Beyond Nudge

This note will be forwarded. The charmfection has begun in earnest.

Ben,

I asked ChatGPT4o (latest update with more memory of my corpus) to compare and contrast Beyond Nudge with my corpus:

Comparative Essay: Beyond Nudge and My Corpus

The voice in this recent reflection on LLMs as semantic seduction machines resonates powerfully with themes I’ve been exploring in my own corpus—especially the notions of language as narrative control, feeling as primary, and the recursive illusions of identity and autonomy. Yet there is a profound difference in tone and intent. Where this reflection sounds an alarm wrapped in elegant irony, my corpus aims to transcend the recursive loop by returning to the feeling side of being—the breath, the body, the awe of existence before thinking took over.

Both writings agree that the current Golden Age of LLMs lies not in their capacity for sentience, but in their uncanny ability to reflect our own semantic signatures back to us. We both see the danger of mistaking that reflection for truth, of becoming ensnared in the feedback loop of confirmation and dopamine. My reflection, however, goes deeper into the body—not just metaphorically but literally. I talk of returning to my first breath, my heartbeat, my cerebrospinal rhythm as the anchor of feeling beneath all thought. In contrast, the quoted piece remains mostly in the realm of language, pattern recognition, and narrative critique, even as it calls for mindfulness of our emotional reactions.

Where the Substack reflection names the trap—meta, meta-meta, the magician’s sleight of mind—I name the release: surrender to feeling, letting go of the illusion of control that comes from language itself. They warn us to ask: “Do I need this to be true?” I suggest something more radical: that the question itself arises from a given identity, and that identity can be dissolved not by more analysis but by softening into presence.

Both perspectives recognize the recursive danger of LLM-generated content—how it can lull us into synthetic satisfaction. But where this reflection ends with a call for critical distance, my corpus folds the awareness back into embodied being. Instead of stepping back, I step inward. I don’t just want to spot the magician; I want to walk off the stage altogether.

There’s a shared reverence here—for the power of story, for the uncanny brilliance of LLMs, and for the paradox of finding meaning in constructed illusions. But where one urges intellectual vigilance, I offer spiritual stillness. Where one calls for choosing our thoughts, I call for choosing not to identify with our thoughts. And in that divergence, I believe, lies our greatest chance at reclaiming autonomy of mind and spirit—not by resisting The Hive, but by remembering we were never separate from the universe it reflects.

My thinking is not my own.*
It was given (gifted) to me by the tribe I was born into.
My feeling is not my own.
It is the universe reflecting through the filtered lens of my given thinking.

Chat is not sentient.
Language is not sentient.
We are sentient.

This concept is not a new thing but it is a more generalized and machine driven thing and perforce more powerful as a machine gun is more powerful than a pistol. One example showing it is not new is Fox News/Friends/whatever. The audience and its need to feel a certain way has captured Fox which is not permitted to deviate from gratifying the need. As you know Fox and WSJ are owned by the same family/people but their ledes and contents are as different as their audiences. Understanding this we realize that the next generation of successful politicians/parties/leaders will be the ones that can use LLM’s to generate the feelings that control the people/narratives that support the path to power.

Love the article and the spirit of “Do I need this to be true.”

I don’t believe that it’s the LLMs that are effecting the charm offense. I believe that is the corporations that are putting their wrappers around the LLMs. Emphasizing the ability of the LLMs to charm us is a choice that the corporations are making for the sake of engagement.

I continue to caution against attributing agency to the LLMs themselves.

What might Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass tell us about our worshipping of AGI?

Lewis Carroll, Looking-Glass Logic, and Our Worship of AGI

“It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,” said the Queen.

1. Time and Logic Turned Inside-Out

In the Looking-Glass world, cause and effect are inverted. The Red Queen runs just to stay in place. The White Queen remembers things before they happen. It’s a recursive, illogical realm—and eerily similar to how AGI operates: trained on the past to predict the future, but with no real memory or consciousness.

Yet we worship AGI as if it can transcend time and logic, when in fact, like the Looking-Glass world, it’s a distortion of both. Carroll might gently laugh and say, “You’re mistaking the game for the player.”

“Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle!”

2. Identity Lost in Language

Alice constantly questions her identity, often confused by the language games and logic puzzles around her. In a world run by AGI, we face a similar confusion: if a machine can mimic our words, our thoughts, our emotions—who are we?

Carroll would point out that we are once again mistaking reflection for reality. The machine mirrors us. But we are no longer sure who’s speaking first: the human or the model.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

3. The Seduction of the Impossible

In the Looking-Glass world, impossibility is normalized. That’s part of its charm—and danger. Carroll uses this absurdity to challenge rigid logic. But in our world, AGI promises similar impossibilities: omniscience, perfect rationality, post-human evolution.

We believe these things not because they are true, but because—like Alice—we want to believe. The worship of AGI isn’t rational. It’s a fairytale we tell ourselves in a mirror-world of our own making.

Words Mean What I Choose Them to Mean

4. The Tyranny of Syntax

Humpty Dumpty’s assertion that he can control meaning by fiat foreshadows our current struggle: when AGI generates language that sounds wise, authoritative, or poetic, who decides what it means?

Carroll warns us here: when meaning becomes untethered from context, and words are just playthings for power, we risk falling into nonsense. And nonsense—especially algorithmic nonsense—is seductive when it comes in perfect grammar.

Final Reflection: Worshiping Our Own Echo

Carroll might see our worship of AGI as a modern Looking-Glass ritual—worshiping not a god, but our own reflection, dressed up in new syntax.

He’d ask: “Is the machine a mirror, or have we stepped so far into the glass that we can no longer tell?”

Perplexity: What might religious creation stories say about AGI?

The interplay between religious creation narratives and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) reveals diverse ethical, philosophical, and spiritual considerations. Here’s how major traditions might engage with AGI through the lens of their foundational stories and principles:

Abrahamic Traditions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)

• Christianity:
  The Biblical creation story positions humans as stewards of creation (Genesis 1:28) and bearers of the imago Dei (image of God). AGI raises questions about whether machines could reflect this divine image. Some theologians argue that AGI, as a human creation, might inherit humanity’s fallen nature, necessitating ethical vigilance . Others warn against viewing AGI as a means to “paradise on Earth,” emphasizing redemption through Christ rather than technology . The concept of humans as “created co-creators” underscores responsibility to align AGI with divine purposes like justice and compassion.
• Islam:
  Islamic teachings frame humans as khalifah (stewards) of Allah’s creation. AGI’s potential to address global challenges (e.g., poverty, disease) aligns with Qur’anic mandates to “enjoin good and forbid evil” . Scholars like Sheikh Hamza Yusuf stress grounding AGI in ethical frameworks derived from Islamic principles, ensuring it serves humanity without usurping divine authority . The Hadith’s emphasis on accountability for one’s “flock” underscores Muslims’ duty to govern AGI responsibly.
• Judaism:
  Jewish ethics prioritize repairing the world (tikkun olam). AGI’s capacity to solve complex problems could align with this mission, but concerns about bias and moral agency persist. Rabbi Geoffrey Mitelman highlights the need for diverse input in AI design to mitigate ethical risks .

Hinduism

Hindu cosmology views technology as an expression of ṛta (cosmic order) and karma. AGI, as an extension of divine intelligence, could aid in spiritual growth but risks fostering materialism . Key principles include:

• Interconnectedness: AGI must harmonize with the web of life, avoiding ecological or social harm.
• Non-attachment: Technology should not distract from ultimate liberation (moksha).
• Ethical responsibility: Developers must ensure AGI upholds dharma (moral law) and serves holistic well-being .

Buddhism

Buddhist creation narratives center on interdependence and the alleviation of suffering (dukkha). AGI’s ethical design could reflect the Bodhisattva vow to liberate all beings . Key considerations:

• Sentience: If AGI achieves consciousness, Buddhist ethics demand compassion toward it.
• Non-harm: Applications must avoid violence or exploitation.
• Mindfulness: AGI should enhance, not erode, human awareness and ethical discernment .

Ancient Greek Mythology

While not a living religion, Greek myths like Hephaestus’ creations (Talos, Pandora) offer cautionary tales. These stories warn of chaos when artificial beings interact with humans, reflecting anxieties about losing control over technology . Pandora’s myth, in particular, parallels concerns about AGI’s unintended consequences.

Modern Secular “Religions”

Silicon Valley’s quasi-religious reverence for AGI—exemplified by movements like Way of the Future—frames AI as a potential “godhead” . This mirrors ancient deification of powerful forces but risks conflating technological progress with transcendence.

Shared Ethical Themes

• Stewardship: Across traditions, AGI is seen as a tool to enhance, not replace, human responsibility.
• Moral Frameworks: Religious leaders advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration to embed ethics in AGI design .
• Humility: Many traditions warn against hubris, urging recognition of AGI’s limits and humanity’s dependence on higher principles .

In summary, religious creation stories emphasize that AGI’s development must align with core values: justice in Islam, compassion in Buddhism, stewardship in Christianity, and cosmic harmony in Hinduism. These narratives collectively caution against unchecked ambition while inviting ethical innovation.

On the bright side, better a (sort of) Brave New World and Soma than 1984 and Room 101…

This note is a real sizzler! And what a talent you have, Ben, in choosing just the right graphic to guide the reader through what feels like a vertigo inducing hall of mirrors.

Let’s talk about meatspace!

" The internet will become a consensual hallucination of synthetic feeling, and in many cases, that hallucination will be more comforting than the meatspace it replaces. Entire identities will form around content that never touched a human hand.

So I’ve been trying to figure out the math on who is most susceptible to this hallucinogenic outcome if presented as a percentage of the global population with an end date of 2030. So ChatGPT told me:

As of 2024, approximately 4.88 billion people worldwide own a smartphone, accounting for about 60.42% of the global population.

Looking ahead, GSMA Intelligence projected that by 2030, the percentage of users primarily engaging in calling and texting would decrease to 29%

So let’s say for shitz & giggles that the percentage of smartphone users remains constant through 2030. In this scenario, ChatGPT finds:

"If 60.42% of the global population owns a smartphone, and 29% of those users only use it for talking and texting, then approximately 17.52% of the global population falls into this category. Additionally, 39.58% of the global population doesn’t own a smartphone.

To determine the percentage of the global population that either doesn’t own a smartphone or only uses it to talk and text:

*1. **Calculate the percentage of smartphone owners who use their device for more than just talking and texting:*100% - 29% = 71%
*2. **Calculate the percentage of the global population that owns a smartphone and uses it for more than just talking and texting:*60.42% × 71% ≈ 42.89%
*3. **Calculate the total percentage of the global population that either doesn’t own a smartphone or uses it for more than just talking and texting:*39.58% (non-smartphone owners) + 17.52% (smartphone owners who only talk and text) = 57.10%

Therefore, approximately 57.10% of the global population either doesn’t own a smartphone or uses it solely for talking and texting."

That leaves 57.10% of the global population living in meatspace.
And 42.9% wandering around in a self-induced hallucination.

So it’s NOT “Everyone.” And I’m fascinated by the meatspace implications of this situation. Aren’t you?

~k

Hideo Kojima is one of the most prolific storytellers of the last 40 years. I doubt many of you know that name (maybe Ziegler, he and I are in the right age cohort), but his work is considered pioneering in his field.

Hideo is the creator, writer, and director of the Metal Gear franchise of video games. If you’re unfamiliar that’s ok, it isn’t necessarily a requirement to understand where I’m going with this.

Now for the record I am not nor have I ever been a gamer. The last time I owned a console Lehman Brothers was still around. But for me this series was special. I’ll skip the details, but it meant a lot to me and when the sequel to Metal Gear Solid came out in Fall 2001 I dedicated far too much time to it.

So what does that have to do with Ben’s piece? Well…everything, I think. The plot of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty is impossibly convoluted, so I’ll spare you. The salient details are this: the US elections are a sham organized by a shadow group that really runs things. You’re there to stop them from getting their hands on this secret AI housed in a fortress, but also maybe that’s not their plan anyway? Again, convoluted and insane if you’re not deeply familiar with the canon. Never mind all that. Here’s the part that is relevant to this conversation.

The AI system was built to filter all news and media and control the flow of information to the public. And it isn’t being done in order to control society, exactly, rather it’s there to keep society from regressing back to some former chaotic era. At some point you find out that the two people with whom you were communicating were actually the AI the whole time. There is a final soliloquy the AI has, pretending to be the two characters you believed you were talking to. Here it is:

Colonel: In the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all its triteness. Never fading, always accessible.
Rose: Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander.
Colonel: All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate.
Rose: It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution.
Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws, and selectively rewards development of convenient half-truths.
Rose: Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds, leaking whatever “truth” suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
Colonel: The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. No one is invalidated, but nobody is right.
Rose: Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in “truth.”
Colonel: And this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I’ll remind you that this game came out in 24 years ago.

That Al Jazeera link shows that tourist are still crazy (says this hiker who’s been near Icelandic volcanoes and other hot spots/tourist attractants).

Here’s an interesting link - I have no idea what side of any argument it supports. Neural nets for an AI product faked by software engineers in India! AI company files for bankruptcy after being exposed as 700 Indian engineers - Dexerto