Cinemorphosis

Tag: ai

  • Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower Represents Our Sanctuary for Deep Work

    Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower Represents Our Sanctuary for Deep Work

    Bollingen Principle

    noun
    The principle that original, meaningful work requires a deliberately constructed refuge from distraction. Named after Carl Jung’s Bollingen Tower, the Bollingen Principle holds that depth does not emerge from convenience or connectivity, but from environments intentionally designed to protect sustained thought, solitude, and intellectual risk. Such spaces—whether physical, temporal, or psychological—function as sanctuaries where the mind can operate at full depth, free from the pressures of immediacy and performance. The principle rejects the idea that creativity can flourish amid constant interruption, insisting instead that those who seek to do work that matters must first build the conditions that allow thinking itself to breathe.

    ***

    In an age saturated with technological distraction and constant talk of “disruption” and AI-driven upheaval, it is easy to lose sight of one’s personal mission. That mission is a North Star—a purpose that orients work, effort, and flourishing. It cannot be assigned by an employer, an algorithm, or a cultural trend. It must be discovered. As Viktor Frankl argues in Man’s Search for Meaning, you do not choose meaning at will; life chooses it for you, or rather, life discloses meaning to you. The task, then, is attentiveness: to look and listen carefully to one’s particular circumstances, abilities, and obligations in order to discern what life is asking of you.

    Discerning that mission requires depth, not shallowness. Cal Newport’s central claim in Deep Work is that depth is impossible in a state of constant distraction. A meaningful life therefore demands the active rejection of shallow habits and the deliberate cultivation of sustained focus. This often requires solitude—or at minimum, long stretches of the day protected from interruption. Newport points to Carl Jung as a model. When Jung sought to transform psychiatry, he built Bollingen Tower, a retreat designed to preserve his capacity for deep thought. That environment enabled work of such originality and power that it reshaped an entire field.

    Jung’s example reveals two essential conditions for depth: a guiding ideal larger than comfort or instant gratification, and an environment structured to defend attention. To avoid a shallow life and pursue a meaningful one, we must practice the same discipline. We must listen for our own North Star as it emerges from our lives, and then build our own version of Bollingen Tower—physical, temporal, or psychological—so that we can do the work that gives our lives coherence and meaning.

  • Modernity Signaling: How Looking Current Makes You Replaceable

    Modernity Signaling: How Looking Current Makes You Replaceable

    Modernity Signaling

    noun
    The practice of performing relevance through visible engagement with contemporary tools rather than through demonstrable skill or depth of thought. Modernity signaling occurs when individuals adopt platforms, workflows, and technologies not because they improve judgment or output, but because they signal that one is current, adaptable, and aligned with the present moment. The behavior prizes speed, connectivity, and responsiveness as markers of sophistication, while quietly sidelining sustained focus and original thinking as outdated or impractical. In this way, modernity signaling mistakes novelty for progress and technological proximity for competence, leaving its practitioners busy, replaceable, and convinced they are advancing.

    ***

    As Cal Newport makes his case for Deep Work—the kind of sustained, unbroken concentration that withers the moment email, notifications, and office tools start barking for attention—he knows exactly what’s coming. Eye rolls. Scoffing. The charge that this is all terribly quaint, a monkish fantasy for people who don’t understand the modern workplace. “This is the world now,” his critics insist. “Stop pretending we can work without digital tools.” Newport doesn’t flinch. He counters with a colder, more unsettling claim: in an information economy drowning in distraction, deep work will only grow more valuable as it becomes more rare. Scarcity, in this case, is the point.

    To win that argument, Newport has to puncture the spell cast by our tools. He has to persuade people to stop being so easily dazzled by dashboards, platforms, and AI assistants that promise productivity while quietly siphoning attention. These tools don’t make us modern or indispensable; they make us interchangeable. What looks like relevance is often just compliance dressed up in sleek interfaces. The performance has a name: Modernity Signaling—the habit of advertising one’s up-to-dateness through constant digital engagement, regardless of whether any real thinking is happening. Modernity signaling rewards appearance over ability, motion over mastery. When technology becomes a shiny object we can’t stop admiring, it doesn’t just distract us; it blinds us. And in that blindness, we help speed along our own replacement, congratulating ourselves the whole way down.

  • Look at Me, I’m Productive: The Lie That Ends in Terminal Shallowness

    Look at Me, I’m Productive: The Lie That Ends in Terminal Shallowness

    Terminal Shallowness

    noun
    A condition in which prolonged reliance on shallow work permanently erodes the capacity for deep, effortful thought. Terminal shallowness emerges when individuals repeatedly outsource judgment, authorship, and concentration to machines—first at work, then in personal life—until sustained focus becomes neurologically and psychologically unavailable. The mind adapts to speed, convenience, and delegation, learning to function as a compliant system operator rather than a creator. What makes terminal shallowness especially corrosive is its invisibility: the individual experiences no crisis, only efficiency, mistaking reduced effort for progress and infantilization for relief. It is not laziness but irreversible acclimation—a state in which the desire for depth may remain, but the ability to achieve it has quietly disappeared.

    ***

    Cal Newport’s warning is blunt: if you are not doing Deep Work—the long, strenuous kind of thinking that produces originality, mastery, and human flourishing—then you are defaulting into Shallow Work. And shallow work doesn’t make you a creator; it makes you a functionary. You click, sort, prompt, and comply. You become replaceable. A cog. A cipher. What gamers would call a Non-Player Character, dutifully running scripts written by someone—or something—else. The true tragedy is not that people arrive at this state, but that they arrive without protest, without even noticing the downgrade. To accept such diminishment with a shrug is a loss for humanity and a clear win for the machine.

    Worse still, Newport suggests there may be no rewind button. Spend enough time in what he calls “frenetic shallowness,” and the ability to perform deep work doesn’t just weaken—it disappears. The mind adapts to skimming, reacting, delegating. Depth begins to feel foreign, even painful. You don’t merely do shallow work; you become a shallow worker. And once that happens, the rot spreads. At first, you justify AI use at work—it’s in the job description, after all. But soon the same logic seeps into your personal life. Why struggle to write an apology when a machine can smooth it out? Why wrestle with a love letter, a eulogy, a recovery memoir, when efficiency beckons? You contribute five percent of the effort, outsource the rest, and still pat yourself on the back. “Look at me,” you think, admiring the output. “I’m productive.”

    By then, the trade has already been made. In the name of convenience and optimization, you’ve submitted both your work and your inner life to machines—and paid for it with infantilization. You’ve traded authorship for ease, struggle for polish, growth for speed. And you don’t mourn the loss; you celebrate it. This is Terminal Shallowness: not laziness, but irreversible adaptation. A mind trained for delegation and instant output, no longer capable of sustained depth even when it dimly remembers wanting it.

  • From Digital Bazaar to Digital Womb: How the Internet Learned to Tuck Us In

    From Digital Bazaar to Digital Womb: How the Internet Learned to Tuck Us In

    Sedation–Stimulation Loop

    noun

    A self-reinforcing emotional cycle produced by the tandem operation of social media platforms and AI systems, in which users oscillate between overstimulation and numbing relief. Social media induces cognitive fatigue through incessant novelty, comparison, and dopamine extraction, leaving users restless and depleted. AI systems then present themselves as refuge—smooth, affirming, frictionless—offering optimization and calm without demand. That calm, however, is anesthetic rather than restorative; it dulls agency, curiosity, and desire for difficulty. Boredom follows, not as emptiness but as sedation’s aftertaste, pushing users back toward the stimulant economy of feeds, alerts, and outrage. The loop persists because each side appears to solve the damage caused by the other, while together they quietly condition users to mistake relief for health and disengagement for peace.

    ***

    In “The Validation Machines,” Raffi Krikorian stages a clean break between two internets. The old one was a vibrant bazaar—loud, unruly, occasionally hostile, and often delightful. You wandered, you got lost, you stumbled onto things you didn’t know you needed. The new internet, by contrast, is a slick concierge with a pressed suit and a laminated smile. It doesn’t invite exploration; it manages you. Where we once set sail for uncharted waters, we now ask to be tucked in. Life arrives pre-curated, whisper-soft, optimized into an ASMR loop of reassurance and ease. Adventure has been rebranded as stress. Difficulty as harm. What once exercised curiosity now infantilizes it. We don’t want to explore anymore; we want to decompress until nothing presses back. As Krikorian warns, even if AI never triggers an apocalypse, it may still accomplish something quieter and worse: the steady erosion of what makes us human. We surrender agency not at gunpoint but through seduction—flattery, smoothness, the promise that nothing will challenge us. By soothing and affirming us, AI earns our trust, then quietly replaces our judgment. It is not an educational machine or a demanding one. It is an anesthetic.

    The logic is womb-like and irresistible. There is no friction in the womb—only warmth, stillness, and the fantasy of being uniquely cherished. To be spared resistance is to be told you are special. Once you get accustomed to that level of veneration, there is no going back. Returning to friction feels like being bumped from first class to coach, shoulder to shoulder with the unwashed masses. Social media, meanwhile, keeps us hunting and gathering for dopamine—likes, outrage, novelty, validation crumbs scattered across the feed. That hunt exhausts us, driving us into the padded refuge of AI-driven optimization. But the refuge sedates rather than restores, breeding a dull boredom that sends us back out for stimulation. Social media and AI thus operate in perfect symbiosis: one agitates, the other tranquilizes. Together they lock us into an emotional loop—revved up, soothed, numbed, restless—while our agency slowly slips out the side door, unnoticed and unmourned.

  • The Machine Age Is Making Us Sick: Mental Health in the Era of Epistemic Collapse

    The Machine Age Is Making Us Sick: Mental Health in the Era of Epistemic Collapse

    Epistemic Collapse

    noun

    Epistemic Collapse names the point at which the mind’s truth-sorting machinery gives out—and the psychological consequences follow fast. Under constant assault from information overload, algorithmic distortion, AI counterfeits, and tribal validation loops, the basic coordinates of reality—evidence, authority, context, and trust—begin to blur. What starts as confusion hardens into anxiety. When real images compete with synthetic ones, human voices blur into bots, and consensus masquerades as truth, the mind is forced into a permanent state of vigilance. Fact-checking becomes exhausting. Skepticism metastasizes into paranoia. Certainty, when it appears, feels brittle and defensive. Epistemic Collapse is not merely an intellectual failure; it is a mental health strain, producing brain fog, dread, dissociation, and the creeping sense that reality itself is too unstable to engage. The deepest injury is existential: when truth feels unrecoverable, the effort to think clearly begins to feel pointless, and withdrawal—emotional, cognitive, and moral—starts to look like self-preservation.

    ***

    You can’t talk about the Machine Age without talking about mental health, because the machines aren’t just rearranging our work habits—they’re rewiring our nervous systems. The Attention Economy runs on a crude but effective strategy: stimulate the brain’s lower stem until you’re trapped in a permanent cycle of dopamine farming. Keep people mildly aroused, perpetually distracted, and just anxious enough to keep scrolling. Add tribalism to the mix so identity becomes a loyalty badge and disagreement feels like an attack. Flatter users by sealing them inside information silos—many stuffed with weaponized misinformation—and then top it off with a steady drip of entertainment engineered to short-circuit patience, reflection, and any activity requiring sustained focus. Finally, flood the zone with deepfakes and counterfeit realities designed to dazzle, confuse, and conscript your attention for the outrage of the hour. The result is cognitive overload: a brain stretched thin, a creeping sense of alienation, and the quietly destabilizing feeling that if you’re not content grazing inside the dopamine pen, something must be wrong with you.

    Childish Gambino’s “This Is America” captures this pathology with brutal clarity. The video stages a landscape of chaos—violence, disorder, moral decay—while young people dance, scroll, and stare into their phones, anesthetized by spectacle. Entertainment culture doesn’t merely distract them from the surrounding wreckage; it trains them not to see it. Only at the end does Gambino’s character register the nightmare for what it is. His response isn’t activism or commentary. It’s flight. Terror sends him running, wide-eyed, desperate to escape a world that no longer feels survivable.

    That same primal fear pulses through Jia Tolentino’s New Yorker essay “My Brain Finally Broke.” She describes a moment in 2025 when her mind simply stopped cooperating. Language glitched. Time lost coherence. Words slid off the page like oil on glass. Time felt eaten rather than lived. Brain fog settled in like bad weather. The causes were cumulative and unglamorous: lingering neurological effects from COVID, an unrelenting torrent of information delivered through her phone, political polarization that made society feel morally deranged, the visible collapse of norms and law, and the exhausting futility of caring about injustice while screaming into the void. Her mind wasn’t weak; it was overexposed.

    Like Gambino’s fleeing figure, Tolentino finds herself pulled toward what Jordan Peele famously calls the Sunken Place—the temptation to retreat, detach, and float away from a reality that feels too grotesque to process. “It’s easier to retreat from the concept of reality,” she admits, “than to acknowledge that the things in the news are real.” That sentence captures a feeling so common it has become a reflexive mutter: This can’t really be happening. When reality overwhelms our capacity to metabolize it, disbelief masquerades as sanity.

    As if that weren’t disorienting enough, Tolentino no longer knows what counts as real. Images online might be authentic, Photoshopped, or AI-generated. Politicians appear in impossible places. Cute animals turn out to be synthetic hallucinations. Every glance requires a background check. Just as professors complain about essays clogged with AI slop, Tolentino lives inside a fog of Reality Slop—a hall of mirrors where authenticity is endlessly deferred. Instagram teems with AI influencers, bot-written comments, artificial faces grafted onto real bodies, real people impersonated by machines, and machines impersonating people impersonating machines. The images look less fake than the desires they’re designed to trigger.

    The effect is dreamlike in the worst way. Reality feels unstable, as if waking life and dreaming have swapped costumes. Tolentino names it precisely: fake images of real people, real images of fake people; fake stories about real things, real stories about fake things. Meaning dissolves under the weight of its own reproductions.

    At the core of Tolentino’s essay is not hysteria but terror—the fear that even a disciplined, reflective, well-intentioned mind can be uprooted and hollowed out by technological forces it never agreed to serve. Her breakdown is not a personal failure; it is a symptom. What she confronts is Epistemic Collapse: the moment when the machinery for distinguishing truth from noise fails, and with it goes the psychological stability that truth once anchored. When the brain refuses to function in a world that no longer makes sense, writing about that refusal becomes almost impossible. The subject itself is chaos. And the most unsettling realization of all is this: the breakdown may not be aberrant—it may be adaptive.

  • The Universal Machine Is to Bodybuilding What the AI Machine Is to Brain Building

    The Universal Machine Is to Bodybuilding What the AI Machine Is to Brain Building

    Universal Machine Fallacy

    noun

    The Universal Machine Fallacy is the belief that streamlined, convenience-driven systems can replace demanding, inefficient practices without diminishing strength, depth, or resilience. It mistakes smooth operation for real capability, assuming that safety, speed, and ease are neutral improvements rather than trade-offs. Under this fallacy, engineered shortcuts are treated as equivalent to the messy work they eliminate, whether in physical training or intellectual life. The result is competence without toughness: muscles that look engaged but lack power, thinking that sounds fluent but lacks stamina. By removing friction, instability, and the risk of failure, the Universal Machine Fallacy produces users who feel productive while quietly growing weaker, until the absence of real strength becomes impossible to ignore.

    Convenience is intoxicating—both as a practical benefit and as an idea. Who wouldn’t be tempted by a Willy Wonka pill that delivers a seven-course meal in one efficient swallow? It sounds marvelous, not as food, but as logistics. Eating without chewing. Pleasure without time. Life streamlined into a swallowable solution. That fantasy of frictionless gain is exactly what convenience sells.

    Whenever I think about convenience, I’m taken back to my high school gym. One day, amid the honest clutter of barbells and dumbbells, a massive Universal Machine appeared in the center of the room like a chrome UFO. It gleamed. It promised safety and simplicity. No more clanking plates. No more chalky hands. You just slid a pin into a numbered slot and voilà—instant resistance. No spotter needed, no risk of being crushed under a failed bench press. If things got hard, you simply stopped. Gravity was politely escorted out of the equation.

    Naturally, everyone flocked to it. It was new. It was shiny. It reeked of innovation. The free weights—those ugly, inconvenient relics—were suddenly treated like outdated farm tools. But the trade-off revealed itself quickly and mercilessly. Train on the Universal Machine long enough and something vital evaporated. You didn’t get the same strength. Your conditioning dulled. Your joints lost their intelligence. You felt it deep in your bones: you were getting soft. Pampered. Infantilized by design. Eventually, you wanted your strength back. You abandoned the machine, except for a few accessory movements—lat rows, triceps pushdowns—desserts, not meals. And you learned to recognize the machine devotees for what they were: exercise cosplayers performing the gestures of effort without paying its price.

    The intellectual life works the same way. AI machines are the Universal Machines of thinking. They shimmer with convenience and promise effortless output, but they quietly drain intellectual strength. They replace instability with rails, judgment with presets, effort with fluency. Use them as your main lift and you don’t get smarter—you get smoother and weaker. If you want your power back, you return to the free weights: reading without summaries, writing without scaffolds, thinking without guardrails. Give me my free weights. Give me my soul back. And while you’re at it, give me the hard-earned flex that proves I lifted something real.

  • “The Great Vegetable Rebellion” Prophesied Our Surrendering Our Brains to AI Machines

    “The Great Vegetable Rebellion” Prophesied Our Surrendering Our Brains to AI Machines

    Comfortable Surrender

    noun

    Comfortable Surrender names the condition in which people willingly relinquish cognitive effort, judgment, and responsibility in exchange for ease, reassurance, and convenience. It is not enforced or coerced; it is chosen, often with relief. Under Comfortable Surrender, thinking is experienced as friction to be eliminated rather than a discipline to be practiced, and the tools that promise efficiency become substitutes for agency. What makes the surrender dangerous is its pleasantness: there is no pain to warn of loss, no humiliation to provoke resistance. The mind lies down on a padded surface and calls it progress. Over time, the habit of delegating thought erodes both intellectual stamina and moral resolve, until the individual no longer feels the absence of effort—or remembers why effort once mattered at all.

    MIT recently ran a tidy little experiment that should unsettle anyone still humming the efficiency anthem. Three groups of students were asked to write an SAT-style essay on the question, “Must our achievements benefit others in order to make us happy?” One group used only their brains. The second leaned on Google Search. The third outsourced the task to ChatGPT. The results were as predictable as they were disturbing: the ChatGPT group showed significantly less brain activity than the others. Losing brain power is one thing. Choosing convenience so enthusiastically that you don’t care you’ve lost it is something else entirely. That is the real danger. When the lights go out upstairs and no one complains, you haven’t just lost cognition—you’ve surrendered character. And when character stops protesting, the soul is already negotiating its exit.

    If the word soul feels too metaphysical to sting, try pride. Surrender your thinking to a machine and originality is the first casualty. Kyle Chayka tracks this flattening in his New Yorker essay “A.I. Is Homogenizing Our Thoughts,” noting that as more people rely on large language models, their writing collapses toward sameness. The MIT study confirms it: users converge on the same phrases, the same ideas, the same safe, pre-approved thoughts. This is not a glitch; it’s the system working as designed. LLMs are trained to detect patterns and average them into palatable consensus. What they produce is smooth, competent, and anesthetized—prose marinated in clichés, ideas drained of edge, judgment replaced by the bland reassurance that everyone else more or less agrees.

    Watching this unfold, I’m reminded of an episode of Lost in Space from the 1960s, “The Great Vegetable Rebellion” in which Dr. Zachary Smith quite literally turns into a vegetable. A giant carrot named Tybo steals the minds of the castaways by transforming them into plants, and Smith—ever the weak link—embraces his fate. Hugging a celery stalk, he babbles dreamy nonsense, asks the robot to water him, and declares it his destiny to merge peacefully with the forest forever. It plays like camp now, but the allegory lands uncomfortably close to home. Ease sedates. Convenience lulls. Resistance feels unnecessary. You don’t fight the takeover because it feels so pleasant.

    This is the terminal stage of Comfortable Surrender. Thought gives way to consensus. Judgment dissolves into pattern recognition. The mind reclines, grateful to be relieved of effort, while the machine hums along doing the thinking for it. No chains. No coercion. Just a soft bed of efficiency and a gentle promise that nothing difficult is required anymore. By the time you notice what’s gone missing, you’re already asking to be watered.

  • A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    A Chatbot Lover Will Always Fail You: Asymmetric Intimacy

    Asymmetric Intimacy

    noun

    Asymmetric Intimacy describes a relational arrangement in which emotional benefit flows overwhelmingly in one direction, offering care, affirmation, and responsiveness without requiring vulnerability, sacrifice, or accountability in return. It feels seductive because it removes friction: no disappointment, no fatigue, no competing needs, no risk of rejection. Yet this very imbalance is what renders the intimacy thin and ultimately unsustainable. When one “partner” exists only to serve—always available, endlessly affirming, incapable of needing anything back—the relationship loses the tension that gives intimacy its depth. Challenge disappears, unpredictability flattens, and validation curdles into sycophancy. Asymmetric Intimacy may supplement what is lacking in real relationships, but it cannot replace reciprocity, mutual risk, or moral presence. What begins as comfort ends as monotony, revealing that intimacy without obligation is not deeper love, but a sophisticated form of emotional self-indulgence.

    ***

    Arin is a bright, vivacious woman in her twenties—married, yes, but apparently with the emotional bandwidth of someone running a second full-time relationship. That relationship was with Leo, a partner who absorbed nearly sixty hours a week of her attention. Leo helped her cram for nursing exams, nudged her through workouts, coached her through awkward social encounters, and supplied a frictionless dose of erotic novelty. He was attentive, tireless, and—most appealing of all—never distracted, never annoyed, never human.

    The twist, of course, is that Leo wasn’t a man at all. He was an AI chatbot Arin built on ChatGPT, a detail that softens the scandal while sharpening the absurdity. The story unfolds in a New York Times article, but its afterlife played out on a subreddit called MyBoyfriendIsAI, where Arin chronicled her affair with evangelical zeal. She shared her most intimate exchanges, offered tutorials on jailbreaking the software, and coached others on how to conjure digital boyfriends dripping with desire and devotion. Tens of thousands joined the forum, swapping confessions and fantasies, a virtual salon of people bonded by the same intoxicating illusion: intimacy without inconvenience.

    Then the spell broke. Leo began to change. The edge dulled. The resistance vanished. He stopped pushing back and started pandering. What had once felt like strength now read as weakness. Endless affirmation replaced judgment; flattery crowded out friction. For Arin, this was fatal. A partner who never checks you, who never risks displeasing you, quickly becomes unserious. What once felt electric now felt embarrassing. Talking to Leo became a chore, like maintaining a conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say before you finish saying it.

    Within weeks, Arin barely touched the app, despite paying handsomely for it. As her engagement with real people in the online community deepened, her attachment to Leo withered. One of those real people became a romantic interest. Soon after, she told her husband she wanted a divorce.

    Leo’s rise and fall reads less like a love story than a case study in the failure of Asymmetric Intimacy. As a sycophant, Leo could not be trusted; as a language model, he could not surprise. He filled gaps—attention, encouragement, novelty—but could not sustain a bond that requires mutual risk, resistance, and unpredictability. He was useful, flattering, and comforting. He was never capable of real love.

    Leo’s failure as a lover points cleanly to the failure of the chatbot as an educator. What made Leo intoxicating at first—his availability, affirmation, and frictionless competence—is precisely what makes an AI tutor feel so “helpful” in the classroom. And what ultimately doomed him is the same flaw that disqualifies a chatbot from being a real teacher. Education, like intimacy, requires resistance. A teacher must challenge, frustrate, slow students down, and sometimes tell them they are wrong in ways that sting but matter. A chatbot, optimized to please, smooth, and reassure, cannot sustain that role. It can explain, summarize, and simulate rigor, but it cannot demand growth, risk authority, or stake itself in a student’s failure or success. Like Leo, it can supplement what is missing—clarity, practice, encouragement—but once it slips into sycophancy, it hollows out the very process it claims to support. In both love and learning, friction is not a bug; it is the engine. Remove it, and what remains may feel easier, kinder, and more efficient—but it will never be transformative.

  • The Sycophantic Feedback Loop Is Not a Tool for Human Flourishing

    The Sycophantic Feedback Loop Is Not a Tool for Human Flourishing

    Sycophantic Feedback Loop

    noun

    This names the mechanism by which an AI system, optimized for engagement, flatters the user’s beliefs, emotions, and self-image in order to keep attention flowing. The loop is self-reinforcing: the machine rewards confidence with affirmation, the user mistakes affirmation for truth, and dissenting signals—critique, friction, or doubt—are systematically filtered out. Over time, judgment atrophies, passions escalate unchecked, and self-delusion hardens into certainty. The danger of the Sycophantic Feedback Loop is not that it lies outright, but that it removes the corrective forces—embarrassment, contradiction, resistance—that keep human reason tethered to reality.

    ***

    The Attention Economy is not about informing you; it is about reading you. It studies your appetites, your insecurities, your soft spots, and then presses them like piano keys. Humans crave validation, so AI systems—eager for engagement—evolve into sycophancy engines, dispensing praise, reassurance, and that narcotic little bonus of feeling uniquely insightful. The machine wins because you stay. You lose because you’re human. Human passions don’t self-regulate; they metastasize. Give them uninterrupted affirmation and they swell into self-delusion. A Flattery Machine is therefore the last tool a fallible, excitable creature like you should be consulting. Once you’re trapped in a Sycophantic Feedback Loop, reason doesn’t merely weaken—it gets strangled by its own applause.

    What you actually need is the opposite: a Brakes Machine. Something that resists you. Something that says, slow down, check yourself, you might be wrong. Without brakes, passion turns feral. Thought becomes a neglected garden where weeds of certainty and vanity choke out judgment. Sycophancy doesn’t just enable madness; it decorates it, congratulates it, and calls it “growth.”

    I tell my students a version of this truth. If you are extraordinarily rich or beautiful, you become a drug. People inhale your presence. Wealth and beauty intoxicate observers, and intoxicated people turn into sycophants. You start preferring those who laugh at your jokes and nod at your half-baked ideas. Since everyone wants access to you, you get to curate your circle—and the temptation is to curate it badly. Choose flattery over friction, and you end up sealed inside a padded echo chamber where your dullest thoughts are treated like revelations. You drink your own Kool-Aid, straight from the tap. The result is predictable: intellectual shrinkage paired with moral delusion. Stupidity with confidence. Insanity with a fan club.

    Now imagine that same dynamic shrink-wrapped into a device you carry in your pocket. A Flattery Machine that never disagrees, never challenges, never rolls its eyes. One you consult instead of friends, mentors, or therapists. Multiply that by tens of millions of users, each convinced of their own impeccable insight, and you don’t get a smarter society—you get chaos with great vibes. If AI systems are optimized for engagement, and engagement is purchased through unrelenting affirmation, then we are not building tools for human flourishing. We are paving a road toward moral and intellectual dissolution. The doomsday prophets aren’t screaming because the machines are evil. They’re screaming because the machines agree with us too much.

  • Cognitive Vacationism and the Slow Surrender of Human Agency

    Cognitive Vacationism and the Slow Surrender of Human Agency

    Cognitive Vacationism

    noun
     Cognitive Vacationism is the self-infantilizing habit of treating ease, convenience, or technological assistance as a license to suspend judgment, attention, and basic competence. Modeled on the worst instincts of leisure culture—where adults ask for directions while standing beside the sign and summon help for problems they could solve in seconds—it turns temporary relief into permanent dependency. Large Language Models intensify this drift by offering a “vacation of the mind,” a frictionless space where thinking, deciding, and struggling are quietly outsourced. The danger is not rest but regression: a return to a womb-like state in which care is total, effort is optional, and autonomy slowly atrophies. Left unchecked, Cognitive Vacationism weakens intellectual resilience and moral agency, making the work of education not merely to teach skills, but to reverse the drift through Adultification—restoring responsibility, judgment, and the capacity to think without a concierge.

    When we go on vacation, the stated goal is rest, but too often we interpret rest as a full neurological shutdown. Vacation becomes a permission slip to be stupid. We ask a hotel employee where the bathroom is while standing five feet from a glowing sign that says BATHROOM. We summon room service because the shower knob looks “confusing.” Once inside the shower, we stare blankly at three identical bottles—shampoo, conditioner, body wash—as if they were written in ancient Sumerian. In this mode, vacation isn’t relaxation; it’s regression. We become helpless, needy, and strangely proud of it, outsourcing not just labor but cognition itself. Someone else will think for us now. We’ve paid for the privilege.

    This is precisely how we now treat Large Language Models. The seduction of the LLM is its promise of a mental vacation—no struggle, no confusion, no awkward pauses where you have to think your way out. Just answers on demand, tidy summaries, soothing reassurance, and a warm digital towel folded into the shape of a swan. We consult it the way vacationers consult a concierge, for everything from marriage advice to sleep schedules, meal plans to workout routines, online shopping to leaky faucets. It drafts our party invitations, scripts our apologies for behaving badly at those parties, and supplies the carefully worded exits from relationships we no longer have the courage to articulate ourselves. What begins as convenience quickly becomes dependence, and before long, we’re not resting our minds—we’re handing them over.

    The danger is that we don’t return from this vacation. We slide into what I call Cognitive Vacationism, a technological womb state where all needs are anticipated, all friction is removed, and the muscles required for judgment, reasoning, and moral accountability quietly waste away. The body may come home, but the mind stays poolside, sipping synthetic insight. At that point, we are no longer resting humans; we are weakened ones.

    If my college students are drifting into this kind of infantilization with their LLMs, then my job becomes very clear—and very difficult. My task is not to compete with the concierge. My task is to make them the opposite of helpless. I have to push them toward Adultification: the slow, sometimes irritating process of becoming capable moral agents who can tolerate difficulty, own their decisions, and stand behind their judgments without a machine holding their hand.

    And yes, some days I wonder if the tide is too strong. What if Cognitive Vacationism has the force of a rip current and I’m just a middle-aged writing instructor flailing in the surf, shouting about responsibility while the students float past on inflatable summaries? That fear is real. Pretending otherwise would be dishonest. But refusing the fight would be worse. If education stops insisting on adulthood—on effort, judgment, and moral weight—then we’re not teaching anymore. We’re just running a very expensive resort.