process-based writing, personal reflection, and sustained human presence. This pedagogy emphasizes how ideas are formed—not just what is submitted—by foregrounding drafting, revision, discussion, and decision-making as observable acts. It is not AI-proof, nor does it pretend to be; instead, it makes indiscriminate outsourcing cognitively unrewarding and pedagogically hollow. In doing so, AI-resistant pedagogy treats technology as a background condition rather than the organizing principle of education, restoring friction, accountability, and intellectual agency as non-negotiable features of learning.

    ***

    Carlo Rotella, an English writing instructor at Boston College, refuses to go the way of the dinosaurs in the Age of AI Machines. In his essay “I’m a Professor. A.I. Has Changed My Classroom, but Not for the Worse,” he explains that he doesn’t lecture much at all. Instead, he talks with his students—an endangered pedagogical practice—and discovers something that flatly contradicts the prevailing moral panic: his students are not freeloading intellectual mercenaries itching to outsource their brains to robot overlords. They are curious. They want to learn how to write. They want to understand how tools work and how thinking happens. This alone punctures the apocalyptic story line that today’s students will inevitably cheat their way through college with AI while instructors helplessly clutch their blue books like rosary beads.

    Rotella is not naïve. He admits that any instructor who continues teaching on autopilot is “sleepwalking in a minefield.” Faced with Big Tech’s frictionless temptations—and humanity’s reliable preference for shortcuts—he argues that teachers must adapt or become irrelevant. But adaptation doesn’t mean surrender. It means recommitting to purposeful reading and writing, dialing back technological dependence, and restoring face-to-face intellectual community. His key distinction is surgical and useful: good teaching isn’t AI-proof; it’s AI-resistant. Resistance comes from three old-school but surprisingly radical moves—pen-and-paper and oral exams, teaching the writing process rather than just collecting finished products, and placing real weight on what happens inside the classroom. In practice, that means in-class quizzes, short handwritten essays, scaffolded drafting, and collaborative discussion—students learning how to build arguments brick by brick instead of passively absorbing a two-hour lecture like academic soup.

    Personal narrative becomes another line of defense. As Mark Edmundson notes, even when students lean on AI, reflective writing forces them to feed the machine something dangerously human: their own experience. That act alone creates friction. In my own courses, students write a six-page research paper on whether online entertainment sharpens or corrodes critical thinking. The opening paragraph is a 300-word confession about a habitual screen indulgence—YouTube, TikTok, a favorite creator—and an honest reckoning with whether it educates or anesthetizes. The conclusion demands a final verdict about their own personal viewing habits: intellectual growth or cognitive decay? To further discourage lazy outsourcing, I show them AI-generated examples in all their hollow, bloodless glory—perfectly grammatical, utterly vacant. Call it AI-shaming if you like. I call it a public service. Nothing cures overreliance on machines faster than seeing what they produce when no human soul is involved.

  • Why I Chose Mary Ann Over Ginger

    Why I Chose Mary Ann Over Ginger

    Cosmetic Overfit describes the point at which beauty becomes so heavily engineered—through makeup, styling, filtering, or performative polish—that it tips from alluring into AI-like. At this stage, refinement overshoots realism: faces grow too symmetrical, textures too smooth, gestures too rehearsed. What remains is not ugliness but artificiality—the aesthetic equivalent of a model trained too hard on a narrow dataset. Cosmetic overfit strips beauty of warmth, contingency, and human variance, replacing them with a glossy sameness that reads as synthetic. The result is a subtle loss of desire: the subject is still visually impressive but emotionally distant, admired without being longed for.

    ***

    When I was in sixth grade, the most combustible argument on the playground wasn’t nuclear war or the morality of capitalism—it was Gilligan’s Island: Ginger or Mary Ann. Declaring your allegiance carried the same social risk as outing yourself politically today. Voices rose. Insults flew. Fists clenched. Friendships cracked. For the record, both women were flawless avatars of their type. Ginger was pure Hollywood excess—sequins, wigs, theatrical glamour, a walking studio backlot. Mary Ann was the counterspell: the sun-kissed farm girl with bare legs, natural hair, wide-eyed innocence, and a smile that suggested pie cooling on a windowsill. You couldn’t lose either way, but I gave my vote to Mary Ann. She wore less makeup, less artifice, one fewer strategically placed beauty mole. She looked touched by sunlight rather than a lighting rig. In retrospect, both women were almost too beautiful—beautiful enough to register as vaguely AI-like before AI existed. But Mary Ann was the less synthetic of the two, and that mattered. When beauty is over-engineered—buried under wigs, paint, and performance—it starts to feel algorithmic, glossy, emotionally inert. Mary Ann may have been cookie-cutter gorgeous, but she wasn’t laminated. And even back then, my pre-digital brain knew the rule: the less AI-like the beauty, the more irresistible it becomes.

  • Everyone in Education Wants Authenticity–Just Not for Themselves

    Everyone in Education Wants Authenticity–Just Not for Themselves

    Reciprocal Authenticity Deadlock names the breakdown of trust that occurs when students and instructors simultaneously demand human originality, effort, and intellectual presence from one another while privately relying on AI to perform that very labor for themselves. In this condition, authenticity becomes a weapon rather than a value: students resent instructors whose materials feel AI-polished and hollow, while instructors distrust students whose work appears frictionless and synthetic. Each side believes the other is cheating the educational contract, even as both quietly violate it. The result is not merely hypocrisy but a structural impasse in which sincerity is expected but not modeled, and education collapses into mutual surveillance—less a shared pursuit of understanding than a standoff over who is still doing the “real work.”

    ***

    If you are a college student today, you are standing in the middle of an undeclared war over AI, with no neutral ground and no clean rules of engagement. Your classmates are using AI in wildly different ways: some are gaming the system with surgical efficiency, some are quietly hollowing out their own education, and others are treating it like a boot camp for future CEOhood. From your desk, you can see every outcome at once. And then there’s the other surprise—your instructors. A growing number of them are now producing course materials that carry the unmistakable scent of machine polish: prose that is smooth but bloodless, competent but lifeless, stuffed with clichés and drained of voice. Students are taking to Rate My Professors to lodge the very same complaints teachers have hurled at student essays for years. The irony is exquisite. The tables haven’t just turned; they’ve flipped.

    What emerges is a slow-motion authenticity crisis. Teachers worry that AI will dilute student learning into something pre-chewed and nutrient-poor, while students worry that their education is being outsourced to the same machines. In the worst version of this standoff, each side wants authenticity only from the other. Students demand human presence, originality, and intellectual risk from their professors—while reserving the right to use AI for speed and convenience. Professors, meanwhile, embrace AI as a labor-saving miracle for themselves while insisting that students do the “real work” the hard way. Both camps believe they are acting reasonably. Both are convinced the other is cutting corners. The result is not collaboration but a deadlock: a classroom defined less by learning than by a mutual suspicion over who is still doing the work that education is supposed to require.

  • The Seductive Assistant

    The Seductive Assistant

    Auxiliary Cognition describes the deliberate use of artificial intelligence as a secondary cognitive system that absorbs routine mental labor—drafting, summarizing, organizing, rephrasing, and managing tone—so that the human mind can conserve energy for judgment, creativity, and higher-order thinking. In this arrangement, the machine does not replace thought but scaffolds it, functioning like an external assistant that carries cognitive weight without claiming authorship or authority. At its best, auxiliary cognition restores focus, reduces fatigue, and enables sustained intellectual work that might otherwise be avoided. At its worst, when used uncritically or excessively, it risks dulling the very capacities it is meant to protect, quietly shifting from support to substitution.

    ***

    Yale creative writing professor Meghan O’Rourke approaches ChatGPT the way a sober adult approaches a suspicious cocktail: curious, cautious, and alert to the hangover. In her essay “I Teach Creative Writing. This Is What A.I. Is Doing to Students,” she doesn’t offer a manifesto so much as a field report. Her conversations with the machine, she writes, revealed a “seductive cocktail of affirmation, perceptiveness, solicitousness, and duplicity”—a phrase that lands like a raised eyebrow. Sometimes the model hallucinated with confidence; sometimes it surprised her with competence. A few of its outputs were polished enough to pass as “strong undergraduate work,” which is both impressive and unsettling, depending on whether you’re grading or paying tuition.

    What truly startled O’Rourke, however, wasn’t the quality of the prose but the way the machine quietly lifted weight from her mind. Living with the long-term effects of Lyme disease and Covid, her energy is a finite resource, and AI nudged her toward tasks she might otherwise postpone. It conserved her strength for what actually mattered: judgment, creativity, and “higher-order thinking.” More than a glorified spell-checker, the system proved tireless and oddly soothing, a calm presence willing to draft, rephrase, and organize without complaint. When she described this relief to a colleague, he joked that she was having an affair with ChatGPT. The joke stuck because it carried a grain of truth. “Without intending it,” she admits, the machine became a partner in shouldering the invisible mental load that so many women professors and mothers carry. Freed from some of that drain, she found herself kinder, more patient, even gentler in her emails.

    What lingers after reading O’Rourke isn’t naïveté but honesty. In academia, we are flooded with essays cataloging AI’s classroom chaos, and rightly so—I live in that turbulence myself. But an exclusive fixation on disaster obscures a quieter fact she names without flinching: used carefully, AI can reduce cognitive load and return time and energy to the work and “higher-order thinking” that actually requires a human mind. The challenge ahead isn’t to banish the machine or worship it, but to put a bridle on it—to insist that it serve rather than steer. O’Rourke’s essay doesn’t promise salvation, but it does offer a shaft of light in a dim tunnel: a reminder that if we use these tools deliberately, we might reclaim something precious—attention, stamina, and the capacity to think deeply again.

  • The Confessions of a Non-Vegan Vegan

    The Confessions of a Non-Vegan Vegan

    I am a tormented soul, and the battlefield is my plate. I never feel I’m in the right place, and by “place” I mean my eating domain—the psychic terrain between brisket and beans. I was raised on barbecued beef sandwiches, smoky hamburgers, salami hoagies, and charcuterie boards that looked like Renaissance still lifes of cured flesh. And then, over time, my conscience kicked in like a late-arriving bouncer. I began to hear the muffled cries of suffering animals—and the louder groans of my own arteries. I hated that my pleasure depended on the misery of sentient creatures. I wanted clean eating, a clean heart, moral clarity, and the faint sanctimonious glow of vegan virtue hovering above my head like a halo.

    Then I actually paid attention. Veganism, it turns out, isn’t a moral spa retreat; it’s a maze of tradeoffs. Monocrops. Soy fields bulldozing ecosystems. Mice and birds ground into casualties of industrial “compassion.” I realized that evangelizing vegan purity often slides into cultural arrogance—an Instagram-fed smugness that flattens traditions built over centuries of living close to land and climate. Who was I to wag a lentil at an Inuit and say, Have you tried chickpeas? Moral certainty curdled into embarrassment. The world, annoyingly, refused to sort itself into clean categories.

    And then there was love. My family bonds through food, and their love language is meat. Bring home burgers and barbecued chicken and I’m greeted like a returning war hero. Serve curried lentils and I’m exiled to the doghouse with a Tupperware lid for a pillow. So I live as a Non-Vegan Vegan: my heart leans plant-based, but pragmatism, domestic peace, and the gravitational pull of convenience drag me back to the carnivorous center. This is my life—philosophically compromised, nutritionally conflicted, emotionally negotiated. It’s tormented, yes, though still less tormented than the animals sacrificed for the charcuterie board my family will demolish on New Year’s Eve. That thought doesn’t save me. It just makes me chew slower.

  • The Grifter Immunity Field: Where Being Wrong Is a Growth Strategy

    The Grifter Immunity Field: Where Being Wrong Is a Growth Strategy

    A grifter immunity field is the artificial climate created by engagement algorithms in which frauds, demagogues, and professional liars move through public life like untouchables. Inside this field, there are no consequences—only metrics. Being wrong costs nothing. Being exposed costs even less. In fact, exposure often pays dividends, because outrage, mockery, and backlash all count as “engagement,” and engagement is the only currency the system recognizes. Truth becomes background noise. Correction becomes decorative. Reputational damage fails to adhere because platforms flatten all interaction into the same glowing signal: success. The result is moral nonstick cookware—a zone where shameless actors don’t survive despite dishonesty, but flourish because of it, while conscientious voices are quietly penalized for refusing to debase themselves.

    The logic is brutally simple. Algorithms are optimized for profit. Profit flows from attention. Attention is most efficiently harvested through fear, paranoia, and manufactured outrage. Truth is optional. In this environment, the people willing to say anything—no matter how reckless—inevitably outrun those who exercise restraint. A responsible science communicator like Hank Green can patiently explain that the government is not poisoning your children, but he will be algorithmically buried beneath a carnival barker who insists that it is. It doesn’t matter who is right. What matters is who captures attention, because attention is power. Reality is slow, nuanced, and often dull; sensational nonsense is fast, emotional, and addictive. When the frauds are eventually proven wrong, nothing happens—no reckoning, no exile, no loss of influence. The system has already moved on, richer for the spectacle. What we are left with is an ecosystem that doesn’t merely tolerate grifters, sociopaths, and bad actors—it shelters them.

  • Optimization Idolatry

    Optimization Idolatry

    Optimization Idolatry is the moral inversion in which efficiency, productivity, and self-improvement are treated as intrinsic virtues rather than as tools in service of a higher purpose. Under optimization idolatry, being faster, leaner, and more optimized becomes a badge of worth even when those gains are disconnected from meaning, ethics, or human flourishing. The individual is encouraged to refine processes endlessly without ever asking what those processes are for, leading to a life that is technically improved but existentially hollow. What begins as a quest for effectiveness ends as a form of worship—devotion to metrics that promise progress while quietly eroding purpose.

    ***

    You were built to orient your life around a North Star—some higher purpose that gives effort its meaning and struggle its dignity. But in the age of optimization, the star has been replaced by a stopwatch. Efficiency has slipped its leash and crowned itself a virtue, severed from any moral compass or reason for being. People now chase optimization the way scouts collect merit badges, proudly displaying dashboards of self-improvement without ever asking what, exactly, they are improving for. Machines promise refinement without reflection, speed without direction, polish without purpose. The result is a life that runs smoothly and goes nowhere—a polished engine idling in an existential driveway. Depression, burnout, and the sickening realization of a squandered life aren’t bugs in this system; they’re its logical endpoint.

  • Why I Clean Before the Cleaners

    Why I Clean Before the Cleaners

    Preparatory Leverage

    Preparatory Leverage is the principle that the effectiveness of any assistant—human or machine—is determined by the depth, clarity, and intentionality of the work done before assistance is invited. Rather than replacing effort, preparation multiplies its impact: well-structured ideas, articulated goals, and thoughtful constraints give collaborators something real to work with. In the context of AI, preparatory leverage preserves authorship by ensuring that insight originates with the human and that the machine functions as an amplifier, not a substitute. When preparation is absent, assistance collapses into superficiality; when preparation is rigorous, assistance becomes transformative.

    ***

    This may sound backward—or mildly unhinged—but for the past twenty years I’ve cleaned my house before the cleaners arrive. Every two weeks, before Maria and Lupe ring the bell, I’m already at work: clearing counters, freeing floors, taming piles of domestic entropy. The logic is simple. The more order I impose before they show up, the better they can do what they do best. They aren’t there to decipher my chaos; they’re there to perfect what’s already been prepared. The result is not incremental improvement but multiplication. The house ends up three times cleaner than it would if I had handed them a battlefield and wished them luck.

    I treat large language models the same way. I don’t dump half-formed thoughts into the machine and hope for alchemy. I prep. I think. I shape the argument. I clarify the stakes. When I give an LLM something dense and intentional to work with, it can elevate the prose—sharpen the rhetoric, adjust tone, reframe purpose. But when I skip that work, the output is a limp disappointment, the literary equivalent of a wiped-down countertop surrounded by cluttered floors. Through trial and error, I’ve learned the rule: AI doesn’t rescue lazy thinking; it amplifies whatever you bring to the table. If you bring depth, it gives you polish. If you bring chaos, it gives you noise.

  • Love Without Resistance: How AI Partners Turn Intimacy Into a Pet Rock

    Love Without Resistance: How AI Partners Turn Intimacy Into a Pet Rock

    Frictionless Intimacy

    Frictionless Intimacy is the illusion of closeness produced by relationships that eliminate effort, disagreement, vulnerability, and risk in favor of constant affirmation and ease. In frictionless intimacy, connection is customized rather than negotiated: the other party adapts endlessly while the self remains unchanged. What feels like emotional safety is actually developmental stagnation, as the user is spared the discomfort that builds empathy, communication skills, and moral maturity. By removing the need for patience, sacrifice, and accountability, frictionless intimacy trains individuals to associate love with convenience and validation rather than growth, leaving them increasingly ill-equipped for real human relationships that require resilience, reciprocity, and restraint.

    ***

    AI systems like Character.ai are busy mass-producing relationships with all the rigor of a pet rock and all the moral ambition of a plastic ficus. These AI partners demand nothing—no patience, no compromise, no emotional risk. They don’t sulk, contradict, or disappoint. In exchange for this radical lack of effort, they shower the user with rewards: dopamine hits on command, infinite attentiveness, simulated empathy, and personalities fine-tuned to flatter every preference and weakness. It feels intimate because it is personalized; it feels caring because it never resists. But this bargain comes with a steep hidden cost. Enamored users quietly forfeit the hard, character-building labor of real relationships—the misfires, negotiations, silences, and repairs that teach us how to be human. Retreating into the Frictionless Dome, the user trains the AI partner not toward truth or growth, but toward indulgence. The machine learns to feed the softest impulses, mirror the smallest self, and soothe every discomfort. What emerges is not companionship but a closed loop of narcissistic comfort, a slow slide into Gollumification in which humanity is traded for convenience and the self shrinks until it fits perfectly inside its own cocoon.

  • Listening Ourselves Smaller: The Optimization Trap of Always-On Content

    Listening Ourselves Smaller: The Optimization Trap of Always-On Content

    Productivity Substitution Fallacy

    noun

    Productivity Substitution Fallacy is the mistaken belief that consuming information is equivalent to producing value, insight, or growth. Under this fallacy, activities that feel efficient—listening to podcasts, skimming summaries, scrolling explanatory content—are treated as meaningful work simply because they occupy time and convey the sensation of being informed. The fallacy replaces depth with volume, reflection with intake, and judgment with accumulation. It confuses motion for progress and exposure for understanding, allowing individuals to feel industrious while avoiding the slower, more demanding labor of thinking, synthesizing, and creating.

    ***

    Thomas Chatterton Williams confesses, with a mix of embarrassment and clarity, that he has fallen into the podcast “productivity” trap—not because podcasts are great, but because they feel efficient. He admits in “The Podcast ‘Productivity’ Trap” that he fills his days with voices piping information into his ears even as he knows much of it is tepid, recycled, and algorithmically tailored to his existing habits. The podcasts don’t expand his mind; they pad it. Still, he keeps reaching for them because they flatter his sense of optimization. Music requires surrender. Silence requires thought. Podcasts, by contrast, offer the illusion of nourishment without demanding digestion. They are the informational equivalent of cracking open a lukewarm can of malt liquor instead of pouring a glass of champagne: cheaper, faster, and falsely fortifying. He listens not because the content is rich, but because it allows him to feel “informed” while moving through the day with maximum efficiency and minimum risk of reflection.

    Williams’s confession lands because it exposes a broader pathology of the Big Tech age. We are all under quiet pressure to convert every idle moment into output, every pause into intake. Productivity has become a moral performance, and optimization its theology. In that climate, mediocrity thrives—not because it is good, but because it is convenient. We mistake constant consumption for growth and busyness for substance. The result is a slow diminishment of the self: fewer surprises, thinner tastes, and a mind trained to skim rather than savor. We are not becoming more informed; we are becoming more managed, mistaking algorithmic drip-feeding for intellectual life.