michael-dean-k/

The Internet flattened the world into a digital puzzle—a kind of intelligence test to see who can combine the correct symbols in the correct corner of a social swarm; plucking a nerve to some various end, bringing fortune, fame, or cringe. Your conception of the game shapes how you play it. That’s the real limiting framework: your mental model. You can’t understand emerging social systems without flailing around to update those models. It is very easy to stay sidelined with some excuse that prevents you from getting embarrassed.

This same paradigm applies to AI. It’s limiting to anthropomorphize it; instead, think of it as a linguistic puzzle. It has ingested trillions of words and arranged meaning into a multi-dimensional geometric map, a massive mystery that no one yet has fully uncovered. It’s your job to craft and aim language into this hall of mirrors. We can only do this blindly. But nonetheless, it brings back a result, and how we respond to it is revealing. There all sorts of distortions—cliche prose, lying, hallucinations—and if you’re metaphor for AI is an entity, then you’ll naturally get annoyed or offended and stop playing the game. It’s better to think of your result not as a failure of the LLM, but a failure in your probe. You’ve asked a wrong or vague question. By sending multiple probes, you start to build a fuzzy map of the hyperobject you’re prompting into. Since it gives back feasible answers back so instantly, we expect it to be right for immediately, with little exploration, but that lack of patience is where the frustration comes. It’s a more a matter of rotation, to approach something that matters to you from many angles until you crack it.

Even if a SM feed is filled with all of your favorite ideas, friends, and thinkers, it would still be poison from the sheer volume of randomness. Even the act of seeing two things in feed, forces you to shift from one context to another, forcing you to shift frames, destabilizing and disembodying you.

Alternatively, if you had a feed of a hundred things, but they all revolve around the same content, all spawned from a singular intention, I think it would be less dizzying; it’s more enables depth into your present, embodied frame. There is less of a “slot machine” effect. 

It’s not that feeds or algorithms are bad; they only became bad when they strip context. The logic of most feeds, however, do not care if you feel oriented. They have a simple reward function, show you as many different things as they can, to see which ones drive behavior. They are running a real-time self-adaptive experiment on your preferences, in the hope to discover which patterns might nudge you into their desired behavior (whether it’s towards an ad or towards an on-platform paid subscription by a beloved writer, they are effectively the same—it’s an algorithm that is not being real with you, and not respecting your attention).

I feel like a broken record in prescribing a solution, but it’s basically Plexus (RIP): show nothing until you post, and then from what you post, share a feed of semantically related posts. Substack, as a writing network, is a unique position to build this. It has a lot of long form content: not just notes, but essays, podcasts, and videos. It should be looking at the granular units, semantically embedding paragraphs, and then those become atomic objects that help populate the “semantic feed” generated after every Note.