HAPPY SPOOOOKY DAY and blessed Samhain if that's your thing.

This week's podcast episode sure is spooooooky! It's It Could Happen Here's "Occulture, William S. Burroughs, and Generative AI," and the moment that title popped up in my feed, I knew I'd be talking about it (even though I Don't Speak German covered Mother Night, this week, which is my favourite Vonnegut book. Maybe I'll talk about that one next week). 

I had never heard of the Occulture conference, which is...what you think it is. As a good little Marxist materialist, I am not a chaos magick practitioner or believer as such except that definitely magic and the occult are a terrain we should not cede to the enemy so I am not not a chaos magick believer, y'know? At the very least as a philosophical and narrative system it's something that I'm quite interested in.

And of course for all his being one of the most Problematic Faves of all my Problematic Faves—he killed his wife ffs—I never really got over my teenage obsession with William S. Burroughs. As the episode points out, he's lumped in with the Beats but more properly belongs with the Surrealists (and the Dadaists) in terms of what he was doing. And y'all know how I feel about the Surrealists and the Dadaists. So there's an unexpected amount of discussion of Burroughs as a magickian at the the conference and his techniques (some of which were extremely funny, such as cursing a restaurant that took his favourite thing off the menu) and particularly his use of technology to channel the non-human.

Which brings me to the argument that I get into way too fucking much, which is "well isn't GenAI basically the same as cut-up poetry," and that's apparently something that was asked repeatedly at this conference. Spoiler: No it is not. Like, neither artistically nor magickically, which is a relief as that wasn't necessarily where the discussion might have gone. The short version has to do with Third Mind theory, which is quite interesting, and again, I feel there's a much more materialist explanation for why it's not the same but I also appreciate the occultist explanation. 

Anyway it's a big meaty feast for my special interests and apparently there will be a second part dropping this weekend, so yay!

Just finished: The Magic Words: Writing Great Books for Children and Young Adults by Cheryl B. Klein. I don't really have a lot to add: This was good and useful, especially if you're in the revision stage of a project, which I am not. It weirdly made me want to read a few of the books that it talks about as examples, though with my TBR list as it is and a general disinterest in YA literature, I likely won't.

Currently reading: Katabasis by R.F. Kuang. It's time, fuckos! I've had a hold on this one since I read a bad review of it. I have heard that Kuang often doesn't land her endings, which I hope is not the case, because this has one of the best openings I've come across in a good long time. It begins with Alice Law, a postgrad in linguistic magick, preparing a chalk circle to go to Hell to retrieve the soul of her recently dead advisor, Professor Grimes, because he's on her dissertation committee and is her only chance to get tenure. The cost for going to Hell and returning is half your remaining lifespan, but Alice is more than willing to pay that in exchange for having a stable job, making her possibly the most relatable character in genre fiction. Her plans are interrupted by Peter, her hated academic rival and the department's golden boy, who insists on coming with her even though his prospects for career advancement are much better than hers.

Anyway this is completely hilarious and painful and only an inconvenient need to work and sleep is keeping me from it at the moment.

I faithfully go to the Kensington Festival of Lights every year, but I haven't been to its darker, spookier, sister festival, the Night of Dread, in forever. It's run by Clay and Paper out of Dufferin Grove Park (for non-Torontonians, this is one of the best parks in the city, though in recent years it has fallen victim to violent encampment sweeps over the protests of nearly everyone who uses it).



( what lies within? )

Today's featured episode is "Smart Glasses Are Ushering In an Anti-Social World ft. Chris Gilliard" from Tech Won't Save Us.

This is a good episode for a number of reasons. First of all, it reminds us that just because tech companies want a thing, and invest a lot of money to convince you that this thing is the inevitable progression of humanity, you can as an individual reject that thing and convince others to do so too. Google Glasses are a great example of a thing that was heavily pushed but no one other than glassholes wanted it, and so people were shamed, mocked, and bullied out of public spaces for wearing them. This is a good use of shame, bullying, and mockery. (Note: Chris points out that the latest attempt at making glasses that control you happen is a bit different, as it's being aimed at controlling workers rather than as a status symbol for the rich. Obviously, do not bully an Amazon delivery guy for being forced to wear them.) Another great comparison is the Metaverse—Zuck spent a fortune on his fantasy of not having a body that sweats too much, and no one bought it. No one asked for LLMs and you—yes you, one person who thinks you're too insignificant to do anything—can stop them from being forced on you. We finally get to use our mean girl powers for good, and I have a mean streak a mile wide.

Another thing that kind of blew my mind is the way Chris talks about the phases of Big Tech-driven media—first it was used to connect you to your friends (and make you dependent), then it was about a trade where the companies gave you connection and visibility in exchange for privacy, and now the deal has shifted. You are expected to be controlled by the technology. You are now being programmed and instructed. Chris notes that some people very much desire this as it reduces decision fatigue. Of course this dovetails nicely with the broader move towards fascism in former Western democracies.

Finally, there is some good talk about affordances. An affordance is basically what the environment or technology allows you to do. A button allows you to press it. A car not only allows you to go faster than you could otherwise, but it creates physical and geographic isolation, the development of suburban spaces around roads rather than common areas, and reactionary politics caused by mistrusting your neighbour and especially Those People In Cities. The replacement of Dreamwidth-style fixed-page scrolling on most social media sites by endless scrolling is what enables social media dependency and doomscrolling. Etc. Chris talks about what, specifically, LLMs are designed to do as their ideal use-case, which is forcing your worldview on someone else. They are primarily for deepfakes, stalking, propaganda, and CSAM. That you can do other things with them is a side-effect. I think this is a very strong argument and not one I'd really thought about. The characterization of LLMs as an inherently antisocial technology is not one I'd thought much about either.

Never forget that our billionaire enemies are forcing LLMs into everything because they want girlfriends without having to talk to women, they want slaves without having to see a Black person, and they have a fantasy of immorality via being uploaded into Machine Heaven. This is fundamentally silly and risible and actually batshit insane, and you are smarter and more reality-based than they are.