I was writing a video script, and a warning popped up. I first noticed this warning a couple days ago, but I didn’t think anything of it.
‘Strong resemblance to AI text.’
I am creating some videos to promote my latest book. I realise that it is academically dense, so I want to break down some of the subject matter.
As usual, my writing is on language and its insufficiencies.
But why was I being warned that my writing resembled AI? What does that even mean?
I reread the sentence:
What if the biggest trick language played on you is convincing you that the world is made of things?
I was looking for a hook to open the short clip. I altered it slightly:
What if the biggest trick language played on you is convincing you that the world is made of things, of objects?
This appeased the AI detector. I had to dilute the message by adding ‘of objects‘. As I write this, it reminds me of Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale and the naming of the women as property of their masters – OfFred, and so on. Of objects.
The AI police are annoying to say the least. Profiling: Minority Project. A 1984 thought crime.
I’m hopping down off the soapbox, down off my high horse, but I’m miffed by bollocks.
How does AI summarise it? Find out here:
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
EDIT: Does it get worse?
When I checked into LinkedIn to share this post, I was distracted by another thread chatting about Emotivism. I’ll spare you the entire thread, but now Grammarly wants me to write in German. Was ist los?
The first step is to stop pretending that ‘truth’ names a single thing.
Philosopher Bernard Williams helpfully distinguished between thin and thick senses of truth in Truth and Truthfulness. The distinction is simple but instructive.
In its thin sense, truth is almost trivial. Saying ‘it is true that p’ typically adds nothing beyond asserting p. The word ‘true’ functions as a logical convenience: it allows endorsement, disquotation, and generalisation. Philosophically speaking, this version of truth carries very little metaphysical weight. Most arguments about truth, however, are not about this thin sense.
In practice, truth usually appears in a thicker social sense. Here, truth is embedded in practices of inquiry and communication. Communities develop norms around sincerity, accuracy, testimony, and credibility. These norms help stabilise claims so that people can coordinate action and share information.
At this level, truth becomes something like a social achievement. A statement counts as ‘true’ when it can be defended, circulated, reinforced, and relied upon within a shared framework of interpretation. Evidence matters, but so do rhetoric, persuasion, institutional authority, and the distribution of power. This is the sense in which truth is rhetorical, but rhetoric is not sovereign.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic. I prompted NotebookLM to illustrate a 4-layered model that shows how removed language is from encounter, attention, conception, and representation of what we normally consider to be reality. This view is supported by both MEOW and LIH.
Human beings can imagine almost anything about the world, yet the world has a stubborn habit of refusing certain descriptions. Gravity does not yield to persuasion. A bridge designed according to fashionable rhetoric rather than sound engineering will collapse regardless of how compelling its advocates may have been.
This constraint does not disappear in socially constructed domains. Institutions, identities, norms, and laws are historically contingent and rhetorically stabilised, but they remain embedded within material, biological, and ecological conditions. A social fiction can persist for decades or centuries, but eventually it encounters pressures that force revision.
Subjectivity, therefore, doesn’t imply that ‘anything goes’. It simply means that all human knowledge is mediated.
We encounter the world through perception, language, culture, and conceptual frameworks. Every description is produced from a particular standpoint, using particular tools, within particular historical circumstances. Language compresses experience and inevitably loses information along the way. No statement captures reality without distortion. This is the basic insight behind the Language Insufficiency Hypothesis.
At the same time, our descriptions remain answerable to the constraints of the world we inhabit. Some descriptions survive repeated encounters better than others.
In domains where empirical constraint is strong – engineering, physics, medicine – bad descriptions fail quickly. In domains where constraint is indirect – ethics, politics, identity, aesthetics – multiple interpretations may remain viable for long periods. In such cases, rhetoric, institutional authority, and power often function as tie-breakers, stabilising one interpretation over others so that societies can coordinate their activities. These settlements are rarely permanent.
What appears to be truth in one era may dissolve in another. Concepts drift. Institutions evolve. Technologies reshape the landscape of possibility. Claims that once seemed self-evident may later appear parochial or incoherent.
In this sense, many truths in human affairs are best understood as temporally successful settlements under constraint.
Even the most stable arrangements remain vulnerable to change because the conditions that sustain them are constantly shifting. Agents change. Environments change. Expectations change. The very success of a social order often generates the tensions that undermine it. Change, in other words, is the only persistence.
The mistake of traditional realism is to imagine truth as a mirror of reality – an unmediated correspondence between statement and world. The mistake of crude relativism is to imagine that language and power can shape reality without limit. Both positions misunderstand the situation.
We do not possess a final language that captures reality exactly as it is. But neither are we free to describe the world however we please. Truth is not revelation, and it is not mere invention.
It is the provisional stabilisation of claims within mediated encounter, negotiated through language, rhetoric, and institutions, and continually tested against a world that never fully yields to our descriptions. We don’t discover Truth with a capital T. We negotiate survivable descriptions under pressure.
Lucy V. Hay posted this on LinkedIn… and then stopped allowing comments, so I figured I’d recycle it here for comment.
Unpopular opinion (that shouldn’t be unpopular):
The term “Mary Sue” is inherently s3xist 🎯
The phrase comes from a 1973 parody story by Paula Smith called A Trekkie’s Tale. It mocked the self-insert characters appearing in Star Trek fanfiction.
Those writers? Mostly teenage girls 😡
That matters, because culturally we have a long history of treating teenage girls – and the things they create – with contempt. Their fandoms, their stories, their passions are routinely framed as embarrassing, shallow or ridiculous.
Sometimes that ridicule even comes from older women punching down.
And no, the fact Smith was a woman doesn’t magically make the term neutral. Internalised misogyny exists.
Here’s what happened next …
For the last 50+ years, the label “Mary Sue” has been used against practically every female protagonist who shows competence, power or narrative importance.
Meanwhile, male characters with identical arcs are celebrated.
An inexperienced boy who turns out to be the chosen one? Hero.
A woman who discovers she has unusual power or talent? “Mary Sue.”
Same narrative structure … Different reaction 😡
Also, it’s worth noticing something interesting: I hadn’t seen the term “Mary Sue” on my timeline for yeeeeeeaars. Now, every time I post something about female characters, there it is again. In 2026 🤮
Given the current climate around women’s rights and the growing attacks on women and girls globally, that resurgence doesn’t feel accidental. Language shapes culture. Storytelling shapes culture.
And here’s another truth many people don’t realise:
The professional writing industry does not use the term “Mary Sue.”
Not in publishing. Not in development notes. Not in writers’ rooms.
If you’re using it as critique, you’re not signalling professional insight. You’re signalling that you learned storytelling discourse from internet flame wars.
If we want better conversations about character, we need better vocabulary than a 1970s insult aimed at teenage girls writing fanfic.
If you want to explore how bias shapes the way we write and judge characters, that’s exactly what I unpack in my book Writing Diverse Characters For Fiction, TV Or Film (Creative Essentials) 👇 👇 👇
Nah, mate. Even the provided definition is incorrect. Yes, Mary Sue is a gendered term. (Duh.) But the male equivalent would be a male character who had so much plot armour as to have no vulnerabilities, and his capabilities would require no training or friction, not just a ‘female protagonist who shows competence, power or narrative importance’. Pretty much no one wants to watch a character in God mode – female, male, pet, alien, or robot. What would possibly be the character arc or development? Asking for a friend.
BTW, none of the women depicted in the cover images are generally portrayed as Mary Sues. She-Hulk in the comics is not a Mary Sue. The one that streamed for a season was. Huge difference.
Her response was flippant and contained no useful information. I can only imagine she’s trolling.
Obviously, I understand that language is an imperfect vehicle, but it doesn’t have to be this abused. And, obviously, she provided her definition, but it doesn’t comport with any definitions I’m aware of.
As far as the Mary Sue argument goes, ‘no one’ in that space berates all female roles, not even past heroes like Wonderwoman, Spiderwoman, Batwoman, or Ripley from Alien, Terminator’s Sarah Connor, and so on. No one (except Lucy) categorises them as Mary Sue.
This is convenient for an argument, but it’s really tilting at windmills. I understand she’s likely trying to drum up publicity for her book. Good on her. She’ll attract people sympathetic to her message. As for me, I don’t trust a disingenuous source.
An Architecture of Encounter will be available in the next few days. I’ll make an announcement when it is, but I want to talk about pricing.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
Firstly, books cost money to print. This much is obvious. Hardcovers cost more than paperbacks. The ones with dust jackets cost more still. From a financial/economics perspective, one needs to charge more for hardcovers to compensate for the costs.
Secondly, distributors take a cut. They aren’t in business without a profit interest.
Of course, one might offer directly to the customer to cut out the distribution cost and maybe pocket all or some of the difference, which might be 40-odd per cent of the sale price – 8 from a book priced at 20, where the printer already takes, say, 8. This leaves 4 for the author.
If I were to cut out the middleman to take all of the 8 in this example, I’d likely lose most of it in shipping and handling. (I know because I’ve done this before). Of course, I could pass this expense to the buyer, but this jacks up the price from 20 to 28.
Some sellers offer free shipping, whether by exceeding some minimum order amount or through a programme such as Amazon Prime.
If I am going to eat the 8, I might as well give it to Amazon and let them handle the logistics. Business 101. Barnes and Noble has an even less favourable model as far as publishing is concerned, but they provide different offerings, so I still use them via IngramSpark.
For the record, I’ve used and considered other printers and distribution methods, but they are all more expensive to me from a total cost perspective. Part of this is simply the incremental pricing facility. I don’t want to purchase and manage inventory for 1,000 books at a time. In this case, I’d be out 8K up front. Perhaps I could get a deal and print the books at 6K for committing to a print run, but I’d still have to manage the inventory and logistics, which then takes away from my writing time. I’ve outsourced this before, but I had to pay for warehousing and a handling fee to someone to package the book – and pay for shipping (pass-through or otherwise). Amazon (KDP) is just easier, so it’s my go-to.
As for pricing, I’ve decided that my default prices will be 20 USD for paperback and 30 for hardcover. This is in contrast to a x.99 pricing scheme. I usually set my ex-US prices lower, but honestly, it depends. I try to set prices in each market with no fractional units. If the price had been £14.97, I’ll up it to £15, Sorry. In most cases, it will drop from £15.23 to an even £15. In most markets, I’ll lose margin to provide a clean-looking sales price.
As an economist, I could see that one might arbitrage (in a manner of speaking) and order from Belgium instead of France or vice versa, but I don’t expect the shekels saved would be worth the added effort.
As for bookstores, they can still purchase my titles wholesale from whatever distributor (even Amazon), so you can still support your local bookstore if that’s your ethos.
Anyway, I know I’m just wittering on, but I felt that transparency into the process might be appreciated.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic. (Ignore the pie chart. lol)
Kindle and other eBook formats
One might think that offering a digital version would be simple, but it’s not as easy as uploading a PDF. A lot of formatting is required to fit the format. An ordinary EPUB is easier than Kindle, which relies on old technology to support its legacy devices. It doesn’t always handle images, charts, and tables nicely, and doesn’t support all fonts, so that creates more work.
Because of this, ebooks are a low priority for me, though I admit they do sell well. It’s up in the air as to whether the increased sales justify the cannibalisation of the physical media.
Audiobooks
I’ve made available a few audiobook versions. I’ve heard that these are a decent portion of many independent authors’ revenue sources, but I haven’t found this to be true. Because of this, offering them is a low priority for me. I’m not anti-digital so much as anti-negative-cost-benefit.
I mentioned recently that I create audio versions for me to review, but these are not necessarily ready for the public. Additional time must be invested in correcting pronunciation, prosody, and odd digital glitches.
A thought experiment by Derek Parfit, here’s the setup: ostensibly, a human is cloned, but they aren’t so much cloned as teleported to Mars, à la Star Trek – there, not here, particle by particle.
The question and seeming paradox is whether the reconstructed person and the original are the same, identical.
In deference to my upcoming book, The Architecture of Encounter, I want to revisit this problem and show how there is no paradox. Let’s take a look.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
Parfit’s Teletransporter Is Not a Paradox. It Is a Hangover.
Derek Parfit’s teletransporter thought experiment has become one of philosophy’s favourite parlour tricks. A person steps into a machine on Earth. The machine records their physical structure in total detail, destroys the original body, and reconstructs an exact counterpart on Mars from local matter. The person on Mars wakes with the same memories, the same character, the same projects, and the same unearned confidence that philosophers are asking sensible questions. Parfit uses such cases to press the thought that personal identity may not be what matters; psychological continuity may matter more.
The supposed paradox is familiar enough: is the person on Mars the same person, or has the original died and been replaced by a copy?
My answer is that there is no paradox here, unless one insists on dragging in precisely the assumptions that ought to be under suspicion.
This is where my forthcoming book, The Architecture of Encounter, becomes relevant. The teletransporter puzzle only looks deep if one begins with a poor ontology and a clumsy model of selfhood. Once those are withdrawn, the mystery evaporates.
The first mistake: substance nostalgia
The teletransporter story is framed as though a human being were fundamentally a thing made of parts, a self-identical object that might either persist through rearrangement or fail to do so. We are invited to imagine a body atomised here and recomposed there, then asked whether the ‘same person’ has survived. But this framing already cheats.
If substance ontology is not basic, then there is no hidden metaphysical pellet of selfhood waiting to be shepherded from Earth to Mars. On a relational picture, what is fundamental is not a stockpile of little self-identical things but organised relation, structured energetic differentiation, constraint, response, and persistence-pattern. The old metaphysics of enduring stuff survives mostly because grammar flatters it.
So the first reason the teletransporter is not paradoxical is that it begins by treating persons as though they were furniture.
The second mistake: reifying the self
The second assumption is just as dubious. The problem presumes that there must be a deep self, some enduring owner of experience, whose fate the machine must settle. I don’t grant that either.
I am much closer here to Galen Strawson’s episodic flavour than to the pious diachronic picture in which one’s life forms a single, extended inner possession. Strawson’s distinction is useful because it reminds us that not everyone experiences themselves as a long, narratively unified entity stretching robustly across time. An episodic self need not deny practical continuity, memory, or biography; it simply refuses to inflate them into a metaphysical core.
That is also how I think identity should be understood more generally: as a scale-dependent heuristic.
The self is not nothing. But neither is it an ontological pearl. It is a compression. A convenience. A useful index over continuities that matter for some purposes and not others. At one grain, sameness appears stable enough. At another, it dissolves into drift, revision, replacement, and selective narrative smoothing.
The “I” is not a tiny monarch enthroned behind the eyes. It is an indexical function within organised experience.
The third mistake: treating mind and world as pre-fabricated blocks
The teletransporter story also inherits a bad picture of mind and world. It imagines a ready-made mind confronting a ready-made external world, then asks whether one of those ready-made minds has been shifted from one location in the world to another. I reject that framing, too.
Mind and world, on my view, are post hoc constructions of mediated interface. Encounter comes first. Organisation comes first. Constraint comes first. Only later do we abstract “mind” on one side and “world” on the other as though these were primordial blocks of reality instead of conceptual products of a deeper relation.
Once one starts there, the question changes. We are no longer asking whether some occult owner-substance has been preserved. We are asking what kind of continuity, if any, is being tracked across interruption, re-instantiation, and resumed encounter. That is a very different matter.
Under episodic time, the paradox collapses immediately
Image: Notice that if we reject the diachronic self in favour of an episodic self, when the ‘self’ migrates from Earth to Mars, it just carries on indexing, so the paradox vaporates.
If one takes the episodic view seriously, Parfit’s machine is mostly theatre.
Why? Because strict numerical sameness was never available between temporal intervals in the first place. The self at one interval and the self at the next are not joined by a metaphysical thread hidden beneath change. They are linked, where linked, by organised continuity, practical function, memory inheritance, bodily persistence, and narrative convenience.
The teletransporter does not introduce some unprecedented rupture into an otherwise pristine metaphysical order. It merely exaggerates what was true all along: selfhood is not an invariant core but a heuristic over organised succession.
That means the Mars person is not paradoxical. They are simply a case in which our ordinary identity-compression is being stress-tested.
Call them the same person if your explanatory threshold is coarse enough. Refuse the label if your threshold is stricter. There is no further hidden fact trembling in the wings.
Even under diachronic time, the issue is still heuristic
Suppose, however, that one relaxes the episodic commitment and grants a diachronic self. Even then, the machine does not resurrect a deep identity problem. It only relocates the issue to threshold-setting.
How much continuity is enough?
Enough for legal identity? Enough for moral responsibility? Enough for marriage? Enough for debt? Enough for grief? Enough for survival?
These are not one question. They never were one question. Philosophy often gets itself into trouble by pretending that practical, phenomenological, ethical, and metaphysical criteria must all cash out in the same currency. They do not.
Parfit himself is famous precisely for pressing the thought that what matters may be psychological continuity and connectedness rather than some further fact of identity. My complaint is that one can go further still. Once identity is treated as a heuristic rather than a metaphysical absolute, the need for a single all-purpose answer begins to look like a bad demand rather than an unsolved mystery.
Why the duplicate case makes the illusion obvious
The variant with duplication makes the point even more brutally. If one person enters on Earth and two successors emerge elsewhere, both inheriting the same memories and both insisting “I am the original,” then the problem is no longer whether identity has become spooky. The problem is that our ordinary identity-talk has finally been pushed beyond its comfort zone.
Once there are two successors, the inherited continuity-profile has branched. That does not produce metaphysical magic. It produces two loci of encounter with the same initial macro-organisation.
At time-nought, perhaps we may stipulate identical configuration for the sake of the thought experiment. Fine. Humans adore their stipulations. At the first non-zero interval thereafter, they are already different. Different position, different sensory input, different salience, different bodily relation, different thermal and spatial microconditions, different affordances. Their trajectories begin to separate immediately. So even there, no paradox. Only the collapse of a coarse heuristic under finer scrutiny.
The real lesson
Parfit’s teletransporter is often presented as though it reveals some terrible instability in personal identity. I think it reveals something duller and more devastating. It reveals that our language of identity was never as deep as we pretended.
We say “same person” because it is useful. We use it to stabilise law, memory, blame, love, property, and biography. Fair enough. But utility should not be mistaken for metaphysical revelation. The thought experiment merely embarrasses that confusion.
So when asked whether the reconstructed person on Mars is really the same person, my answer is:
Under an episodic model, strict sameness was never on offer across temporal intervals anyway. Under a diachronic model, sameness is still a heuristic judgement about acceptable continuity. In neither case is there a paradox. There is only an old habit of substance-thinking refusing to die.
The shorter version
The teletransporter does not expose a contradiction in selfhood. It exposes the poverty of the ontology brought to the problem.
If selves are indexical, scale-dependent heuristics arising from organised encounter, then the machine does not pose a metaphysical puzzle about whether some hidden essence made it to Mars. It only asks how much continuity we are willing to treat as enough.
That is not a paradox. That is a policy decision disguised as metaphysics.
Wait for it… This parodies the use of language to sidestep Constitutional inconveniences. In the game show format, we learn what is and isn’t a war. Wittgenstein would be proud.
Video: Short parody asks the question, Is it war?
Watch this and build up your English language vocabulary.
How Modern Thought Mistakes Its Own Grid for Reality
Modern thought has a peculiar habit.
It builds a measuring device, forces the world through it, and then congratulates itself for discovering what the world is really like.
This is not always called scientism. Sometimes it is called rigour, precision, formalism, standardisation, operationalisation, modelling, or progress. The names vary. The structure does not. First comes the instrument. Then comes the simplification. Then comes the quiet metaphysical sleight of hand by which the simplification is promoted into reality itself.
Consider music.
A drummer lays down a part with slight drag, push, looseness, tension. It breathes. It leans. It resists the metronome just enough to sound alive. Then someone opens Pro Tools and quantises it. The notes snap to grid. The beat is now ‘correct’. It is also, very often, dead.
This is usually treated as an aesthetic dispute between old romantics and modern technicians. It is more than that. It is a parable.
Quantisation is not evil because it imposes structure. Every recording process imposes structure. The problem is what happens next. Once the grid has done its work, people begin to hear the grid not as a tool, but as truth. Timing that exceeds it is heard as error. The metric scaffold becomes the criterion of reality.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
A civilisation can live like this.
It can begin with a convenience and end with an ontology.
Carlo Rovelli’s The Order of Time is useful here precisely because it unsettles the fantasy that time is a single smooth substance flowing uniformly everywhere like some celestial click-track. It is not. Time frays. It dilates. It varies by frame, relation, and condition. Space, too, loses its old role as passive container. The world begins to look less like a neat box of coordinates and more like an unruly field of relations that only reluctantly tolerates our diagrams.
This ought to induce some modesty. Instead, modern disciplines often respond by doubling down on the diagram.
That is where James C. Scott arrives, carrying the whole argument in a wheelbarrow. Seeing Like a State is not merely about states. It is about the administrative desire to make the world legible by reducing it to formats that can be counted, organised, compared, and controlled. Forests become timber reserves. People become census entries. Places become parcels. Lives become cases. The simplification is not wholly false. It is simply tailored to the needs of governance rather than to the fullness of what is governed.
That’s the key.
The state does not need the world in its density. It needs the world in a format it can read.
And modern disciplines are often no different. They require stable units, repeatable measures, abstract comparability, portable standards. Fair enough. No one is conducting physics with incense and pastoral reverie. But then comes the familiar conceit: what was required for the practice quietly becomes what reality is said to be. The discipline first builds the bed for its own survival, then condemns the world for failing to lie down properly.
Cut off what exceeds the frame. Stretch what falls short. Call the result necessity.
Many supposed paradoxes begin here. Not in reality itself, but in the overreach of a measuring grammar.
I use a ruler to measure temperature, and I am surprised when it does not comport.
The example is absurd, which is why it is helpful. The absurdity is not in the temperature. It’s in the category mistake. Yet much of modern thought survives by committing more sophisticated versions of precisely this error. We use tools built for extension to interpret process. We use spatial metaphors to capture time. We use statistical flattening to speak of persons. We use administrative categories to speak of communities. We use computational tractability to speak of mind. Then the thing resists, and we call the resistance mysterious.
Sometimes it is not mysterious at all. Sometimes it is merely refusal.
The world declines to be exhausted by the terms under which we can most easily manage it.
That refusal then returns to us under grander names: paradox, irrationality, inconsistency, noise, anomaly. But what if the anomaly is only the residue of what our instruments were built to exclude? What if paradox is often the bruise left by an ill-fitted measure?
This is where realism, at least in its chest-thumping modern form, begins to look suspicious. Not because there is no world. There is clearly something that resists us, constrains us, embarrasses us, punishes bad maps, and ruins bad theories. The issue is not whether there is a real. The issue is whether what we call “the real” is too often just what our current apparatus can stabilise.
That is not realism.
That is successful compression mistaken for ontology.
Space and time, in this light, begin to look less like the universe’s native grammar and more like the interface through which a certain kind of finite creature renders the world tractable. Useful, yes. Necessary for us, perhaps. Final? hardly.
The same applies everywhere. We do not merely measure the world. We reshape it, conceptually and institutionally, until it better fits our preferred methods of seeing. Then we forget we did this.
Scott’s lesson is that states fail when they confuse legibility with understanding. Our broader civilisational lesson may be that disciplines fail in much the same way. They flatten in order to know, and then mistake the flattening for disclosure. What exceeds the frame is dismissed until it returns as contradiction.
None of this requires anti-scientific melodrama. Science is powerful. Measurement is indispensable. Standardisation is often the price of cumulative knowledge. The problem is not the existence of the grid. The problem is the promotion of the grid into metaphysics. A tool required for a practice is not therefore the native structure of the world. That should be obvious. It rarely is.
Scientism, in its most irritating form, begins precisely where this obviousness ends. It is not disciplined inquiry but disciplinary inflation: the belief that whatever can be rendered formally legible is most real, and whatever resists is merely awaiting capture by better instruments, finer models, sharper equations, more obedient categories. It is the provincial fantasy that the universe must ultimately speak in the accent of our methods.
Perhaps it doesn’t.
Perhaps our great achievement is not that we have discovered reality’s final language, but that we have become unusually good at mistaking our translations for the original.
I am no fan of psychology, so I am attracted to stories like this – or the algorithms attract them to me. This article lays out the evidence that psychopathy doesn’t exist. By extension, sociopathy shouldn’t exist, since it’s effectively an extension of psychopathy. If unicorns don’t exist, neither do unicorn horns. In fact, one might look backwards to note that the psychopathy of unicorns doesn’t exist, nor does psychology (unicorn farms). Of course, this is faulty logic, but I’m running with it.
Westworld was a disappointment. It became unwatchable after the first season. But one exchange from 2016 has aged better than anything else in that show, and it landed differently when I recalled it recently in the context of AI authorship.
A greeter robot exchanges words with William, a guest.
‘You want to ask, so ask.’
‘Are you real?’
‘Well, if you can’t tell, does it matter?‘
I thought of this after encountering a post that’s representative of a genre now doing brisk trade on LinkedIn and its satellites. The argument runs roughly thus: AI can write fast, but it can’t write you. Your why is sacred. Your scars make the prose real. The messy middle is where the magic lives. Keep the soul in your stories.
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
A bloke shared this opinion:
The one thing AI can’t replicate is your “Why.” 🧠
There’s a lot of noise lately about how AI can “write a book in an hour.” But after publishing 8 books, I’ve realized something crucial: speed is not the same as substance.
The “hidden danger” of letting tools do the heavy lifting isn’t just about the quality of the prose—it’s about the erosion of the creative spirit. When we skip the struggle of the “messy middle,” we skip the insights that actually make a story resonate with a reader.
Tools are great for grammar and brainstorming, but they don’t have: The scars that make a character’s pain feel real.
The weird, specific memories that make a setting feel alive. The intuition to know when to break the rules for emotional impact.
By all means, use the tech. But don’t let it sit in the driver’s seat. Your readers are looking for a connection with you, not a refined algorithm.
Keep the soul in your stories. It’s the only thing that actually sticks.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.
So much to unpack.
This sounds lovely enough. It is also almost entirely wrong, methinks.
Why is doing suspiciously grand work in these arguments. It’s treated as an ineffable essence – a soul-particle immune to replication. But why is not a substance. It’s an interpretive gloss. A post-hoc narrative we attach to action to stabilise it. Call it intention, call it telos, call it ‘creative spirit’ if one must. It remains a story we tell about stories.
And if we’re invoking the canon, let’s not do so selectively. Roland Barthes already detonated the neat alignment between authorial intention and readerly reception. Once a work leaves the desk, its why dissolves into a field of readings. The reader does not commune with your struggle. They encounter marks on a page. The rest is projection.
The romanticisation of the ‘messy middle’ borders on Calvinism – suffering as guarantor of authenticity, as though the scar itself writes the sentence. Plenty of humans have scars and produce dull prose. Plenty of writers construct convincing pain from observation, empathy, craft, and yes, occasionally from tools. Emotional resonance is not a moral reward for having bled.
Then there is the means-fetish: the idea that process sanctifies product. We do not evaluate a bridge by how spiritually formative the drafting was for the engineer. We ask whether it stands. If a text moves a reader, unsettles them, clarifies something, disturbs them – the instrument used to draft it is historically interesting, not aesthetically decisive.
There is also a quiet assumption buried in all of this: that connexion between writer and reader is a transmission of interiority. It isn’t. It is a negotiated effect. Readers connect with patterns that mirror, disrupt, or reframe their own experience. They are not sniffing for artisanal anguish.
None of this means craft evaporates. It means we should be wary of smuggling metaphysics into workflow preferences.
If someone prefers to wrestle with the blank page unaided – splendid, have at it. But the fetish for purity says more about our anxieties over authorship than it does about art. And if you can’t tell whether the thing that moved you was written by hand or by machine, then I’d suggest, with the greeter robot, that perhaps it doesn’t matter.
In the end, I am not even advocating using AI for writing, but I am saying not to be a dick about it. Enough of the virtue signalling
Per David Graeber’s vantage, pre-Capitalism and pre-Enlightenment, the story may have unfolded differently, but the risk is to assume Rousseau’s naïve sauvage noblesse; they may have tried to take it by force.
Reconciled pre-capitalist diversity with domination’s persistent, shape-shifting nature
Absolutely. This is the crucial correction.
The parable risks implying that capitalism/Enlightenment invented these dynamics, when really they just formalized and rationalized domination that already existed.
NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.
Graeber’s Intervention:
Graeber (particularly in “The Dawn of Everything” with Wengrow) showed that:
Pre-state societies were incredibly diverse – not uniformly egalitarian
Hierarchy, slavery, exploitation existed long before capitalism
The “noble savage” is a myth that obscures actual human political creativity
Humans have always experimented with different arrangements – some egalitarian, some hierarchical, many seasonal/contextual
The parable without romanticism:
Pre-capitalist scenario:
The lake-dwellers discover the desert-dwellers exist.
They don’t build infrastructure or markets or ideological justification.
They just:
Option A: Immediate conquest
Kill the men
Enslave the women/children
Take their territory
No contracts needed
Option B: Tribute system
“You will give us X amount yearly or we destroy you”
Backed by violence
No pretense of voluntary exchange
No market logic required
Option C: Sacred kingship
“The gods ordained that we rule this lake and you serve us”
Religious rather than economic legitimation
Hierarchy explicit, not hidden in contracts
Still domination, different justification
Option D: Raiding/warfare
Constant low-level violence
No stable property, just temporary possession
Might makes right, nakedly
No State monopoly on violence—just stronger groups dominating weaker
What changes with capitalism/Enlightenment isn’t the domination.
It’s the form domination takes and how it’s justified.
Pre-capitalist domination:
Explicit (“We’re stronger, we rule you”)
Visible (conquest, tribute, slavery)
Justified through tradition/religion (“The gods ordained this”)
Often brutal but honest about being brutal
Capitalist/Enlightenment domination:
Hidden (“Voluntary exchange between legal equals”)
Structural (markets, property law, contracts)
Justified through reason (“Natural rights, efficiency, meritocracy”)
Still brutal but claims to be liberation
Graeber’s Point:
Human societies have always organized hierarchically AND egalitarian-ly.
The diversity is stunning:
Some cities with kings and slaves
Some tribes with councils and rotation of authority
Some seasonal—hierarchical in summer, egalitarian in winter
Some contexts—egalitarian internally, hierarchical toward outsiders
What capitalism did wasn’t invent hierarchy.
It universalized one particular form of it and called it natural law.
Brutal. Hidden. Participants believe their own subjugation is freedom.
Is one morally better?
That’s unclear.
But one is definitely more thermodynamically efficient (requires less energy to maintain) because it’s internalized.
Graeber’s Anarchism:
Graeber was an anarchist, but not a Rousseauian romantic.
He didn’t believe humans are naturally good or naturally bad.
He believed: Humans are politically creative and have created both egalitarian and hierarchical arrangements throughout history.
The question isn’t: “How do we return to natural equality?”
(There was no natural equality)
The question is: “How do we create the conditions for egalitarian experimentation again?”
Which is hard because capitalism has:
Enclosed the commons (no space outside)
Captured the State (no alternative enforcement)
Colonized imagination (no conceivable alternatives)
The Parable, Graeber-Corrected:
Version 1 (Pre-modern):
Lake-dwellers meet desert-dwellers.
Strong vs. weak.
Result: Conquest, slavery, tribute.
Brutal. Explicit. Everyone knows what happened.
Version 2 (Modern):
Lake-dwellers meet desert-dwellers.
Strong vs. weak.
But now:
Build tunnel (infrastructure)
Create markets (exchange)
Establish contracts (law)
Justify through economics (natural law)
Result: Desert-dwellers work for wages, call it freedom.
Still brutal. But hidden. Participants internalize domination as choice.
Which is worse?
Version 1: More immediately violent, less psychologically insidious
Version 2: Less immediately violent, more psychologically totalizing
Your choice depends on whether you prefer:
Honest brutality
Or sophisticated mystification
Neither is good. Both are domination.
Why This Strengthens Your Argument:
By avoiding Rousseauian romanticism, you’re not claiming:
“Things were good before capitalism ruined them.”
You’re claiming:
“Domination has always existed. Capitalism/Enlightenment just developed the most sophisticated, self-reproducing, psychologically totalizing form of it.”
That’s a stronger claim.
Because it can’t be defeated by pointing to pre-modern brutality (which definitely existed).
It’s saying: Yes, pre-modern societies had domination. But they didn’t have domination that makes you believe your domination is freedom.
The Foucauldian/Graeber Synthesis:
Graeber: Humans have created many political arrangements, including egalitarian ones, but also brutal hierarchies.
Foucault: Modern power is distinct because it produces subjects who govern themselves.
Together: Modern capitalism isn’t the first domination, but it’s the first to successfully:
Make domination feel like freedom
Make subjects police themselves
Eliminate the conceptual resources for imagining alternatives
Philosophics 