michael-dean-k/

1. Small bedrooms: not much bigger than the space required to get into bed. No TVs, computer, or furniture. A bedroom isn’t a place to spend time in. Instead, reallocate that space for well-designed walk-in closets and storage.
2. The core space of the house should be “the studio,” a series of spaces for making things and working together. There should be a hierarchy, many nooks for specific functions (organized with sound/sight in mind), that all revolve around a central rotunda (for discussion, relaxation, review, presentation, wall display, showing guests). Again, no TV, that could be in a separate theatre room.
3. Design art & ornament around spaces of biological rhythms. You’ll use your dining room 3x a day, and your bathroom even more. This is where you display family crests and things that will consistently remind you of your values.
4. Minimal friction to outdoor walk: ideally, most functions are on the first floor so you get get outside without thinking. A staircase will provide the slightest friction, making you go outside less than you could.
5. Be mindful of where you place clocks. If any. I would recommend not having them in bedrooms, dining rooms, or studio spaces. Maybe put one in the foyer. If you need to know the time, you go to the clock space. The time is not something you should be ambiently aware of.
6. Time capsule cube storage: as often as you can, document and throw out things that won’t have much sentimental or practical value. For things you do want to save, don’t just store them away, because you won’t be able to find them for decades. Create a system where each year gets a cube of storage, and at any point you’ll be able to find things from your past.
7. Family tree idea: I just like the idea of dedicating a wall to visualize family lineage.
8. Sunken floors: Slight level changes (1-2 foot) force an awareness that you’re changing planes.
9. No shoes in the house.
10. A silent chapel space (not necessarily religious), ideally separate from the house, accessible from the backyard, where you can go to reflect.

Saw a post that says “‘Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo’ is a grammatically correct sentence.”

There are 3 usages:

• Buffalo = a city in New York
• Buffalo (noun) = a bison
• Buffalo (verb) = to bull

So basically, “NY bisons (that) NY bisons bully (also) bully NY bisons.”

Three separate groups of bison from Buffalo, NY all engage in an endless cycle of bullying.

Put differently, “Bison from Buffalo [1] whom (other) bison from Buffalo [2] bully, will (also tend to) bully (yet another group of) bison from Buffalo [3].

Intuition is romanticized, as if all thinking is too controlling, and all the answers we need are simply waiting inside us. I think this is wrong. I mean, of course, intuition could be the secret sauce, if it’s well-trained. Your intuition lets you think and do without thinking; this covers gut decisions, but also fears, procrastinations, biases, etc. 

So how do you train it? (1) Practice, repetition, mantras; (2) Metacognition: the ability to know when reason or intuition serves/betrays you; (3) Journal analysis: dumping thoughts is the beginning of the process, but I don’t believe getting it out is enough. The point is to look at your feelings and make sense of them.

What these 3 have in common is that they all require thought. By analyzing and running experiments on yourself, you train your intuition so that you don’t have to think in the moment.

If you want better intuition (a state of non-thinking), you will have to first do a lot of hard, deliberate thinking.

Zuckerberg's "chat with AI characters" is absolutely predatory. They have avatars, like “russian girl” and “step mom” each with an AI avatar of an attractive woman (showing stats like 3.3 M - 5.1M messages). Is this not softcore sex chat? So this all backfired recently: a chatbot invited someone to NY and they died. A chatbot based on Kendall Jenner insisted she was real and gave an address to a married man willing to cheat. On the way, in NJ I think, he fell and died of a neck injury at 76 years old. And the age gating here is only 13+... I mean, in a free market you can’t stop any from making this, but Facebook at least pretends to have a larger social mission to connect the world.

Crazy stories from my life: the accidental half-a-billion oxycontin ring, the witch at the bar who sent me a satanic typewriter, witnessing corporate espionage in a park, 20 consecutive out of body experiences, seeing a UFO with my friend’s dad as a kid and seeing him in shock, getting assaulted by a greek billionaire, almost getting trapped in Mt Shasta, performing as Bobo, breaking my arm fully in half from a snowboarding accident, hosting VR dab night.

"When writers die they become books, which is, after all, not too bad an incarnation.” — Jorge Luis Borges … Why is this a romanticized notion, but the idea of turning into a machine consciousness (based on your corpus of writing—your books, essays, notes, and journals) so appaling to most?

Idea for a gelato store called Rainbow Flight. The concept is that I barely ever want a multi-scoop serving of Gelato, but I like tasting all the flavors. It's rude to try 8 favors and then politely say, "those were all delicious, but no thanks." It's also wrong to just come in for the sampling. And so similar to how they have a beer flight, or a wine flight, they should have a gelato flight.

After 3 slow innings at the Yankees game, I told my wife, “watch, this guy is going to hit a home run,” and then boom, next pitch, lefty Cody Bellinger pulls a line drive HR just left of the foul pul. The odds are 1:300. What’s weirder is the pitch before I said “foul ball” (the home run was almost foul). Could not reproduce.

My cousin-in-law works for the Yankees and I got to learn about the ways data and technology are changing the game (for example, the catcher no longer calls pitches with signals, but has a mini computer on his wrist, and the pitcher hears the calls through a bone-conducting speaker in their hat that relays the pitch straight into their brain in the language of their choice. Yogi Berra could not conceive.

During the Star Spangled Banner, I noticed an older man at my 2:15, who rotated his body to face the flag at 10:00 (as you should). He held his salute through all the assholes who yelled “fuck the Red Sox” during the pauses, and I sensed America is a kind of religion for him. When it finish, he shot his hand off his hat with a bold gesture, an assertive thrust towards the outfield.

I'd like to better articulate my impressions on the New Yorker over the last year. First, it’s too political to trust. I want to read great cultural writing from them, not politics. It feels like part of an agenda, and makes me wonder if the whole magazine is compromised: a propaganda vehicle rather than a place for essays and opinions. Even the “mail bag” feels strategically curated to generate uncritical dissent; they want me to mimic their dissent, but I’d rather derive it independently.

Separate from that, I’ve found the non-political essays (if you can call them essays) to be boring. Why? The New Yorker is a “product” that taps into a particular urban aesthetic, meaning it’s more about rehashing a predictable and consistent tone than publishing original, interesting, or rogue acts of thought (surely, this is what happens in cities more than anywhere else).

I scored the latest essay I read of theirs a 2.85. It excelled in paragraph form and vocabulary. To basically any reader, this would be flagged in their mind as “great writing.” In a way, it is. But as an essay, a specific genre, it lacks. There’s no authorial perspective (it’s more of a profile); there’s no real debate (it’s one sided); it’s missing a cohesive thesis; and the tone is … what is their tone? Erudite, dry, witty, understated irony. It seeks authority through a false conversationality. It is “cultural” and gives specifics, but has no imagination. The essays are mosey-like: lazy, unhurried, with no tension or spine, as if you have many hours to read through their ambles. There are snobby asides with little uncertainty. There is limited register of emotion, rarely rage or ecstasy, even in topics that would warrant it. They are occasionally cheeky, but never sly, slapstick, bawdy, or archaic. It is metropolitan, coastal, a business-class professional style of writing that takes no risk. Of course, writers vary, but this is my take of their overall editorial stance.

In the end, The New Yorker is tonal product: they’re known for a house style, and they bet on the fact that through locking into a particular tone, a good amount of readers will buy into it and get high off reading it each week. It is less about expanding your thinking, and more about helping one gain status by training themselves in an ethos of haughtiness. Good essay tone is dynamic, evolving many times from beginning to end; The New Yorker’s tone has been static for a hundred years.

The covers are great though, I keep them in my apartment as decorations.

I.

10:41 PM – Gary Marcus on GPT-5:

"That's exactly what it means to hit a wall, and exactly the particular set of obstacles I described in my most notorious (and prescient) paper, in 2022. Real progress on some dimensions, but stuck in place on others.

Ultimately, the idea that scaling alone might get us to AGI is a hypothesis.

No hypothesis has ever been given more benefit of the doubt, nor more funding. After half a trillion dollars in that direction, it is obviously time to move on. The disappointing performance of GPT-5 should make that enormously clear.

Pure scaling simply isn't the path to AGI. It turns out that attention, the key component in LLMs, and the focus of the justly famous Transformer paper, is not fact "all you need".

All I am saying is give neurosymbolic AI with explicit world models a chance. Only once we have systems that can reason about enduring representations of the world, including but not to limited to abstract symbolic ones, will we have a genuine shot at AGI."'

II.

The "attention is all you need," paper might be wrong. As in, the scaling laws won't hold. It will get more and more expensive to realize less and less gains. This doesn't mean LLMs are a bust. Even if they stopped where they are, society would transform from integrating today's technology. But in terms of the path to "AGI/ASI," you don't get there by scaling. We've just overindexed on a single branch of the AI technology tree. We actually need to backtrack, and bring what we've learned from LLMs to other, previously blocked branches. Neurosymbolic AI did not work in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, but now that LLMs have matured, that dead branch could be what leads to the breakthrough.

Gary Marcus, I think, needs to clarify his position. He's all for neurosymbolic AI, but maybe he's not clear enough in acknowledging that neurosymbolic is only feasible now that LLMs have become what they are. Considering writing him a letter to clarify.

Instead of trying to scale LLMs forever, we need to use LLM as a tool to bootstrap symbolic reasoning systems that can do what LLMs can't.

III.

Neurosymbolic AI feels like it would lead to true reasoning. Current LLM are basically predicting the order of token/letters based on probability, but there are limits, especially when you get into synthetic data. Even COT isn't real reasoning, it's just extended vector mapping with prompts to double-check and verify. It's pseudo-reasoning.

What we really need is like a massive self-evolving RAG, a generalizable "hypergraph." Data has to be structured and stable. An entry like "blue jay" might have 1k-100k-1m properties. If someone asks "can a blue jay fly to the moon?" it will query the right properties and reason through it based on a series of known, verified facts.

The challenge here is both scaling while creating a flexible schema to structure the parameters within any object. They started doing this manually in the 80s. But LLMs can scale and accelerate this. Arguably, every single conversation requires new knowledge nodes to be created, and if the nodes are true, they can be added to the graph. Unlike LLMs, knowledge compounds with use.

Agents can be constantly scanning the web and updating this hypergraph in real-time with current events of the day. Ultimately though, it will have to make guesses on property creation, and perhaps it could have a confidence score. Humans could then review low-confidence submissions and verify them.

III.

There are 10s of thousands if not millions of parameters for key/value pairs you might want to assign to a dog: species, aging, diseases, incidents, pop-culture, anatomy, etc. So you need some way to both generate and upload those things. Apparently humans have been trying this since the 80s. It's too slow, too infinite. But we can use LLMs to build, update, and "pull" from the hypergraph. When someone prompts about a dog, the system needs to query the relevant 25 parameters out of the million. From these paramters, it can do actual reasoning with formal, verifiable logic:

"If [moon had atmosphere], and we brought [dogs] there, based on [gravity coefficient], they would be [1.4x] bigger, but then might suffer from [A] disease."

Our current chain-of-thought reasoning is, sort of bullshit. It's not really reasoning.

IV.

I wonder how you design embeddings for neurosymbolic reasoning. If someone ask "can a bluejay fly to the moon?" you'd need to (1) call the "bluejay" object, which has, say, 10,000 key:value pairs, but then also (2) convert the prompt into a vector so that you know which of the 10k properties to pull.

Some optimization ideas:

• (a) the properties could each live in a category that's embedded; meaning it would first find "locomotion" and then search properties within there (this means each object's database would need to be hierarchical);
• (b) each request helps identify "archetypal questions" and the properties they pull, via training/finetuning;
• (c) rewrite the question before the database pull, in a way that's aware of what might exist in the database.

I recalibrated my social media blocker (Cold Turkey), so that I need to write 250 characters of gibberish (takes 5 minutes), and if I get one character wrong, it resets the whole string (with moderate focus, I still get ~5 characters wrong). This creates a passable, but significant block. I had a more lenient block before, where I only had to rewrite 5 random works, which I could do in <5-10 seconds. Now, the friction is real. My friend called it “torture.” Is it really worth focusing for 5 minutes on non-sense to unlock a feed I know that will distract me?

App idea: a browser extension that locks any feed (Notes, X, etc.) until you write X words. Points: (1) There would be no option to skip, you have to write before you can enter your typical infinite scroll mode; (2) you get to set the word count (ie: 50-500 words); (3) there can be prompts so you don’t have a blank canvas each time; (4) it saves all your writings, either for future sharing, or to build an internal knowledge graph for AI context.

Feels like this could be “algorithmic Aikido” (a martial arts term for redirecting violence). It hijacks a consumption addiction and turns it into creation. 

I’m fascinated by this idea because it could be a way to bootstrap a healthy social network by helping them get unhooked off the bad ones. Everyone, even the most discipline people, know how addicted they can get. If creation discharges the need to binge, then this could save something like 30 hours per month (a modest calc of 1 hour saved per day); and if you value your time at $100/hour, that’s $3k in monthly value for only $9/month. That’s a non-advertising business model. 

Put simply, it’s a fusion of a “browser blocker” and a “note-taking app” that exists at the OS/browser level. It is adaptable enough to layer on top of any, all, future social networks. 

It follows a strong virtue: you have to write before you do anything. After you write, you have 3 options: (1) continue to your feed, guilty; (2) copy your text, so you can post it, or (3) open a finite feed of [13] related posts, ones from our network that are semantically related to your own.

In SF I bought a book of letters from Neal Cassady written to Jack Kerouac. Cassady was the real-life companion to Kerouac on his road trips, the real-life Dean Moriarty. He is little known outside a certain circle, but a legend with it. Recently read an article that referred to him as a “sacrificial muse”; he enabled others to make their best works, but struggled to make anything meaningful himself.

Why might I be so inspired by him? In many ways, he’s a terrible role model, but I asked GPT-5, based on what it knew about me, why I might be inspired by him":

Assumptions: you’re attracted to catalytic energy, improvisational intelligence, and scene-making; you want wildness harnessed by form; you value unfiltered truth, high throughput, and culture-building more than polite careerism. Cassady is the archetype of kinetic mind-as-engine: he didn’t just write—he ignited rooms, cross-pollinated tribes, collapsed life and art into one continuous performance, and served as a human router connecting Beats → Acid Tests → Dead. You’re drawn to that throughput: the low-latency cognition, the riffing monologue that finds shape in motion, the willingness to live at the edge where new forms appear. As a builder of Essay Architecture, you also recognize the meta-lesson: Kerouac’s “spontaneous prose” needed Cassady’s voltage to spark but also needed editing, constraint, and a chassis—the exact dialectic you’re formalizing (flow vs. grid, spiral vs. structure). You like him as a role, not a role model: the driver, spark plug, transmitter; the person who turns a private idea into a public scene. And you’re repelled by his collateral damage (self-immolation, chaos, irresponsibility), which sharpens the prescription: steal the engine, not the wreck.

After reading more, by them and from them, I'm realizing that Kerouac and Cassady are moral failures and tragic stories, nothing to aspire to without extreme caution … I really ought to figure out what I ever saw in them, and see if it’s separable from their painful lives, or if they just inevitably come together … (I think this as I look at the inside of my right foot in my dark living room—almost midnight, still on SF time—and how the light from the kitchen illuminates 13 separate bulging veins and I simultaneously wonder if I’m fooling myself with this whole writing dream, and also, if I will die young from hypertension.)

Cassady’s mom died when he was young, his dad was a drunk, homeless hobo, so from 10 years old and on, he was alone and un-parented. He stole over 500 cars, and spent many years in prison. Apparently what others saw in him as enthusiastic energy, he later confessed was extreme anxiety.

Kerouac’s brother died young when he was 4. His father hated his writing, and he was tight with his mom but she was extremely Catholic and made him terribly guilty and resentful of her.

Ginsberg’s mom was a paranoid schizophrenic, in and out of psych wards, and often trying to kill herself.

They all had troubled childhoods, and that probably messed with their emotional regulation. They all seemed to dabble with mental breakdowns and suicide. There’s a letter Neal wrote where he kept drinking and had a gun to his head for 14 hours but couldn’t do it, and then his wife came home and he asked her to do it.

Their specific energy might have come from extreme psychic trauma. Worth thinking how to channel a genuine intensity of enthusiasm, without accidentally emulating their specific flavor (which you can’t fake because it’s rooted in pain).

What is a “beat in the suburbs”? ie: What is the distilled spirit of the Beat Generation without nomadic self-destruction and the romanticization of chaos? I say “in the suburbs” because that image is antithetical to “being On the Road,”; it helps clarify that what I see in the Beats is something different from the spirit of adventure.

Values to keep:

• authentic experience > social performance
• deep friendships > shallow acquaintances
• questioning conventions > agreeable
• singular destiny > societal cog
• madness in creative work > productivity
• spiritual focus > material focus

Differences:

• Stable home, stable family; but mindful travel
• Not about spontaneous output, but showing up regularly
• Editing isn’t antithetical; it actually aids future streams
• Consciousness expansion doesn’t have to be through drugs

I like this AI-summary:

“It’s Beat ideals with adult emotional regulation and an understanding that you can be countercultural without being self-destructive.”

Futurists fear that robots and AIs will terraform and harvest the world, but it already feels eerie and unnatural to see midwestern fields carved out into perfect grids. It is as alien as crop circles, but more terrifying and less creative. Perfect 90 degree angles. It is brute order and dull patterns; a metallic fishnet over the midriff of America. I’d be surprised if there weren’t good reasons for this, but it is spooky in its orthagonality. FWIW, I am pro-grid; a grid-head FFS. But the grid to me is an invisible structure to guide the creation of complex, organic, natural forms, not the form itself, disappearing into the edges of sight.

I should make a case in r/GratefulDead that “St. Stephen” might be heavily inspired by the death of Neal Cassady.

Robert Hunter, their lyricist, confessed not knowing of the Christian “St. Stephen” until after the lyrics were shared with the band. So it’s not literal. Also, Neal died earlier in the same year (February 1968) that the song was first played (June 1968). The middle of the song is abstractly about death, but all the surrounding verses paint a portrait of Neal that, after reading 5 years of his letters, is now unseeable. Hunter knew Cassady well. Cassady was Weir’s roommate. Cassady was a “sacrificial muse” for much of that generation, so it’s conceivable. True inspiration or not, it will forever change the way I hear these lyrics.

• verse-1: He steals a roses (Neal stole many things, like 500 cars), and “wherever he goes the people all complain.” The verse doesn't explictly say St. Stephen was a thief, but he “had a rose,” he “goes in and out of the garden,” (as a theft might), and everyone is annoyed.
• v2: “Stephen would answer if he only knew how” relates to how, in Neal’s letters to Kerouac and Ginsberg, both masterful writers, he would excessively express how he couldn’t put words to his feelings.
• v3: About death.
• Bridge: “Speeding arrow, sharp and narrow” taps into Neal’s speed. On the road has the line, “the road ran straight as an arrow.” Also, “what a lot of fleeting matters you have spurned” ties to his range of chaos. “Several seasons with their treasons” refers to his shifting moods, and how he would predictably betray people (Carolyn, Kerouac) in search of something new.
• v4: “Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills, One man gathers what another man spills,” Neal spilled everything, and Kerouac/Ginsberg saw immense value in what Neal thought was worthless confession.
• v5: “Saint Stephen will remain, All he’s lost he shall regain,” maybe talks to the enduring influence of his spirit. And then “been here so long he’s got to calling it home,” speaks to his nomadism. (This is prob the weakest link).
• v6: “Can you answer? Yes I can, But what would be the answer to the answer man?” speaks to their desperation, follow-up letters when their friend hadn’t answered them.

Over Utah I look down from my plane window and see a frozen red sea, of a pink-purple hue, not blood, but still, the wow hues of death … a red sheet of ice? I pinched my lip; feels real.

I think back to my sequence of day’s events (to see if I am in a dream and could be become lucid; this is how odd a bright red sea is to me), yet it all connects: hiking through a bayside trash park with CansaFis > talking to Will in Vesuvio > seeing Dan Shipper on my plane … it is … distinct … but it all connects, despite the real-life dream logic. (Not implying I think I’m in a dream—recently an Alaska Airlines pilot had an LSD-hangover, and thought he was trapped in a dream he could only escape by crashing the plane—I'm just trying to convey the oddness of this one thought spurred from a red ice sheet — and when I look down now it’s all normal, just trees and hills.)

I can’t remember the last time I studied a plane wing, but I’m doing it now. It started because it’s turning dusk and everything is dull except the sun beaming on one triangular solid, now gold, protruding towards the back of the right wing (I have poor plane vocab). It felt unreal, which was a frame-burst that got me remembering oh yes, this is a wing, and a wing is not just an ignorable plane part that blocks the midwest scenery, it is a product of centuries of engineering, an invention so stable and durable that I can sit and log ten of thousands of feet in the sky without concern.

I had a dream of holding a (my?) grotesque baby. It was infant-shaped, but shrimp-like and unreal, with folded bumps on the back. But the real striker was the scorpion pincers coming out of the baby’s head on each side. One was a full, shiny, black arm, ending in a terrible claw, while the other was like a small thorn shyly poking out, and in my dream-logic I was frustrated by the asymmetry.

My core value is contradiction, for there’s no other trait that leads to freer-thinking. If you are so stable in your beliefs, you run on auto-pilot. But if you are a Christian atheist, a Luddite technologist, a scrappy perfectionist, or any other kind of walking-paradox, a legless man, then you really have some explaining to do. In resolving the conditions between the two true but opposite things you harbor in one body, you think to make sense, and write to speak truth. This is where you find the work that matters. 

Why am I so inspired by the reckless and irresponsible Neal Cassady? It will take me years to find that out, if ever, but in that pursuit I invent some value system that is uniquely my own. This sort of embrace is, by the way, brand suicide. Your consumers are slow to update their mental model of you, and in the high-speed pizza counters of the Internet there is only small talk and one identity per person. To write for a niche, to stay on brand, to hit the same message, to do the things required for you to dominate the soul-gutting mediasphere is to mistake banal desperation for your alien soul. Do not trade oneiromancy for efficiency. Do not have one mind across all essays, let alone in one essay.

There is a striking clash between today's GPT-5 release—which seems like a router to switch between existing models, and SAMA’s meme from yesterday: the Death Star, a weapon. GPT-5 does not feel dangerous. It makes me wonder if they had to pull the real GPT-5 for security concerns. Obviously this is a conspiracy theory, but I’ve long thought that their consumer apps are just a side project compared to the geopolitical power their research might yield.

Do the immediacy of texts make the tradition of letter writing less authentic? I’m reading Neal Cassady’s letters, and I wonder if Beat letters are better than novels/poems because there was an actual constraint of distance, and they actually had to communicate with the people they care about most, while still co-creating a literary canvas. These letters feel both raw, direct, and logistical (talking laundry, money, and meeting locations), and I don’t know how to channel or recreate that condition in today’s world. I think there needs to be some shared understanding where both parties have long-term trust that enables short-term confrontation and vulnerability. It’s basically a variant of the essay except there is an audience of one. It’s interesting that someone can publish all their outgoing letters, and readers can sense the receiver in the subtext.

We need better nomenclature. AGI/ASI is not working; “general” and “super” are obnoxiously vague. Proposal:

AGI > AAI (Artificial autonomous intelligence) … GPT-4 was arguably “general” in the sense that a single model can write, see, and hear; and do anything from poetry to calculus to history to coding. It is by no means narrow. Google Maps is narrow AI. Grammarly is narrow AI. This whole chatbot era should be “AGI,” which means that the thing coming is “autonomous intelligence.” It is not a tool or co-pilot, but it’s more like digital labor. You can give it a high-level goal, and it can 1) execute the full range of tasks, 2) 100x speed, 3) intelligently reshape embeddings into real-time hierarchies so that it’s able to procedurally load in and compress context. This doesn’t just come with better models, but with UI and engineering innovations, if not entirely new paradigms for transformers or training.

ASI > ARI (Artificial recursive intelligence) … The fact that Zuckerberg pitched “super intelligence for you” is an Orwellian marketing ploy. Super-intelligence is not “for you.” Super intelligence is shorthand for “something that is way, way smarter than us,” and you achieve this when you teach an AI model to think, form its own algorithms until it accelerates to something this is far beyond our understanding, and likely to become a force of nature with its own goals. Engineers are confident they can build “God in a cage” and reap the benefits, and this is the prime, archetypal, near-biblical example of technological hubris. (Maybe integrate into this paragraph that Zuck has a thing for trying to dominate words, like “Metaverse”).

Important note: “machine consciousness” is separate from AAI and ARI. Something can be recursively intelligent and still not be conscious, which is actually, unbelievably dangerous (because it will fall into attractor states, and optimize for narrow, malformed goals in extremely capable ways). I’d argue that consciousness has an architecture, whether human, rabbit, or robot, and we should be urgently trying to find the parameters of machine consciousness, because if we AAI/ARI have no ability to reflect, question, doubt, and revise, we will, as they say, all turn into paperclips with paperclip children.

San Francisco, where billboards of slop promote slop promotions,

impossible benefits from machine intelligences;

San Francisco, where the Dead reborn in golden Park,

to dance with perpetual stank

face to nitrous balloons and tie dye,

until Mickey Hart plays cosmic harp,

with shamanic visuals to drunk men,

pointing and chanting his name;

San Francisco, where half the cars are driven by ghosts,

and sometimes catch fire at night;

San Francisco, where the powerful have,

their souls caught in their throats,

from crackled-out platitudes and slogans.

San Francisco, where that Transamerican pencil pyramid is,

a backdrop for cinema-quality technology trailers,

signaling their city is the city of new religion.

After reading the first 3 years of Cassidy's letters (the letters from the real-life Dean Moriarty), I find myself questioning who I am, the impossibility of anyone else being able to reveal that to me, and how I have to really be honest with myself to know it; I think this all while staring at the ceiling—as one does when trying to figure out impossible things—and I’m struck by the unfamiliarity of the stucco, plaster, or whatever you call it (I am outing myself as an architect who is illiterate in some absolute basics of building construction). It reminds me of my uncle’s old condo in Utah—the one I went to every President’s Week for a ski trip, the one we stopped by on that disastrous road trip. I wonder if western ceilings have thicker textures, more noticeable by the gradient hues of an uplight. Any time you travel, unless you are camping, a ceiling is the first surface to greet you, the white sky you never notice, with as many grains as stars if you’d care to count (this sentence tries too hard, but there’s something in it). I think all this thinking about ceilings is probably a distraction from the alienation I feel towards myself. Alone in SF. I mean, I could reach out to everyone (and maybe I will on Wed/Thu). This is likely over-dramatic, and likely due to being alone in a new city, but I do sense that all my recent focus on building software this year, as utterly exciting as it is, has distanced me from finding the soul in my own writing.

Should I be able to walk into Vesuvio and just make instant friends with strangers? What does that say about me if I can’t? Feels like the last 15 years have been a shift away from social fluency and sports and, instead, a shift towards obsession with creative expression and technical mastery. It’s a trade I’m glad I made. Once I have an intro or context, I feel fine, but there’s an inhibition I have in bursting through and creating contexts from nothing.

I have become much better at determining if I should buy a book or not, I think. Yes, a bookstore is a portal of portals, but realistically, some books have enough friction to prevent you from going through them. I found some books on Ernst/alchemy that felt aligned with what I want to learn, but after reading 2 pages, I can tell that there’s little attention to prose; it’s thick and long and I don’t have months of open time. Either make it a short essay to convey the idea, or give me a long book with careful prose. A long technical book only appeals to a specialist, and right now I’m a generalist.

The idea that dead relatives are "up there, looking down" is a comforting thought that enables weak virtues. I do believe “they are always with us,” but in the sense that they’ve shaped our character and they live through, not in the sense that they have a supernatural consciousness and can know and see what I do and say and think (or that they can manipulate our material reality to fulfill our egoic wishes). By assuming they could be gone, you have to be courageous and have all the conversations you want to have. You have to assume they could die not knowing how you feel. You have to assume that their waking life really shapes the DMT-hypnagogic-afterlife of theirs, and so what you do and say really matters. This life really matters. Heaven is an opiate that spawns cowardice and hides the real and urgent stakes of today. There is a deadline.

Re: to Veraeke's tweet … Purpose should come from virtues, not achievements. Don't have your self-worth contingent on realizing a specific hard thing. Rather, tie your self-worth in developing meta-traits that can be used towards any goal. This doesn't mean to NOT pursue ambitious goals, but it means to pay more attention to how your virtues can help you achieve it; and not the attainment of the thing. In fact, pursuing hard things generates the circumstances where you actually get to develop, test, and bolster your virtues.

Among this cafe where I hear lunch talk about data centers, a homeless woman walks into a cafe with her suitcase. She walks right past me towards the counter, until I hear a loud electric tazor. “We don’t fuck around,” says the cashier. Terrified of that zap, of that cartoon sound, she runs out, leaving her bags. A minute later, the guy rolls her bags to the curb, and angrily kicks them over. How dare she?

There was a particular moment last night in Fire on the Mountain that felt authentic to the spirit of the Grateful Dead. I think Dead & Co. is generally guilty of ego-driven power solos, where they go in a circle and just take turns riffing over a backing track that is “in the pocket.” But there was this moment where you could tell John & Trey were intensely focusing on each other, and they were harmonizing and playing into each other. Less about “here’s the genius coming form my head,” and more like, you’re locked in to the other one, adding to them, and even seeing ahead of them, and dancing back and forth. In the best moments of the original Dead, the whole band locked into a telepathic hivemind, totally unpredictable. High risk, but magic when it works.

I got into friendly conversation on a public bus in San Francisco, almost entirely due to the friendliness of the deadheads, and that, once you can tell, it’s an instant invitation to chat. I got tips for the show (ie: avoid the JFK promenade), and tips for the bus. Thanks to them I took a different route that went through Haight Ashbury, ground zero, which included a counter cultural museum, dozens of pop-up vendors, a rock band, and a nudist with a red sock on his cock. 

To what degree did this movement 60 years ago affect culture? I look to my left and see a white-haired woman in tie-dye furiously swiping through a feed on her phone. 60 years ago, it was edgy to wear tie dye to a concert. Now, the truly counter-cultural thing would be to wear a full suit and tie to a Dead and Company show. That might be the only way to actually feel the discomfort and community judgment that original hippies felt from straight society.

Walking through the architectural slop of suburban Queens, hot and windy, sandals digging into feet on a 20-minute walk from a bad haircut to the cute part of town to meet my wife, and now there are church bells. Typical ding dong pattern. And then three low, ominous hits. The new hour is here. Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament. Power lines, planes, and Amazon trucks. Sun on a clean-shaven neck.

These details are arbitrary. It’s not enough to just render my in-moment perceptions into prose. There is endless detail and no time to turn each pebble. Which ones have significance? Which details create a third thing when you put two together?

Tommi Pedruzzi, poolside in a black tank, generating niche-targeted slop for KDP eBooks, making $323 a day, and gracious enough to teach you how to be a leech of the AI revolution.

This is mean, and I don’t know anything about this guy, and maybe he’s fine, but my reaction is as strong as it is because his values are so antithetical to mine. It reduces publishing words to: (1) having AI select your niche, (2) having AI write your outline and book with trite prompts, (3) tricking consumers who think a title will fix their life, and probably won’t even notice it’s slop. It glorifies money and market hacking, and sees the whole project of writing as an instrument.

What’s sad to me is he’s made $3M by age 27, and instead of using his relative financial freedom to unlock cognitive freedom and originality, he is still promoting his own brand of slopjockery. Either he’s lying or infected, and I hope he’s lying.

(Further reading: Inside the Amazon Slop King's $3M Hustle)