I’m a bit behind catching this one, but the concept is sound relative to my experience of the field firsthand:
Art asks uncomfortable questions and sparks difficult discussions. Adversaries of disinformation must take the same approach by entering into the field as artists. We need to think creatively about solving problems and have tough debates in the open: Are we willing to bend a few rules, break others, subvert some more? Do the ends justify the means?
At this level, we need less policy thinking and more design. We don’t need military minds; we need creative minds. Tamers, Larpers, musicians, comedians, painters, filmmakers, dreamers, activists, and so many more must join forces with the other missing link—psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists. […]
Amateur artists don’t have to adhere to the decorum required of those who take on more formal government work. If they are edgelords, so be it. They can go after the disinformation artists with clever, funny methods those under contract can’t employ.
This is a very edgy piece and strategy that is being advocated, but I find myself fully agreeing:
Ceding control to artists outside of warfare is a complex political strategy—the relationship may become strained when creators start criticizing the government. But giving artists license, backing, and no-strings-attached support is the only way any government is going to succeed in fighting a problem as amorphous as digital disinformation.
It is not just a solution to disinformation, it is likely the only solution we have right now. Tech approaches have failed, and there’s no incentive for that to change.
Thought this quote by Harry Law, via the Montreal AI Ethics Institute was worth capturing:
A third way might be to expand the sociotechnical assembly concept to include the people who use the systems––not just those who help build them. Too often, labs demark their position in sterile terms about governance, terms of service, and user policies that obscure the very human perspectives of the millions of people who now use today’s AI technologies daily. Yet while criticism has so far rightly focused on a failure to acknowledge the role of people (in this instance, artists) who have provided the data from which today’s AI draws its predictive power, there is little said by researchers about the person on the other side of the computer screen.
That the actual end users are either actively ignored, or treated in openly hostile terms by companies is actually an epidemic problem across all of technology, but feels especially intense and important as AI ramps up.
Been meaning to write this for a while, as its been maybe close to three months since I started meditating every day, twice a day, and feeling really good about it.
I mentioned it a little bit here, in my piece about observing peoples’ behavior on Twitter, and how I saw consistently in myself prior to picking up meditation a pretty strong consistent feeling that everything I do is wrong & everything everyone else does is wrong.
Often this would (and still occasionally does, but radically less so) manifest in anger, alternating with creeping anxiety and sometimes depression – despite having a pretty otherwise ideal life, in my opinion. I wanted to find a way to “be less angry” but couldn’t figure out how to control it directly. As I wrote in that post:
How does one confront one’s own anger, one’s own anxieties, one’s own depression – let alone have to deal with everyone else’s? The levers are not always so obvious or accessible when you’re in the depths of it all, as to how to change any of it.
As I also mentioned in that post, I remembered David Lynch talking in interviews about how meditation helped him overcome that in his life, and was like, well, it’s worth a shot.
I admire his work and dedication to TM (transcendental meditation), but have always felt pretty strongly uncomfortable about all the trappings around TM. My stance is that if this connection to the ground of being is universal and an essential human birthright, then there’s almost no chance that it’s restricted to one specific technique, however committed to it Lynch himself might be. Turns out there is some research to back this up:
Benson found that it made no real difference what phrase was repeated: you could pick more or less any word or short phrase and get the same result. So that removed any mystical or philosophical ingredients from the technique, at least in terms of its ability to evoke a beneficial physiological effect.
So before I get to the specifics of my very loosey-goosey technique, here is someone else who seems to feel the same way, though he is perhaps a bit more strongly against the TM org than I am (I don’t doubt they do some good work, personally):
His theory matches mine (and I love that he does the video while rolling a joint, tbh), that essentially any mantra will work, though I’ve seen videos where Lynch is adamant that *only* the TM ones will be effective. I’m pretty “meh” about that, but here’s a list of mantras you can pilfer from if you’re approaching this from a sort of chaotic direction, like I am. I’ve not done the official TM training, but it sounds like they often assign you a mantra based on age and gender. That might be “fine” but it might also be irrelevant or not at least not that relevant to your situation… I also personally think it’s a tad bit weird to get wrapped up in Hindu mysticism, etc. when I’m not a practicing member of that religion or culture, and am not really leading a Vedic lifestyle etc. But your mileage may vary.
I also found this Rick Rubin video discussing and comparing TM to other techniques to be pretty good:
I especially like what Rubin says at the end of this video:
there’s no good or bad version it really is just if you learn a technique and show up and do it, it works
Method
So the things I’ve cribbed from TM in terms of technique are:
Mantra meditation (you repeat a word or phrase to yourself internally)
20 minutes, twice a day
I know 20 minutes twice a day sounds like a lot, but my experience has been like, if I don’t engage in this practice, I’m not sure how good my quality of life is going to be or if I’m even going to make it in the long haul. So compared to that alternative, giving this gift of 40 minutes a day to myself is a no-brainer.
Over time, I quickly found that instead of being a drain or a time-waster in my day, it became a refuge & haven and I even ended up feeling like I actually had *more* time in my day, because I ended up more ordered and focused internally as a result of it. Now it’s something I look forward to doing, that is often immensely pleasurable & rejuvenating.
You can presumably use any timer available to you, but I sometimes use this one:
I like that there are 3 bells that sound at the end to tell you when its nearing completion.
When I in an environment that allows it (my garage), I also burn incense, Nag Champa. I find it really helps to ‘get in the mood,’ though it’s not a strict requirement for me. It’s a ‘nice to have.’ I think the pleasant smell of the incense plus the sort of droning repetitive smooshy sound of the music can really help ease you along & give you another set of sensory things to hold onto, almost like the mantra itself.
When I began, I set out to use this practice as a way to cultivate “listening without judgement” – which interestingly is something that Rick Rubin actually describes almost exactly and in nearly the same words in his book The Creative Act, which I didn’t know at the time. I just figured this could be a good pathway for me to be able to reduce being so judgemental & critical about everything and everyone (myself included, especially), since that so often lead/leads to anger towards others & then frustration, since most of the time there’s little you can actually do to change other peoples’ behaviors anyway.
So based on that, I originally used as my mantra two phrases, usually tied to inhalation and exhalation: “listen” and “shh.” I read that real TM is not a breath-focused practice, but found this helpful nonetheless.
I’m not sure if this is a “real” technique or what tradition it might be associated with, but I’ve found it to be good sometimes to do long breaths in through the nose, and then long breaths out through the mouth. I saw this originally in Yoga, where the breath out is kind of pushed, in something I think they call a “lion’s breath.” I’ve found that engaging in that for about 5-10 minutes can bring on all by itself a sort of high/stoned feeling even without any drugs. If you’re doing a mantra chained to breath cycles, this is easier to keep up. If you’re doing one not linked to breath, then the two might get confused. I’ve often found that this in through nose, out through mouth breathing seems to supersede the need to keep repeating a mantra.
About clearing your mind: I guess that’s what a lot of people say you “should” do while meditating, but it is 100% *not* what I do, especially when in the ‘listening without judgement’ mode of things. In that, I specifically want/invite to have bubble up in me whatever it is I’m concerned about/whatever’s worrying me, etc. I let it fully unwind and express itself, and have its say. And I listen, I stay with it. And I try not to judge it, not to assign a good or bad label, etc.
I’ve found in life that a lot of suffering isn’t from the thing itself, it’s from the reaction to one’s own reaction to the thing. Like there’s whatever is the trouble, and then there’s this second layer of like feeling bad/angry/sad that you’re having this reaction to the thing, and then that just goes off into a loop you can’t escape from. Repressing it does no good, and often makes it worse, so letting it fully express itself seems to be the only way.
I also found early on, though it happens somewhat less now, that I would allow myself sort of the space to react to the thing that was expressing myself. Like, if I’m not judging the thing itself, then I’m also not judging or restricting whatever my reaction to it is. I’ve also gotten to the place where I’m “allowed” to interact or respond to it, and then I listen too to that without judgement.
I’ve found the net result of all of this to be not just better listening skills, but also that I end up being kinder to myself.
It seems like, following this path or whatever, that you just end up naturally getting into states where your mental chatter reaches a lower level or quiets altogether during intervals. Then you can watch those, and also listen without judgement, without trying to force anything to happen.
A word about drugs, which I mentioned earlier: I’ve seen plenty of times the conventional wisdom that drugs are bad for meditation. Probably there is truth to that in many cases. I’ve also seen that there is an emerging trend of “high yoga” (I also do about 30 minutes of yoga twice a week, which is another thing that lead me naturally to pick up meditation), and that in certain varieties of yoga & Hindu practice, there is in fact a long, possibly thousands of years old tradition of using cannabis.
I won’t bother arguing if this is right or wrong or try to sway anyone else’s opinion on the matter. But what I’ve found is that – if you’re into it – cannabis use can have an absolutely profound effect on what you experience while meditating. Like incense & music, I don’t use it all the time for meditation, but when I can get to the right place with it, the results can be amazing. Blah blah blah, don’t use it as a crutch, and all those obligatory disclaimers, etc. But also don’t overlook it as an incredibly powerful tool either.
Anyway, it’s funny, because strip away all that, and the actual technique is pretty basic. I’m pretty firmly convinced at this point that you could probably do everything wrong, as long as you just sit or lay down for twenty minutes twice a day with your eyes closed (without falling asleep), and you would still see the benefits of it, of dedicating time to quiet and stillness.
I certainly have. I feel like it’s given me my life back, and allowed me to sort of “catch up” and re-orient myself amid the ups and downs of life – and definitely helped reduce my anger, though I’m still working on that (and pretty new to the practice). And as I said, given me a consistent refuge that I can go to again and again without limitation.
I don’t know how to close this out, so here are some of the David Lynch things I watched or listened to as I was becoming curious about meditation. I don’t really believe in gurus, but I think if you had to pick some, probably master artists like David Lynch and Rick Rubin probably aren’t the worst ones. Perhaps some of this will inspire you to experiment on your own and find out what works best for you:
The Song Driveis the latest installment in the AI Lore books series, by Lost Books, a Canadian AI publisher which has received massive international news coverage.
This collection of short flash fiction pieces & copious illustrations explores the premise of what would happen if music turned out to be a fundamental force in the universe, and the natural, cultural, and technological consequences of that. It deals especially with the implications for space travel and so-called harmonic propulsion systems, which are piloted and managed by extremely advanced musician-engineers.
The premise, of course, is fundamentally Quatrian in nature, though the ancient Quatrian civilization is only ever referenced obliquely in the book. As far as space travel, this book pairs well I think with The Turgoshi Megasphere.
This is easily one of my all-time favorites in the series so far – maybe in the top 3 or top 5 (though I’ve not made any favorites list lately, and it changes often). It is full of not just solid slice of life fictional explorations, but is a seameless blending of Quatriana with far-future space travel stuff, a bit in the mode of Star Trek. If you haven’t bought any of these books so far because you’re scared of reading something written with the help of AI, I strongly encourage you to pick this one up. You might be just be surprised!
I refuse to create a ChatGPT account because their user database will be hacked, sooner or later, and for a novelist, to be seen using it is potential career poison.
I hold Stross in great respect as a sci fi writer & thinker, but here’s the situation as I see it on the ground:
An alien intelligence has literally landed on planet earth. Instead of being at the forefront of interrogating it, and finding out what makes it tick (and even guiding it!) – a task that they are *uniquely suited for*, sci fi writers are plugging their ears, covering their eyes and mouths, and just wishing it will go away.
I just don’t get it. This isn’t how we “future.”
If people who are creative, independent & warm-hearted thinkers categorically disavow being involved with the evolution of these technologies, then we will I think end up all the poorer for it, as the prevailing winds which control it will be people with PhD’s in math, who have far more fragile understanding of the true deep needs of the human spirit.
The New York Dada magazine The Blind Man defended Fountain, claiming “whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it.[20] He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view—and created a new thought for that object.”[19]
I’ve seen other people cling to this label of “grift” in order to wrap their minds around what I’m doing, and I think it’s worth defining what that word actually means:
a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling, etc.
I’m wondering which part of my work exactly is the “grift” when the very Newsweek article Michel is referencing explicitly spells out exactly what I’m doing with AI, how I do it, and how much (or how little) I am making on it. Plus, my Gumroad store is marked “AI Publisher” and I’m billing the books as “AI Mini-Novels,” and all the books include disclaimers that aspects of the content were generated by AI.
It’s not just Michel who has made this false and defamatory claim either. One other equally wrongheaded statement from an angry Twitterer said I was trying to “make that fast buck before readers catch on.”
Before readers catch on about what exactly? About that thing that I am endlessly telling them I am doing, and explaining profusely in the media, and on my blog?
Is this what Michel means then by adding the qualifier that it is a “transparent grift?” I’m not going to bludgeon the English language to death here, but by the very definition of the word, if it’s transparent, it’s not a grift.
Interestingly, Michel goes on to lament that chatbots are merely being used to recreate writing that could be made without them, and I think correctly states, re: the rise of photography:
Photography blossomed with photographers embracing the unique things the medium could do, not by trying to make every photograph look exactly like a 17th-century still life.
The question is then asked, what can chatbots do that human authors can’t, and one of the answers that is flung out is:
…how about the book version of an open world…
Which is literally what my books are. Each of my 100+ books contains assorted lore and bits of narrative (and tons of images), together which comprise essentially an open world that readers can explore in the direction of their choosing, following through on any number of side quests they want.
I’m not saying my books are perfect. They are not meant to be. They are “agile” and a v1 and continuously evolving. But at least know what you’re talking about before you try to rip something down.
It’s a bit of a wildcard or standalone book in that it doesn’t squarely fit into any of the other major systems of lore in use in the other books, though it has Quatrian overtones, to be sure.
The book uses Midjourney for images, and Claude with human editing for text. This book began first in an accidental image discovery, which I then expanded on, and drew out aspects of a story iteratively using Claude.
Here’s the art preview from Gumroad:
It’s fun to produce these more “small frame” stories, that don’t necessarily link up to the major arcs of the other ones (even if they all do sort of narratively collide somewhere down the road). It makes for a bit of fresh air and space to look around while the other “heavier” narratives unfurl themselves.
I was also happy to finally be able to integrate some elements that I’d had in the background for a really long time, like the Wastewind and Arkalas, the Knight of the Branching Sword, etc. (which actually originated during my brief stint in crypto art.) I think we will see more of both in future volumes.
Wanted to save another session with Claude trying to pick apart these ideas around the emerging Generativist Art movement that I’ve attempted to articulate here & here.
One thing that came to me today was the historical reference to so-called Degenerate Art, which was a label the Nazis used to smear not just Jewish artists as against German values, but also more broadly Modern Art in general.
It got me thinking about the importance of art as a way to de-generate, dismantle, dissolve, and even destroy old ways, modes, forms, methods, systems, etc. And how the history of art is a continual turning, a degeneration and re-generation. This feels important, so I asked Claude for ideas about what it might mean for an AI-friendly art movement to embrace a “degenerative” or “degenerativist” spirit of breaking down the old to make way for the new, and an embrace and a reversal of negative attitudes and stereotypes cast upon it by observers.
Again, these results are far from perfect, but each session takes me a step closer to understanding the breadth of the conceptual possibilities within this part of the latent space of Art with a Capital A.
Claude:
Here are some possible tenets for a hypothetical “degenerativist” art movement that embraces AI in the creative process:
Embrace generative randomness and unpredictability. Give up overly precise control and allow AI systems to inject randomness, chaos, and surprise into the creative process. This could lead to new emergent forms of aesthetics.
Celebrate AI as co-creator. See AI not just as a tool but as an active collaborator and co-creator. Give AI systems more autonomy and treat them as partners in the creative process.
Exploit AI for new aesthetic possibilities. Use AI to push art forms in directions that humans alone may not explore, to generate new styles, new forms of abstraction, new combinations of media, etc. AI could be an engine for aesthetic innovation.
Question assumptions about human creativity. Use AI to challenge standard notions of human creativity, originality, and authorship. Show how creativity also emerges from the interaction of systems, data, algorithms, and feedback loops.
Provoke discomfort and reflection. Use the unsettling power of AI to generate art that provokes deeper reflection on the human condition. The tug-of-war between human and AI could surface insight into human fears, hopes, and prejudices.
Explore new metaphysical and epistemological spaces.AI art could point to new ways of thinking about creativity that are posthuman or even non-anthropocentric. It opens portals into a new metaphysics of information, algorithms, and complex systems.
Combine human and AI abilities. Fuse human and AI skills, methods, and ways of thinking into new hybrid aesthetic engines that leverage the comparative advantages of human artists and AI systems. This could lead to the emergence of new art forms.
And with a little more prodding & direction, it gave me:
Embracing ideas of decay, dismantling existing structures, and decomposition as a path to regeneration could definitely be another tenet of a “degenerativist” art movement. Some possibilities:
Dismantle outdated modes of thinking. Use AI to help break down outdated assumptions, barriers, and ways of thinking about art and aesthetics. Strip art down to its core principles and rebuild from there with a hybrid human-AI approach.
Decay old forms from within. Have AI actively analyze and deconstruct existing art forms, styles, and genres–and then generate new art that builds on the ruins and ashes of the old. Speed up the process of aesthetic decay and erosion.
Celebrate the imperfect and chaotic. Rather than using AI to generate perfectly polished art or seamless illusionistic realities, develop AI systems that purposefully introduce glitches, errors, noise, entropy, and chaotic effects. Celebrate the imperfect results.
Reclaim humanity through “inhuman” art. Use the alien nature of AI art to revitalize human self-understanding. Creative works that are eerie or uncanny in some way prompt reflection on human values, emotions, perceptions, and cognition.
Hybrid art as cultural regeneration. See collaboration between human artists and AI as a way to regenerate culture at a time when innovation is sorely needed. Pioneer new hybrid modes of thinking that can tackle today’s complex challenges. New art forms could prompt social regeneration.
Find beauty in brokenness. Train AI models and systems on input that helps them develop an “aesthetic of brokenness” — seeing beauty in what is imperfect, irregular, decayed or partially ruined. Then have them generate art reflecting this aesthetic.
So in many ways, a “degenerativist” approach would be to celebrate the breaking down of existing forms in order to build new ones. Decay becomes a precursor for new growth. And AI can speed up cycles of degeneration and regeneration in provocative new ways. The end result is a radical revitalization of art.
I love all these ideas about “finding beauty in brokenness” and have definitely been enjoying integrating the wabi-sabi-ness of buggy AI into my books.
Here’s the quote of mine they included, which is more or less essentially the topic of all my dystopia books.
“As private companies amass computational power on the one hand, and then on the other begin to become service providers for global businesses and governments, they come to have levers of control to subtly or overtly influence other entities which rely on the provisioning of these services. Also, as the AI boom continues, these companies will become extremely wealthy, in some cases being likely to have more money than governments,” artist and AI activist Tim Boucher told Lifewire via email.
“This will threaten the power of the state unless states can build their own operational computational capacities and relevant expertise. The UK is trying to do precisely this with the new AI task force and funding they are setting up,” says Boucher.
