Pinned Tweet
Part III of Every Image Is Computer Generated is about the deeper question beneath the AI art debate: what actually makes art human?
Not struggle. Not exclusivity. Not some mystical spark.
I think the special ingredient is the relationship.
A magic trick can be mechanically perfect and theatrically lifeless.
The mechanism determines what happens. The performance determines what the audience believes happened, and why they should care.
A mathematics textbook has a wonderful way of letting you feel that you've understood a chapter right up until the first exercise.
I am rediscovering the difference between recognizing an argument and being able to produce one.
Banks arguably has the best vision for the future
In Ian Banks' Culture books, the Culture is a civilization of compute abundance. Each General System Vehicle is a loose sandbox environment practicing different ideologies, and citizens freely move between ships to experience different lifestyles.
Want communal life? There's a ship. Ultra-orthodox religion? Another. Beach chilling? One famous for its beaches.
With enormous compute, you don't need to trade off who decides the trajectories. Just launch another docker station for another rollout. In that world, your autonomy is backed by the compute.
True
After DOGE, Elon came to a conclusion most people missed.
He tried to reform the state from the inside. He failed. And he said it plainly: the government can't fix its own deficit. Nobody in power actually wants to cut. The machine protects itself.
So he drew the only logical conclusion. If the state can't be reformed, there are only two ways this ends.
Either global bankruptcy. Debt keeps compounding, interest payments eat the budget, and the system collapses under its own weight.
Or robots. AI and robotics grow the economy so fast that the debt becomes manageable, and abundance makes the old fights over scarcity irrelevant.
Here's the part almost nobody sees.
For two centuries, capitalism has had a marketing problem. Its gains are real but slow and invisible. 2% growth a year doesn't feel like anything. Your life gets better over 30 years and you never connect it to the system that did it. Meanwhile, the left's promises feel immediate and concrete: a check, a subsidy, a benefit. That's why the left wins on promises even when it can't deliver them. Capitalism produces the wealth, socialism takes the credit.
Robots break that asymmetry.
When productivity doubles in a few years instead of a few decades, people will see it. Things get cheaper, services get better, opportunities appear, in real time. For the first time in history, people will connect capitalism and their rising standard of living directly, almost instantly. The causal chain becomes visible.
And that changes everything politically.
So there are two scenarios.
Scenario one: we stay in the current inertia. No breakthrough, or a breakthrough we regulate to death. The debt wins. Living standards stagnate, then fall. A frustrated electorate turns to whoever promises the most, and that pushes toward a hard collectivist left. But collectivism fails, as it always does. And when it fails, the most organized, most disciplined collectivist force left standing isn't the old left. It's radical Islamism. Bankruptcy, then communism, then something worse.
Scenario two: robots win. Abundance arrives, and it arrives visibly. The link between free enterprise and prosperity becomes obvious to everyone. And this is the key point: it becomes obvious to everyone, including the minorities the left was counting on. Because their long-term incentive is the same as everyone else's. A kid in the suburbs gains infinitely more from a booming, abundant West than from a bankrupt state handing out promises it can't keep. Abundance is the most powerful integration machine ever built.
That's the Western renaissance.
The West doesn't need to win the culture war by arguing. It needs to win it by delivering. And for the first time, it has the technology to deliver fast enough for people to notice.
The race isn't left vs right anymore. It's robots vs bankruptcy.
Lucifer J. Rose retweeted
"AI will make humans obsolete."
Good.
Obsolete at what? Filing reports? Answering emails? Sitting in traffic to sit in a cubicle to sit in meetings?
Make me obsolete at all of it.
I was never put on this planet to be a productivity unit. Neither were you.
Being needed by an economy is not the same thing as being valuable.
One is a job description.
The other is being human.
One of the peculiarities of producing a live event is that the audience usually experiences the result, not the hundred decisions that made it possible. When everything goes well, much of the work disappears.
Halloween may be my favorite annual celebration of consensual deception. For one night, the point isn't to eliminate the illusion. It's to enjoy participating in it.
I love that there are still small discoveries to be made. This week, it was the Japanese series Sai on @netflix , which I found beautiful and profound. It inspired me to buy persimmons, a fruit I've never tried. One discovery leading to another.
I highly recommend the show.
I have two increasingly intimidating reading lists: books I haven't read, and books I have read but now suspect I didn't fully understand. The second list is growing faster.
I wonder sometimes, when revising an essay, whether a sentence explains the idea or merely sounds like the kind of sentence that I like and hope explains the idea.
I've been trying to explain P versus NP to a friend whose math background stops at high school algebra. It's a useful reminder that understanding a problem and knowing the vocabulary used to describe it are not the same thing.
Where does the work of an image happen?
In the painter’s nervous system? In the film? In the phone’s computational pipeline? In the AI model? In the person deciding what survives?
Part II is about moving the argument from tools to agency.
Lucifer J. Rose retweeted
The Law of the Sublime comes out November 10th.
Get your copy today: link.amazon/B06zJY548
One of the pleasures of reading across disciplines is finding a distinction that becomes useful somewhere unexpected. The danger is carrying the analogy further than the evidence permits. I enjoy both parts of that problem.
This is a fascinating research direction, particularly the attempt to derive physical constants from quantum information rather than treating them as unexplained inputs.
The distinction worth preserving is between proving a mathematical result and establishing that it describes physical reality.
If Chain Theory can bridge that gap and generate independent predictions, the implications could be extraordinary. I'm very interested to see where this goes.














