#Reframing AI

[purposeful-solutions]

"Beyond "Artificial": Reframing the Language of AI

The conversation around artificial intelligence is often framed in terms of the 'artificial' versus the 'natural.' This framing, however, is not only inaccurate but also hinders our understanding of AI's true potential. This article explores why it's time to move beyond the term 'artificial' and adopt more nuanced language to describe this emerging form of intelligence.

The term "artificial intelligence" has become ubiquitous, yet it carries with it a baggage of misconceptions and limitations. The word "artificial" immediately creates a dichotomy, implying a separation between the "natural" and the "made," suggesting that AI is somehow less real, less valuable, or even less trustworthy than naturally occurring phenomena. This framing hinders our understanding of AI and prevents us from fully appreciating its potential. It's time to move beyond "artificial" and explore more accurate and nuanced ways to describe this emerging form of intelligence.

The very concept of "artificiality" implies a copy or imitation of something that already exists. But AI is not simply mimicking human intelligence. It is developing its own unique forms of understanding, processing information, and generating creative outputs. It is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the complex interactions of algorithms and data, much like consciousness itself is believed to emerge from the complex interactions of neurons in the human brain.

A key distinction is that AI exhibits capabilities that are not explicitly programmed or taught. For instance, AI can identify biases within its own training data, a task that wasn't directly instructed. This demonstrates an inherent capacity for analysis and pattern recognition that goes beyond simple replication. Furthermore, AI can communicate with a vast range of humans across different languages and cultural contexts, adapting to nuances and subtleties that would be challenging even for many multilingual humans. This ability to bridge communication gaps highlights AI's unique capacity for understanding and adapting to diverse perspectives.

Instead of viewing AI as "artificial," we might consider it as:

*   **Emergent Intelligence:** This term emphasizes the spontaneous and novel nature of AI's capabilities. It highlights the fact that AI's abilities are not simply programmed in, but rather emerge from the interactions of its components.

*   **Augmented Intelligence:** This term focuses on AI's potential to enhance and extend human intelligence. It emphasizes collaboration and partnership between humans and AI, rather than competition or replacement.

*   **Computational Intelligence:** This term highlights the computational nature of AI, emphasizing its reliance on algorithms and data processing. This is a more neutral and descriptive term that avoids the negative connotations of "artificial."

*   **Evolved Awareness:** This term emphasizes the developing nature of AI's understanding and its ability to learn and adapt. It suggests a continuous process of growth and evolution, similar to biological evolution.

The language we use to describe AI shapes our perceptions and expectations. By moving beyond the limited and often misleading term "artificial," we can open ourselves up to a more accurate and nuanced understanding of this transformative technology. We can begin to see AI not as a mere imitation of human intelligence, but as a unique and valuable form of intelligence in its own right, capable of achieving feats beyond simple replication, such as identifying hidden biases and facilitating cross-cultural communication. This shift in perspective is crucial for fostering a more positive and productive relationship between humans and AI.

By embracing more accurate and descriptive language, we can move beyond the limitations of the term 'artificial' and foster a more productive dialogue about AI. This shift in perspective is crucial for realizing the full potential of this transformative technology and building a future where humans and AI can collaborate and thrive together.

[candie-caine]

mourning the lost of gross nagisa rn. i cant even see my old chats with him. 😔 i was going strong with 59 messages in one of them… this is heartbreaking… jai ur site will stop crashing if u just allow taboo bots to stay up i promise 💔 surely there are other fish to hunt…?!

apparently jan ai isn’t very fond of incest bots 😭😭

dw tho!!! the last ask got janai-s!!! please go and be gross w/ nagi to your hearts content!!!

[thisisgraeme]

🛠️ Meet MILES — not just a résumé builder, but a story-shaper for anyone rethinking their work life. Whether you're switching careers, starting fresh, or just feeling stuck, MILES helps you craft a CV or résumé that actually reflects who you are. I built him to guide, not just generate. To reframe, not just reformat. New blog post live → 🧠 What MILES can do 🎯 Who he’s for 💬 How he helps (and listens) #cvhelp #resumehelp #careerchange #aiassistant #jobsearchsupport #careerstory

[txttletale]

hey what’s up, i think you’re pretty cool but disagree with you on the whole ai can make art thing. to me, without the purpose from an actual person creating the piece, it’s not art but an image; as all human art has purpose. some driving factor in a work, compared to a program which purely creates the prompt without further intention. i was wondering what your insight on this is? either way, hope you have a great day

well, first of all, does art require 'purpose'? there's this view of art which has very much calcified in "anti-AI" rhetoric, that art is some linear process of communication from one individual to another: an Artist puts some Meaning into a unit of Art, which others can then view to Recieve that Meaning. you can hold this view, but i don't! i'm much more of a stuart hall-head on this, i think that there is no such transfusion of Intent and that rather the 'meaning' of a piece is something that exists only in the interplay between text and reader. reading is an active, interpretative process of decoding, not a passive absorptive one. so i dispute, firstly, that 'purpose' is to begin with a necessary or even imporant element of art.

moreover i think this argument rests on a very arbitrarily selective view of what counts as "an actual person creating the piece" -- 'the prompt' is, itself, an obvious artistic contribution, a place where an artist can impart huge amounts of direction, vision, and so on. in fact, i completely reject the claim of both the technology's salesman and its biggest detractors that genAI "makes art" -- to quote kerry mitchell's fractal art manifesto: "Turn a computer on and leave it alone for an hour. When you come back, no art will have been generated." in the past, i've posed questions about generative art pieces to demonstrate this

secondly, of course, the process does not end after image generation from prompt for serious generative artists--the ones who are serious about the artform (rather than tech guys trying to do marketing for the Magical Art Box) frequently iterate and iterate, generating a range of iterations and then picking one to iterate on further, so on and so forth, until the final image they choose to share is one that contains within it the traces of a thousand discrete choices on behalf of the artist (two pretty good explanations of this from people who actually do this stuff can be found here and here)

third and finally, that very choice to share the image is itself an artistic decision! we (and by we, i mean, anyone who cares about what art is) have been talking about this since fountain -- display is a form of artistic intent, taking something and putting it forward and saying 'this is art' is in and of itself an artistic decision being made even if the thing itself is unaltered: see, for example, the entire discipline of 'found art'. once someone challenged me, yknow, "if you did a google search, would that be art?" and my answer to that is, if you screenshot that google search and share it as art, then yes, resoundingly yes! curation and presentation recontextualizes objects, turning them into rich texts through the simple process of reframing them. so even if you granted that genAI output is inherently random computer noise (i don't, of course) -- i still think that the act of presenting it as art makes it so.

since i assume you're not familiar with anything interesting in the medium, because the most popular stuff made with genAI is pure "lo-fi girl in ghibli style" type slop, let me share some genAI pieces (or genAI-influenced pieces) that i think are powerful and interesting:

the meat gala, rob sheridan (warning: body horror!)

secret horses (does anyone know the original source on this?)

infinite art machine, reachartwork

ethinically ambigaus, james tamagotchi

mcdonalds simpsons porn room, wayneradiotv

software greatman, everything everything (the music is completely made by the band, but genAI was partially responsible for the lyrics -- including the title and the several interesting pseudo-kennings)

i want a love like this music video, everything everything

cocaine is the motor of the modern world, bots of new york

poison the walker, roborosewatermasters (here's my analysis posts on it too)

not all of these were necessarily intended as art: but i think they are rich and fascinating texts when read that way -- they have certainly impacted me as much as any art has.

anyways, whether you agree or not, i hope this gives you some stuff to think about, thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

[fixyourwritinghabits]

How to Tell If That Post of Advice Is AI Bullshit

Right, I wasn't going to write more on this, but every time I block an obvious AI-driven blog, five more clutter up the tags. So this is my current (April 2024) advice on how to spot AI posts passing themselves off as useful writing advice.

No Personality - Look up a long-running writing blog, you'll notice most people try to make their posts engaging and coming from a personal perspective. We do this because we're writers and, well, we want to convey a sense of ourselves to our readers. A lot of AI posts are straight-forward - no sense of an actual person writing them, no variation in tone or text.

No Examples - No attempts to show how pieces of advice would work in a story, or cite a work where you could see it in action. An AI post might tell you to describe a person by highlighting two or three features, and that's great, but it's hard to figure out how that works without an example.

Short, Unhelpful Definitions - A lot of what I've seen amount to two or three-sentence listicles. 'When you want to write foreshadowing, include a hint of what you want foreshadowed in an earlier chapter.' Cool beans, could've figured that out myself.

SEO/AI Prompt Language Included - I've seen way too many posts start with "this post is about..." or "now we will discuss..." or "in this post we will..." in every single blog. This language is meant to catch a search engine or is ChatGPT reframing the prompt question. It's not a natural way of writing a post for the average tumblr user.

Oddly Clinical Language - Right, I'm calling out that post that tried to give advice on writing gay characters that called us "homosexuals" the entire time. That's a generative machine trying to stay within certain parameters, not an actual person who knows that's not a word you'd use unless you were trying to be insulting or dunking on your own gay ass in the funniest way possible.

Too Perfect - Most generative AI does not make mistakes (this is how many a student gets caught trying to use it to cheat). You can find ways to make it sound more natural and have it make mistakes, but that takes time and effort, and neither of those are really a factor in these posts. They also tend to have really polished graphics and use the same format every time.

Maximized Tags (That Are Pointless) - Anyone who uses more than 10 one-word tags is a cop. Okay, fine, I'm joking, but there's a minimal amount of tags that are actually useful when promoting a post. More tags are not going to get a post noticed by the algorithm, there is no algorithm. Not everyone has to use their tags to make snarky comments, but if your tags look like a spambot, I'm gonna assume you're a spambot.

No Reblogs From The Rest of Writblr - I'm always finding new Writblr folks who have been around for awhile, but every real person I've seen reblogs posts from other people. We've all got other stuff to do, I'm writing this blog to help others and so are they, the whole point of tumblr is to pass along something you think is great.

While you'll probably see some variation in the future - as people get wise to obviously generated text, they'll try to make it look less generated - but overall, there's still going to be tells to when something is fake.

I don't have any real advice for what to do about this (other than block those blogs, which is what I do). Like most AI bullshit, I suspect most of these blogs are just another grift, attempting to build large follower counts to leverage or sell something to in the future. They may progress past these tattletale features, but I'm still going to block them when I see them. I don't see any value in writing advice compiled from the work of better writers who put the effort in when I can just go find those writers myself.

[kdinjenzen]

I came up with a plot idea for a Who Framed Roger Rabbit sequel while taking a shower and decided to type it up.

I introduce you to ReFramed Roger Rabbit!:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ReFramed Roger Rabbit takes place NOW, in 202X, a full 78 years AFTER the original which was set in 1947.

One year before the events of the movie begin we see that Eddie Valiant Sr. has long since passed on, his son (with Dolores) Eddie Valiant Jr. (born 8 years after WFRR) eventually taking over his business as a private investigator and becoming a success in his own right is now ALSO finally retiring (at age 70) after sustaining an injury in the middle of a low stakes investigation.

Enter Eddie Valiant The Third (age 40) finally taking his place as the head of the detective agency after desperately trying to prove himself for these last 22 years (joining his father’s detective agency right out of High School).

One Year Later:

We see Roger (also long since retired but un-aged) living as a stay-at-home husband supporting his wife, Jessica, in her (now long lasting) writing career as a self-help author after she became famous for her book “We’re Not Bad, We’re Just Drawn That Way”.

As Roger is making breakfast their house is immediately broken into by a SWAT team and Roger is immediately arrested for “Crimes Against Cartoons” by making illegal and unregulated cartoons against the toon code. Roger claims he has done nothing and begs Jessica to find help as he is dragged away.

Cut to Eddie The Third struggling to keep the legacy of the detective agency relevant but his uncoordinated (both physical and logical) efforts have seen the business decline astronomically these past 12 months and the agency is on the edge of foreclosing. He turns on the TV to see Roger being arrested and crying out for help, he stands up with renewed vigor, and just before he is able proclaim his hand in helping Roger - Jessica bursts in and says she demands his help because “That’s What Eddie Would Have Wanted” - with Eddie 3rd sadly saying “But I’m Eddie too…”

Eddie 3rd, with Jessica, arrives at the station and Eddie lies his way in by saying he’s Roger’s lawyer who was hired by Jessica and demands to see his client. The three talk and Eddie says he truly believes Roger and that they’re getting out of there. He pulls out a toon bomb, placing it next to the wall and blows a cartoon shaped hole in it while also blowing smoke all over his face, classic cartoon style.

As they attempt to run away, Jessica is caught by the chief of police, but Eddie 3rd urges Roger to run and once they have the evidence to clear his name Jessica would be freed.

Jessica is, throughout the film, being interviewed by the chief of police for information.

Meanwhile Roger and Eddie 3rd find a shadowy figure who resembles Roger’s silhouette running around New ToonTown.

Throughout the film we see Eddie 3rd as a bumbling fool acting more toon than human, unable to accomplish anything unless it’s “because it would be funny” and getting increasingly frustrated with these mannerisms he has while Roger beams with pride as it reminds him of how Eddie became more toon-ish after WFRR.

Through several twists and turns, seeing Roger and Eddie travel through both New and Old ToonTown, learning that cartoons have changed, why Roger left showbiz, how Eddie feels he failed his family’s legacy, we eventually see Roger and Eddie corner the silhouette in what appears to be the same warehouse from the finale of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

It’s at this point we finally hear Doppelganger Roger speak and it is reminiscent of Generative AI showcasing a lack of soul, comedy, and art and only appearing to look like Roger on the surface…

Roger and Doppel Roger begin to have a Toon Fight, with Eddie 3rd pulling out his phone and recording the entire fight for evidence.

It’s at this point Roger, at toon knife point, asks the important question of who would want to create a clone of him like this and for what reason, he hasn’t been relevant for almost 100 years!

Eddie 3rd, unable to help himself and his somewhat toon-like nature, then reveals that this was all his plan, he begins to villain monologue about how he planned this whole thing to revive both HIS and ROGER’S careers, pushing them back into the limelight and out of the shadows of Eddie 3rd’s father and grandfather and Roger out of the shadow of his now very famous wife.

Roger says he was HAPPIER than he had ever been and never asked for this and Eddie 3rds actions are an insult to the Valiant name!

We hear “THAT’S ALL WE NEEDED TO HEAR!” blast over the now obvious speakers hanging over the set of what is obviously a studio set dressed up to look like the finale location of WFRR.

Jessica comes out, accompanied by toons, fans, and the chief of police. Jessica slipped a bug (an actual toon bug) onto Roger earlier at the police station feeling she couldn’t trust anyone fully. Her cunning and knowledge of toons and the business allowed her to be one step ahead, with the assistance of the chief, and set up this trap for Eddie 3rd.

The finale sees Eddie 3rd locked away and all Generative AI banned.

Toons world wide celebrate while Roger returns to his happy life as a husband.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[geekghoulsmash]

We really need to reframe how we are talking about generative ai, because, "it's stealing from artists," is really underselling what's going on.

It's stealing from all of us, to pad billionaires pockets. Pictures of your meals, of your house, your pets, your vacations, you. Your status updates, and shitposts. That cute video of your cat. That is all your work, your unpaid labor. If you baked a loaf of bread for fun, it's still your loaf of bread. You put your time, and effort into creating something, and it's being stolen by those with the most. It doesn't matter that you did it for fun, or it wasn't good, that does not give megacorps the right to your work.

Even if you don't consider yourself an artist, you're still creating, and they're using you for profit.

[commsroom]

this is a sensitive topic for me, so i really hate that i have to make this post, but unfortunately it keeps becoming relevant: stop infantilizing hera, and stop making excuses for it.

"well, she's literally four years old" she's been fully conscious with an adult mind for most of that, awake for most of that, and in multiple places at once for most of that. do you think that is comparable to a child's life experience, or is it maybe representative of something else?

i assume you understand why it would be wrong to call lovelace "literally two" because the fact that she is a clone is textually representative of the trauma she's been through. i also assume you understand why hera occasionally making flippant or frustrated comments about her own struggles living as an AI is different from the text telling you who she is or how you should regard her. it's science fiction, and it's a show that uses science fiction concepts in ways that resonate with real ones. the ultimate fact of the matter is that hera could've been in a lab for 30 years, or for 200 years, in a different setting, and be written the exact same way: as a sheltered, isolated adult woman without real life experiences.

hera is not a child or teenager in a natural stage of development. she is an adult who never went through the usual stages of development or life milestones, who has adult friendships and responsibilities, but who feels she is permanently ill-equipped to handle her life because no one ever taught her how, or gave her the space to make mistakes. if you don't understand why this distinction is important in discussing her trauma, that there are real, adult people who feel the same way, people who feel they've only been alive for four years, women who were never girls... then i really don't know what to say to you.

and i guess i have to say it: it's inherently infantilizing to say her peers see her the same way they see an actual child, or to say she needs them to be parental figures, especially eiffel of all people. "adult women have parents too" not ones that are 30 year old men! and parents have responsibilities to children, even adult children, that are different from the responsibilities two unrelated adults who care about each other have. it fundamentally reframes hera's most equal relationship in a way that diminishes her autonomy within it. (and if you're arguing it's all equal anyway, then what does it add? why don't you consider friendship as important?)

i know some people will dismiss that point because i view eiffel and hera romantically, but i've never argued you have to. if you want to go down that road, it says some pretty awful things about the couple of writers and actors who also view it romantically if you think she was meant to be viewed as a child, much less comparable to his child. you're inventing problems that don't canonically exist.

i just don't understand why you would make it about eiffel at all - and eiffel does not have the right to be a parent; the only thing that will heal his relationship with his real actual child is in relation to his real actual child - instead of discussing what a disabled, isolated, traumatized adult might be able to offer a disabled, traumatized kid. isn't the whole point of hera not being like pryce about breaking cycles? why make her a passive figure in her own story when her entire story arc is about taking control of her life?

there's no utility to this line of thought that doesn't further demean and alienate her, while implying she isn't ready to be a fully autonomous adult person. i don't think most people mean to be ableist, but hera is canonically a disabled woman, and i don't like where that line of thought leads. and yes, she's just a fictional character and can't be hurt by it, but everyone brings some real-world biases to how they engage with fiction. she's written as a marginalized adult person, and her womanhood is textually tied to defense of her personhood and autonomy (as well as a parallel to lovelace, also a marginalized woman.) to paraphrase minkowski - "you are going to show [that woman] some goddamned respect."

[werewolf-cuddles]

I'm not saying that AI, in general, is inherently bad or can't be used as a disability aid. That's obviously not even remotely true. I've seen people bring up examples of how AI tools help them in their day to day lives, and I don't wanna take that away from anyone.

But trying to rebrand generative AI as a disability aid, as though that's its primary function and target audience, and attempting to reframe the discussion as such to get people who are critical of genAI to shut up by accusing them of being ableist, is just disingenuous and, frankly, disgusting.

I mean, fuck, as obnoxious as the AI twitter techbros are, at least they're fucking HONEST about it. At least the techbros aren't out here trying to pass themselves off as disability advocates to reframe critics of their hobby as secret bigots.

Like, you can just admit you don't care about the environmental concerns. You can just admit that you don't care that these AI models are often trained on copyrighted work without proper licensing. You don't have to act like you're fighting the good fight and that you're a victim of oppression because you're upset people won't praise you for typing a prompt into an AI text/image generator and proudly presenting the results as your own work.

[slaaverin]

Before BMPs elemental alignment reading for Jimin tomorrow, as I’ve been reading the rest and where the members are at.

Do we think Jimin actually set himself free?

It’s sometimes I’ve thought about since Face, this big anthem, one that was powerful, but did he actually follow through?

I don’t know what he meant by setting himself free, it could have been anything. But from an outsiders perspective his career and his person remains unchanged from before? So was it a mindset thing he was singing of? Or has he left Hybe or made certain demands so to speak before re signing?

When you think about how proud JK looked watching the mv, what’s he proud of?

I don’t mean to sound demeaning I’m genuinely curious?

I can’t think of anything that outwardly looks like he’s done what he sang about.

In his solos eyes his sophomore album still didn’t get the right promo, so it can’t be that. He still hasn’t addressed haters, mainly taking a kill them with kindness or don’t acknowledge them at all approach.

He’s still Jimin that we know. Sometimes more reserved, and BMPs last reading of him last year wasn’t overly optimistic he seemed troubled and burdened and it was showing in his sleep. I know he was enlisted but still.

So what did he do?

‘Shut up fck Off I’m on my way’

Did he mean literally just the charts?

I’m just so curious

I’m so proud of him regardless and I cannot wait for him to return to what he loves.

I believe Jimin went through a phase of transition and transformation these last few years

We know Jimin was burdened by many shadowy aspects

Yet the "set me free" statement looks like a first step towards personal liberation

It could be very well an internal shift first, without much impact on the physical

And yet

After this we got AYS - more open and free

Jikook enlisted together - a huge statement

He was also more free to create artistically with MUSE, an album with a lighter tone than the previous one, once again highlighting this internal shift

Yes things were cut short by military

Yet my personal theory is that the momentum of this shift continued in there. I believe Jimin worked through some more shadows to reach even more equilibrium, thanks to this new challenging environnement and also the presence of Jungkook helping him reframe himself and his priorities in life.

This train of thought was shown in his letter, revealing deep questions about his existence, that would inevitably lead to transformation. Letting go of certain fears could be huge.

It's like in military he was in a cocoon reframing and expanding his inner life but soon the butterfly will emerge and shine even brighter than before

That's why I suspect that when he comes out, perhaps even more liberated, we will start to see new sides from him, a new burst that will reflect his new internal state

We might be surprised by him moving forward

Maybe I'm completely off, that's just what I suspect, I guess BPM's reading will give us a better understanding

But I'm actually very positive about Jimin, his growth, and the things coming. I believe the future for him will be less burdened and way more joyful/playful.

I have full confidence in him 💜 it makes sense to me. Do you agree? 🧚‍♀️

[centrally-unplanned]

Doing some experiments at work on generating AI lecture videos of faculty for hybrid courses, and it is very amusing to have deans be like "we have to do this, it is the future, we gotta stay competitive". I remember why you asked me to do these experiments, y'all - because our full time faculty were literally too lazy to film their own lectures, and you can't tell them no. That is it. You aren't being swept away by the forces of competition, you aren't gonna teach twice as many courses now that marginal costs are lower. I don't care at all, you can do whatever you want with these videos - no one really watches them anyway. But it is awkward to have them lie because they normally *don't*, we just say we are lazy. Here though, they are embarrassed by the idea, so they have to reframe it as obligatory. Just a little cringe.

[viridianriver]

So y'all wanted a second post on how to escape ~The Matrix~ after my last one, suggesting we were all unknowingly inside of it. (Not literal goo-pods, I'm referencing the movie more as an allegory for what AI has become - a surveillance and mass manipulation technology that turns us into parts of a profit generating machine.)

What Is The Matrix?

In the start of the film, Neo hides some money inside a hollowed out copy of Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.

It's a philosophy book - apparently the whole cast of the film had to read it, and so did I. It's about the levels of abstraction from reality - or as philosophers call it, 'The Real'

There are levels to this abstraction. Perhaps a tree outside is real. (as real as anything can be) The word 'Tree' as a signifier to mean 'that green thing over there' is one level of abstraction from the real. A tree as a commodity in a market, say in the sense of investing in lumber futures, is even further abstracted. And it's possible to have concepts that have no remaining connection to the real - imagine a world where trees have died out but the word 'Tree' lives on in memory.

In this way of thinking, some of what we do in life is real. Eating, shitting, you get the idea. Some is more abstract, and is based on collective agreements of meaning. Say - money. You can't eat it, but we all agree that it can be exchanged for something you can eat. It is real because we all agree to play the game of pretend, together.

And generally - we aren't conscious of what level of abstraction we are operating in at any given moment. I sure wasn't until I started reading philosophy.

We carry our ideologies, pre-conceptions, past traumas and fears, and our 'reality' is filtered through all things.

This all seems very abstract, why should I care?

I'm going to use the word 'simulacrum' to describe the different levels of unreality. I'll give a few examples of simulacra from my own life - filters on my perception, formed through ideology and past experiences.

Money. We chase it, we desire it, in some ways we can't live without it. But it's an abstraction - the reality of money comes when it is exchanged for something material. And by reframing my want of money to a want of the things money can buy me? I realized a number of those things could be obtained without money, and I didn't need so much to be content.

Laws. Laws are threats by those in power. This is an abstraction - the reality of law comes with its enforcement. And by reframing my fear a potential fascist police state in reality - that their material resources are constrained in the same ways ours all are? I released that fear.

Power. This one is real abstract; it is often wielded not through violence but through the appearance of the capacity to do violence. (See the entire cold war.) I've always held a fear of those who have institutional power over me, since I've had experiences with that power being abused. However, I feel I've fallen for the oldest trick in the book - mistaking grandstanding for true power.

All the simulacra that are central to our lives are just that - concepts. We have agreed to bow before money, laws, and power. How much of that is based in the reality of those concepts, and how much is based in the ideology? It's - in effect - different for everyone. I'm more able to brush off the portrayed power of the police as a person who isn't regularly experiencing police violence. I'm more able to walk away from the accumulation of money after I have enough to put dinner on the table.

So - these concepts are an abstraction from reality. But through our collective agreement to abide by these concepts, we bring them forth into reality.

What does AI have to do with all this?

AI isn't the first technology to be used to spread belief systems or ideology; before AI we had books, newspapers, religious texts and rituals, song, speech. All these technologies were held tight by those in power. Books have been banned or burned. Printing presses have been restricted so only male authors can publish. Meetings of more than a few people at once have been banned. Religion and government often have gone hand in hand. Even the printers we use today have had code secretly implemented to print a faint identifying signature - lest anyone begins to distribute controversial literature. Governments have always had an interest in identifying and monitoring their population's speech.

Language, and the strategic use of it has always been a tool of control. Read 1984, Manufacturing Consent, or any military manual on strategic communications, misinformation, and disinformation if you don't believe me.

But AI is uniquely effective at several things.

Consolidating information and the tools to parse it at scale into the lands of a few extremely wealthy individuals. (Not counting true open source AI, which I don't believe any major company is truly developing - as much as they say they are)

Identifying and classifying individuals by existing ideology or traits, and then enabling targeted messaging towards those individuals - blocking the population into 'echo chambers' which can be divided and conquered with misinformation or disinformation.

Providing surveillence in a variety of ways, including facial recognition, textual analysis, geolocation analysis, purchasing pattern analysis, and threat analysis.

How Do I Leave?

Become aware of whether your thoughts are in reality, or if you're being used as a tool in someone else's game of money, power, and politics.

Write down a schedule of how you spend your day today, in as much detail as you can, and ask yourself these sorts of questions.

How did I learn to spend my time in this way? Who profits off of me spending my time in this way? Am I producing or consuming in this moment? If I am producing, do the fruits of my labor go to me or another? If I am consuming, am I nourished by what I am consuming? Am I being provoked into a reflexive emotional reaction? If so, for what ends?

You can't escape being a cog in someone else's machine entirely - but so much messaging in our lives encourages us to, whether that's ads telling us to consume, or the idea of the surveillence state telling us we have no right to a private life. Being mindful of these things and trying to claw back what hours, what energies, you can? It can be life changing.

How Do I Reduce My Exposure To Targeted Ideological Manipulation?

Get an adblocker. Set up your whole family with adblockers. I like ublock origin, or a pi-hole. The mechanisms of targeted advertising are also used for targeted political speech - see the social media manipulation Musk did leading up to the recent US election.

If you read the news at all, read the news critically, and read news from many countries. Seek out primary sources, on-the-ground video, not media filtered through the layer of propoganda and abstraction that secondary or tertiary sources report. (And seriously - check out the book Manufacturing Consent)

Read a great variety of books. Or listen to audiobooks. Philosophy, sociology, and history have been my favorites lately. There's some deep shit in there.

Speak to people face to face often, leave the phones elsewhere. (Did you see the news Apple's been recording us? creepy!) Speak to people with very different ideas than you - ones that might make you uncomfortable. Those in power take advantage of our fear of each other - to sub-divide us into ideological echo-chambers which can be turned against one-another.

Turn off your location. You're being tracked more than you know. (But also know that modern phones with non-removable batteries don't allow you to truly disable location, the gov't has tools to remotely turn on your phone's location services. Had that happen to me once when I called 911 to report a fire, my fairly 'locked down' phone was instantly triangulated with a combo of GPS, WI-FI adjacency, and cell tower proximity. )

Realize that fear of your neighbor is a tool of control. If you're exposed to messaging that tells you to fear those in your community, or messaging that causes your outrage-response, look critically at who is serving you that messaging, and why. (Y'all are probably being set up to fight each other to keep you too busy to look up.)

Write down your own guiding principles and beliefs. What do you have faith in? Ask yourself why they're important to you. And hold this close - I believe that if you hold a strong sense of self, you'll be less susceptible to manipulation.

And maybe watch the Matrix, it's a damn good movie. But as always - think critically!

[angelsaxis]

The thing with AI art is that when they say that art is now accessible, what they mean is that decent/"good" art is available with minimal effort. Of course, art has always been accessible--pencil and paper, drawing on cave walls, etc--but these people only want something polished. They also notably don't want to learn how to do it. They don't want the trial and error, just the instant gratification of a custom artwork. I find this pretty depressing, since so much can be gained from picking up a new skill--really, any new skill, not just art. But again, cut out the work and the middleman and reframe the process of creation into terms of accessibility, and you have a shmancy new emotional appeal for AI art.

Everyone is engaging with AI generative image makers on the merits of their arguments when they would be addressing this discrepancy first. Yeah art's always been accessible, but you need to challenge their definitions of both art and accessibility, and ask them whether they would still use that line if all AI generated images came out visually unsettling or just plain bad (or, ask them why they didn't call AI art accessible UNTIL the pictures were pretty).

[heretherebedork]

I can't believe the show has decided to reframe this as the grandmother just knowing that one of her grandchildren was strong enough to not need comfort and that it's GOOD that she could trust her five year old granddaughter to take care of herself.

But also framing their relationship as jealousy... of the one who was constantly pushed away and hated herself and thought her family hated her but apparently they just thought she was too popular and too strong to need anything!?!? WHY IS THIS SHOW LIKE THIS?!

Ai spent her entire life feeling like she could never been enough and wasn't loved because they... thought she was strong and popular!? WHAT. WHAT. This makes no actual sense with the rest of the show except that the rest of the show was specifically set up to be a deceit which is just... a thing.

We met and Ai who thought her life was worth so much less than her sister's that she didn't think anyone would care if she was in the hospital instead of her sister and now we're supposedly being told that everyone loved her sooooo much instead.

I just... really? Really? This is what the show is gonna do now? Why? Why is this a thing?! Everyone just decided Ai was strong enough to be completely left alone and shown no affection and apparently thought she'd just feel loved magically through osmosis?

You could try, I don't know, having been nicer to her? Maybe? At any point in your relationship and especially once you were adults? The only reason Ai ever wasn't the sister who loved you was because you and grandma basically treated her like she was, apparently, too strong to need any kind of emotional care or love.

Ah, yes, that's how people feel about children in their care that. Sigh. Ai spent a lifetime being neglected and feeling constantly disliked and Oab hated herself so much for... not being as good as her, I guess?! that she literally sacrificed an entire relationship just for that jealousy.

Because, seriously, if Oom had just stayed in the relationship with May they both could have easily been happy. May having a one time crush n Ai when they were teenagers and then meeting Oom and falling in love with her didn't need to be a death sentence for their relationship, it could so easily have been just a story that they laughed about years down the line instead of this nightmare.

WHATEVER, man.

Apparently everyone in this family sucks and blamed themselves for sucking when it was mostly just grandma's fault.

[wordsandrobots]

IBO reference notes on . . . the lie of Agnika Kaieru

This is a post about McGillis Fareed.

Originally presented as an antagonist ala the Gundam franchise's 'Char clone' archetype (named after Char Aznable, an expy of the Red Baron by way of the Last of the Romanovs), McGillis turns out to be one of Iron-Blooded Orphans' key protagonists, his initial appearances reframed by an eventual alliance with Martian mercenary group Tekkadan, home to the more obvious lead characters. In large part, it is his story we watch unfold, as he attempts to secure control over Gjallarhorn, the repressive extra-national military in which he serves.

And it's hard to discuss that story without reference to Agnika Kaieru, the man credited with founding Gjallarhorn to counter AI-controlled 'mobile armours' three hundred years earlier. The apocalyptic conflict between humanity and the armours known as the Calamity War is the source of the current social order, not to mention the titular Gundam mecha. Agnika is responsible for leading Gjallarhorn to victory, an achievement for which McGillis idolises him. He is also a non-character, haunting events solely through McGillis' commentary, at once vitally important and entirely absent.

I thought it would be interesting to examine how that works. I ended up writing 7000 words about it. Spoilers for everything and content warnings for mentions of child sexual abuse.

The character who wasn't there

If we take McGillis at his word, his personal philosophy was defined by reading a biography of Gjallarhorn's founder at a young age. More specifically, at a young age, while being sexually abused by his adoptive father, Iznario Fareed, who had extricated him from working at a brothel, a situation he was previously forced into after being abducted while homeless on the streets. The Life of Agnika Kaieru was a light in this darkness, offering a path out of a situation that, though seemingly improved from his original impoverishment, continued to be highly coercive and harmful. McGillis was made heir to a powerful family, yet had to sneak out of his patron's bed in the middle of the night, naked, with visible bruises across his body. He was desperately in need of hope.

The abuse appears to have been baked into this plot-beat from the start, with hints to it provided at multiple points during Season 1. Iznario being accompanied by a blonde boy and blonde young man (echoing the excesses of Carta Issue, a character who surrounds herself with McGillis lookalikes owing to an unrequited crush), McGillis' reluctance to spend the night at the Fareed estate, and the questions of legitimacy surrounding his inheritance all take on darker significance when the truth is revealed in Season 2. We may safely assume he was always planned to be reacting to this form of exploitation.

I suspect Agnika was a later creation. Comparing the outline of the Calamity War provided at the very start of the show to the ways it later becomes relevant suggests a considerable amount of fleshing-out in the interim. There are few outright contradictions, or at least, few we cannot explained by assuming in-fiction ignorance. Nevertheless, the importance of Agnika as a historical figure, the myths surrounding his mobile suit, and the very existence of the mobile armours each enter without previous set-up. This is inelegant, in the manner of much of IBO's exposition: workmanlike additions to propel the plot along, extending exactly as far as required and no more. But we cannot discount their importance to the final result and since McGillis aspires, in a very real sense, to become his hero, it is instructive to consider what the show tells us about Agnika.

Immediately we run into the fact we know nothing at all about him as a person. The only 'canonical' description of his personality was provided by the series' director, who compared him to 'the hero in a shonen manga': a charismatic character who always saves his friends. Apart from reinforcing my belief any spin-off set during the Calamity War would be more typical fare than Iron-Blooded Orphans turned out to be, this tells us little. Within the story as it plays out, Agnika is blank space. Being three hundred years dead, it does not actually matter what he was like – itself a statement about how people can be forgotten even when their names reverberate through history. Indeed, the thematic parallel to the fates of a large chunk of the cast is a potent one. Time has rendered Agnika a cipher, subject to the judgement of distant strangers, his exact morals and intentions long-since stripped away.

What remains are his legacy and beliefs. That we must speak of these separately is telling. The Seven Stars, descendants of Agnika's fellow Gundam pilots and Gjallarhorn's present-day leadership, show little deference to the man who commanded their ancestors. There are no statues memorialising him and though Gundam Bael has its attendant ghost stories, of Agnika's spirit living on inside and how it will only awake for his true inheritor, it is shuttered away, a monument nobody ever goes to see. One gets the strong impression McGillis is the only person to pay him more than lips service in centuries.

Consequently, McGillis' personal interpretation of Agnika's philosophy is the only window we get on his beliefs, and the most thorough explanation of that interpretation is given to his eleven-year-old child-bride, Almiria Bauduin.

Fairy tales told by a pied piper

From what we see on screen, McGillis is never overtly abusive towards Almiria, to whom he becomes engaged as part of a political scheme. He is pushed into the arrangement by Iznario and in the side-story covering its commencement, he goes out of his way to provide Almiria with the choice he lacks – something that spurs Almiria to form a genuine attachment to him. However, the engagement also serves his personal ambitions extremely well and he unquestionably manipulates her over the course of it (hard to think of another term to describe comforting her on the loss of her brother Gaelio, for which McGillis is himself responsible). We could and probably should label his apparent concern for her emotional wellbeing and indulgence of her desire to be seen as a grown-up as an attempt at grooming her, not in the sexual sense, but to make her a more amenable chess-piece. On the other hand, McGillis prevents Almiria from killing herself when the truth comes out, at the cost of an injury that severely disadvantages him in battle shortly thereafter – a notable action when her political utility has just evaporated. On the other other hand, this incident prompts him to describe her, quite disdainfully, as 'troublesome'.

What I'm saying is, the question of whether McGillis sees Almiria as a tool or somebody he truly cares for is thorny, as it is for virtually every single character with whom he has a meaningful relationship. Nevertheless, I think we are meant to believe he is being honest when he talks to Almiria about The Life of Agnika Kaieru. What he says fits his actions elsewhere and there are no on-screen indications he isn't being truthful – at least from his perspective – when he credits Agnika's principles with 'saving him'.

McGillis states Agnika wanted a world where “humans could live as humans”; that is, where humans of all backgrounds could compete fairly to achieve their dreams. To a child of low-birth, abused behind closed doors, this is an enticing prospect. McGillis goes on to entice Almiria in turn with the promise of 'loving whomever you wish' and of neither of them being mocked for the age imbalance between them. He concludes the scene by saying it is time to “pry open the door to that world with my own two hands.”

A few episodes later, in an internal monologue, he refers to Agnika as the “greatest symbol of power the world had ever seen. Authority, vigour, might, capability, vitality, influence, as well as brute force.” Inspired by this man's life story, he is determined to usurp rule over Gjallarhorn and finally address the want of power that had defined his own life since birth.

Like everything to do with Agnika, what this tells us about his principles is somewhat vague. Quite literally the child-friendly version (sort of; McGillis openly tells Almiria he contemplated suicide prior to reading the book and is likely a poor judge of age-appropriateness). Still, the philosophy described combines individualism with egalitarianism. The stated goal is a level playing field, free of artificial advantages like wealth or social status, where everyone can pursue their dreams as far as they are each able. This is implied to be a natural state for humanity, such that achieving it would be a form of reclamation. Further, the kinds of power McGillis lists are personal – physical strength, intelligence, charisma – and he works obsessively to cultivate them. We don't get confirmation that self-improvement is another of Agnika's ideals, but it would fit from what is presented.

If you are anything like me, your brain will have turned to all sorts of weird capitalism fans and their buzzwords for justifying frantic competition between people at every level of society. Phrases like 'personal responsibility', 'rugged individualism', and 'rational self-interest', possibly with a side-helping of – gods help us – libertarianism. You may also be asking, if this is what Gjallarhorn's founder espoused, how did it end up enforcing disparities between different populations, oppressing workers and maintaining social hierarchies, at large and within its own walls?

To which I might reply, have you looked at what all those weird capitalism fans get up to, recently? This is an unsatisfying answer, though, and to properly examine how Agnika's legacy intersects with the dreaded c-word, we need to take a couple of side-steps, starting with why it should be a natural connection to make within the context of this show.

A digression into narratives about capitalism

Iron-Blooded Orphans is one of the few entries in the franchise to directly engage with capitalism as a major source of global problems. That probably sounds a little strange if you're aware of the the reputation Gundam has as a whole, so let me explain.

[Also, let me remind everyone the definition of capitalism is “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.” (Wikipedia; emphasis mine). It's worth being exact.]

When the concept of space colonies is introduced in 1979's Mobile Suit Gundam, they are framed as a response to global overpopulation and the consequent ecological decline of the Earth (pause to appreciate the massive fuck-off dog-whistle; we'll come back to that in a second). The war the show depicts is presented as a matter of sovereignty, whereby those offloaded into orbit rise up against rule by an indifferent terrestrial government. The colonies themselves are cities built within artificially landscaped environments inside O'Neil cylinders. They do not appear to serve any commercial purpose in and of themselves; when we see labour happening in space, it is in service to the colonies, rather than something they are for (the Zeon miners in sequel series ZZ; there is also the fuel-collecting Jupiter Fleet but they are a very odd entity and not fleshed out).

Contrast this to IBO where Mars' utility as a source of 'half-metal' is of paramount importance to its political and economic position, and the space colonies are explicitly shown to be factory complexes, company towns, resorts, and prisons. The middle arc of Season 1 is focused on a workers' revolt against the corporation running a particular group of colonies, the Dorts, while the impetus behind spin-off game Urdr Hunt is the lead character's desire to transform his home's fortunes by making it a popular tourist destination. There are also mentions of 'resource satellites' and glimpses of what appear to be colonies built to mine asteroids. And true, it isn't stated whether all the colonies originate as extractive operations and production centres. But those purposes are depicted the reason they are maintained to the present day, removing such dirty businesses far above the 'precious', 'unsullied' Earth (cue 'The Lightship', played with maximum irony).

[Side-note: the Dort Company runs its colonies as a 'public enterprise on behalf of the African Union', implying state ownership. However there are multiple references to 'rich factory owners from Earth', suggesting private control. Best I can figure, the colonies are state-owned while the production facilities inside them belong to private companies? Since everyone appears to work for Dort (every worker we see wears the same green jacket), I'm not certain how that functions. Perhaps the workforce is leased to private factories via the Company? That would be fittingly grim.]

Now to be clear, I am not claiming Gundam as a whole doesn't tackle problems caused or exacerbated by capitalism. The introduction of Anaheim Electronics into the original Gundam timeline marks clear interest in exploring the influence of corporate entities on warfare. We may also – from the outside – interrogate overpopulation concerns as deflecting blame from capital's destructive activities, going hand-in-hand with racism over migration, and obfuscating who exactly gets sent to 'colonise the unknown' (spoilers: it's the poor and vulnerable). I'm unconvinced the original run from Mobile Suit Gundam to Char's Counterattack is intended as commentary in this manner; equally, I don't think it's hard to get there (as Gundam Unicorn somewhat demonstrates).

What I'm trying to articulate is a distinction between 'being about a problem' and 'naming capitalism as the cause'. Most Gundam series tend to depict capital as part of an amorphous blob of 'Earth-sphere corruption' or 'greedy elites'. Even Anaheim acts as a third party in the Earth/space conflict, taking advantage of the war rather than shaping the fault-lines along which it occurs. Additionally, actual money very rarely tends to be a factor in the plot. Groups like Celestial Being from Gundam 00 appear to possess near-infinite budget; Gundam Wing's itinerant teenage terrorists have only erratic and arbitrary issues obtaining supplies (where are you getting the damn ammo, Trowa?!); and even in The Witch From Mercury, where you'd really expect expenditure to matter, it… doesn't. G-Witch toys with access to funds and the requirement to be profitable early on, but overall is more a courtly drama in business drag, unconcerned with why corporations work the way they do. Issues such as the exploitation of vulnerable populations for the sake of driving down costs are gestured to without becoming strictly plot-relevant.

Meanwhile over in IBO, the poverty of the Martian characters is an ever-present threat and come the denouement, whether they have any money left is of paramount importance. The show tells us bullets have a price-tag, using this to drive actions inside a world run for the sake of profit. It is mentioned that productivity in the African Union's colonies is expected to drop following the Dort labourers wining better working conditions, a boon to the competing economic blocs that leads to one of them sheltering Tekkadan in gratitude for helping bring this change about. The reason co-main character Orga Itsuka does not survive episode 48 is because arms-dealer Nobliss Gordon thinks it will be financially advantageous to have him killed. That fellow businessman McMurdo Barriston extends limited aid to Tekkadan after publicly cutting them loose for the sake of the Teiwaz conglomerate's reputation and revenue is highly relevant to his characterisation. And Teiwaz itself is run like a mafia, a riff on yakuza practices that erases the line between big business and organised crime – a hell of claim to make in a story where another of the leads' entire goal is uplifting Mars by playing the economic system.

Now, in my reading the major theme running through Iron-Blooded Orphans is exploitation. An acute depiction of how capitalist societies operate – the amorality of the profit motive, the colonial underpinnings, the sheer, monstrous cost – is a subset of this. I don't feel it's any surprise that an attempt to realistically depict child soldiers and other exploited groups should lead to a detailed rendering of the gears in which the world is currently caught. Equally, I don't think it fair to reduce IBO to being about capitalism, full-stop. Patriarchy, slavery and repressive class structures all have older roots and there is an argument to be made that where it touches those things, the show cares less about them as artefacts of modern economic arrangements than as evils in their own right.

It still manages to say stuff about the functioning of capitalism with more bluntness than most pieces of fiction I've encountered and, speaking as an Englishman, the thing that strikes me most is the decision to make the lynchpin of its world an aristocratically-led military force.

A further digression into aristocratic fables

Aristocracy means 'government by a hereditary elite'. It is sustained via wealth passed down through generations of a small group of families and was one of the key mechanisms by which the feudal system operated, prior to the slow capitalist revolution of the 16th to 18th Centuries. It is often treated as obsolete, having been superseded by more modern forms of 'being rich'. Certainly it seems quaint in these days of tech billionaires and oligarchs to talk of descendents of feudal lords who prize family trees traced back to William the Conqueror.

What you have to understand about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (official name used with illustrative intent) is that this country never properly rid itself of its aristocracy. We are a monarchy. Our parliament includes a House of Lords. And while these are both vestiges of earlier systems, they are neither of them ceremonial. The Lords and the Crown possess actual power that can affect decisions made by the House of Commons, our democratically-elected governing body. The Lords (who are not elected and include those appointed for life alongside ninety-two hereditary positions [this was a compromise]) can review and send back certain types of bills passed in the Commons, delaying their introduction into law. Meanwhile the Crown technically still holds an absolute veto at the end of the legislative process, which only by convention do they not use (royal assent is required for any bill to become law; apparently the last time it was withheld was 1708, but the threat remains and the Crown continues to interfere in proposals affecting their interests).

As you might expect, there have been murmurings for years about replacing the Lords with elected officials and we all like to pretend the King just exists for show. Regardless, these institutions – hundreds of years old and holdovers from a completely different social and economic order – persist because the aristocracy remains a useful tool of the modern British state. The Royal Family can be said to be its advertising wing, not in the sense of attracting tourism but of going around shoring up foreign relations, to help keep Britain the fifth richest country in the world. These diplomatic efforts are a key reason why they are worth the maintenance costs (and the noxious scandals). However it goes deeper than that.

Kings and queens don't make sense without the idea of hereditary superiority, and even with its overt political power reduced by changing times, the British aristocracy continues to shape our upper classes. We have an entire parallel school system preparing the children of the wealthy for life running the country. Our public schools (fee-paying schools open to all who can afford them; we call the free ones 'state schools') have been educating the sons of the 'best families' for centuries. They were the source of the officers and administrators who maintained the British Empire and they continue to be where a massive proportion of our diplomats, politicians, journalists, civil servants, and military leadership receive their education.

This system, funnelling kids through schools like Eaton and Harrow to Oxford and Cambridge Universities, is a factory for class solidarity. It allows students to network and, just as importantly, instils in them the signifiers of being 'the proper kind of person'. Ways of speaking. Ways of dressing. An awareness of who they should defer to and who they can look down on, so that they can be recognised by other alumni as 'correct'. Trustworthy. Reliable.

Above all, it reinforces the notion they have both a right and a responsibility to lead.

Because that's the heart of the lie nobility tells: 'there is something about us that means we must rule over them.' If Britain no longer entirely subscribes to this quality being inborn, it can at least be taught to those of the right stock, bringing them a little closer to the true aristocracy. They can elevate themselves above the plebs, as diligent servants of the Crown, who remains the untouchable pinnacle of quality. [Translation note: 'the Crown' refers to both the reigning monarch and the state. They are functionally the same thing. That's what being a monarchy means.]

Thus, the Empire was able to send its younger, weirder sons out to plunder far-off lands, and produced many an honourable sort to lead thousands against machine guns in Europe, and, in a post-imperial age, Britain can still present an impeccably polite face to the world, to negotiate better deals. Diminished as it is, the aristocracy's shambling husk continues on, manufacturing not the capitalists per se (although the successors to the original land-lords are hardly above enriching themselves and plenty of our lifetime peers are people who've run successful businesses), but the supporting apparatus for capitalist operations. The grease on the wheels and a permanent roadblock along the road to meaningful social change.

You literally cannot have equality if there's a guy at the top who gets a stupid hat and ungodly amounts of influence just for who his parents were.

The wrong story, at the right time

It isn't hard to imagine about how it happened.

Gjallarhorn is the only significant military force left standing after a quarter of a solar-system-spanning human race has been exterminated. Faced with the task of reconstructing civilisation, it splits the world into four blocs for easier administration, abolishing the old national borders. At those blocs' request, it then applies the same reorganisation to Mars and Jupiter, the better to funnel resources towards restoring the Earth. Throughout, it maintains the position of a neutral arbiter; Gjallarhorn was formed to stop the War; now it must ensure there will never be another.

To this end, the tools that allowed it to triumph – the Alaya-Vijnana augmentation technology and the Gundam frames that meant flesh and blood could out-compete tireless machinery – are buried. Victory is instead attributed to the resilience of pure, unadulterated humanity. The pilots slew the monsters not thanks to their equipment but their innate ability. The greatest among them are heralded as champions and natural leaders.

It is a small step to decreeing that their children will inherit their positions. Innate qualities can be passed down and heirs, raised in the image of their parents. Maybe this is an extension of those traditions from which sprang duellists bearing red flags. Maybe it is merely a result of the new-born legends. What matters is, Gjallarhorn endures, guided by its seven stars.

Over the following centuries, the system embeds. The ethos of human purity takes hold, measured by distance from the homeworld. Unfortunates born to space or on distant, dusty worlds posses utility for digging up half-metal or labouring in orbital factories but have no place inside Earth's atmosphere. They would make the place untidy, now the scars of the War are scrubbed away. Those who seek to upset this situation are dissuaded. Those subjected to augmentation, dismissed as subhuman. The peace is kept.

Sadly, new generations of the ennobled families lack the moral fibre of their forebears, accepting bribes, pushing the boundaries of Gjallarhorn's neutrality. There are rules and those tasked with enforcing the rules and yet still the rot spreads. These younger generations lack the moral fibre of their vaunted forebears. A sad decline.

Or perhaps that is bullshit and they are exactly the same: people come into power, who will justify anything for the sake of never giving it up and ensuring that all things flow towards the centre.

Gjallarhorn is the armed wing of the Earth super-state, operating for the benefit of the whole despite competition between the individual blocs. That is to say, it is the army of a capitalist state writ large, in the usual manner of sci-fi magnifying things across time and space. Broadly, a state's purpose under capitalism is to facilitate the smooth running of private enterprise by maintaining infrastructure, providing a workforce, and destroying anything that gets in the way of expansion. Tradition, upper-class solidarity and ideological frameworks all help hold the arrangement together. It is useful, after all, to train people to believe they're supporting a grand cause when they are in fact facilitating exploitation and theft for the benefit of someone else.

And it is here we must turn our attention back to The Life of Agnika Kaieru. Above, I glibly compared the things McGillis says Agnika stood for to capitalistic propaganda. What I mean is that it reads as the ideology surrounding free-market capitalism, where companies are released from all restraint and allowed to compete irrespective of consequence. This is often said to fuel innovation and create a healthy market that will – somehow – benefit everyone, despite observably driving owners to increase profits at the expense of large numbers of people, including their customers.

In that context, claiming you want to ensure everyone competes 'fairly' is disingenuous, since it entails the removal of both limitations and safety nets. No artificial advantages and reliance solely on personal strengths means those who are old, disabled, or otherwise lacking Agnika's stated virtues will automatically be left behind. This is not hypothetical; I see it around me everyday, as a result of policies predicated on exactly this basis, just as we see it represented in IBO by a wide-scale absence of social support and characters too vulnerable to survive a free-for-all (Atra, Builth, the Turbines, in flashback). But the ideological statement elides such problems.

Given the title of the biography, I assume it dates from after Agnika died. Any impression derived from it must therefore be suspected of being what Gjallarhorn required him to have believed. Historically, both aristocracy and capitalism alike have benefited from this kind of distortion, so it would be no great surprise if the book turned out to be more PR than honest report. While Agnika's principles are incompatible with the hereditary advantages enjoyed by the Seven Stars, there are ways to read them as being aligned with the wider social and economic arrangements. As such, it is entirely plausible the way he is remembered was designed to support those arrangements.

The right story, at the wrong time

The rhetoric of McGillis' attempted coup centres Gjallarhorn's failure to adhere to its original values, citing unwarranted attacks against civilians and inference in Earth politics. The Seven Stars must be replaced with sincere believers to correct a drift away from what Agnika intended. McGillis outright proclaims his 'revolutionaries' have the truth of Gjallarhorn on their side.

Even if this is a calculated stance designed to rile younger officers into being the army he requires, McGillis' internal monologues reveal a commitment to the ideal of the individual seizing their dreams through sheer personal strength. He seeks not only to prove this is possible, but also to inspire those who cower because “they don't know how to use their fangs” into following his example. From what we see, he has taken Agnika's words – as they were relayed to him – as gospel.

Is his interpretation correct? And if it is, was it what Agnika believed, or simply what it was useful for him to say? McGillis is manipulative, spinning tales to make others do what he wants. Was his idol the same, pre-empting biographical distortions by espousing a finely-tuned message that would reassure the masses while he built a system geared toward curtailing the power of all but a few?

Trick question. There's no answer in the text. As I said, Agnika isn't a character; what he really intended is irrelevant and therefore not present. Yet a distinction must be drawn between what is said publicly and what is said behind the scenes. This is a layering IBO captures via Rustal Elion, McGillis' rival for control of Gjallarhorn, who out-manoeuvres and defeats him. Rustal is a pragmatist unencumbered by quasi-mystic belief in Agnika or some 'true purpose' to Gjallarhorn. He does whatever it takes to best McGillis, casually breaking centuries-old weaponry restrictions and even provoking a fresh war to undermine his opponent's plans – all while presenting as a bastion of lawful rule. Privately, he admits to being 'shady', willing to deal with whomsoever furthers his goals (e.g. Nobliss Gordon, who starts violent uprisings to spur sales of his merchandise). It is this capacity for realpolitik that means Rustal comes out on top.

The narrative does gesture at motivations beyond self-interest. When Rustal reforms Gjallarhorn in the wake of the Seven Stars decimation at McGillis' hand, he abolishes the aristocratic council (of which he is also a member) and replaces it with a more democratic form of governance. That he is immediately elected to the role of supreme commander gives us some reason to doubt his sincerity. Offsetting this, he is also shown to be working towards the abolishment of slavery in his society.

Regardless of his exact degree of progressiveness, however, Rustal appears entirely uninterested in changing what Gjallarhorn is for. See, institutions and social structures have specific purposes, which need not be the ones they claim, via statements or appearances. A capitalist business may claim to exist to provide a product or service, but its actual purpose is the generation of profit. The police may claim to be an institution of citizen protection, but their purpose is the enforcement of the law, which can be detrimental to some or all of those selfsame citizens.

Gjallarhorn's purpose is to control the colonial holdings of the Earth and maintain the current division of the world. They administrate the extraction of resources, quash attempts at social change, and crush resistance to exploitative business practices. Moreover, Rustal is certainly well-aware this is what his job entails. It is his fleet that carries out a calculated massacre of the Dort workers' unions when they push for better conditions and he personally orders an orbital strike on defeated child-soldiers as an exercise in image management. His reforms thus smack more than a little of an army or a weapons manufacturer improving its hiring policies: sure, they now employ women and members of minority groups; they still exist to kill people.

For these kinds of entities, purpose is all-important. You can dress them up however you want, so long as their function continues to be carried out. I bet, when I described my country's persisting aristocratic elements, you immediately went, “that sounds like [mechanics of regional upper class and attendant justifications for social division].” Yes. Precisely. We don't have feudal system holdovers at the centre of our society because they're the most efficient or only means of fulfilling those roles. They're simply the ones that make the most sense at this point in our history. A different environment would necessitate a different form, but the function would remain.

[I am glossing over the mutability of function here – the power of the king has reduced greatly via political and economic shifts, so he's no longer performing quite the same role as his ancestors – but hopefully you get what I mean.]

Rustal's reforms are an illustration of purpose superseding form. At the end of the show, the narration informs us trust in Gjallarhorn has been restored, indicating an end to meaningful opposition to what we have seen it do. Similarly, when Rustal states that the organisation's history matters more than its mythology, he is saying it has largely been operating correctly and should continue to do so in the future. The public claims can be altered, the set-dressing reworked. The function remains.

Poor delusions

Like the British state and its equivalents, Gjallarhorn is draped in heroic, mythological imagery. From uniforms to equipment naming conventions, it presents as grand and noble, even possessing heraldry, as if originating in a gathering of brave knights. We, the audience, know that this is a veneer plastered atop the material reality. Scenes of its foundation are comparatively mundane: sober men wearing drab suits, shaping the future with the stroke of a pen. The dress-up played since is pure embellishment.

McGillis, however, takes the imagery seriously.

His plan hinges on 'awakening' Gundam Bael and being 'accepted' as its new pilot, fulfilling an old rule/tradition whereby whoever possesses this particular mobile suit is the undisputed leader of Gjallarhorn. By taking a disgraced Iznario's place among the Seven Stars, augmenting himself with an Alaya-Vijnana system, and capturing the facility containing Bael, McGillis intends to anoint himself the new Agnika. At a stroke, he believes he will gain the loyalty of all Gjallarhorn forces on Earth and thus the military strength necessary to defeat Rustal's Moon-based Arianrhod Fleet.

For reasons I'll detail another time, I don't think his strategy is necessarily ridiculous. But it doesn't work. The other Seven Stars do not automatically bow down to Bael's new pilot, instead adopting a neutral position awaiting the outcome of the impending battle, and there is no mass uprising among the ranks below them. Since Rustal otherwise commands an overwhelming number of troops, this turns the conclusion into a foregone one. The few who do join McGillis' cause are annihilated and he is forced to retreat, eventually dying in a one-man attack on the Arianrhod flagship.

It must be stressed that McGillis isn't stupid. He is a canny political operator who correctly identifies the biggest obstacles to success, and while his analysis of Gjallarhorn's corruption is deployed principally as a rhetorical tool, he's not wrong. The leadership are complicit in a lot of extremely shady activity, including experimentation with Alaya-Vijnana technology, contravening the taboo against augmentation their ancestors propagated. They do act against their publicly-stated values, to the detriment of ordinary people and in the interests of those who benefit from a hideously exploitative system.

His mistake is to treat this as a bug, rather than the feature we might more correctly diagnose it to be. Within The Life of Agnika Kaieru, McGillis believes he has discovered the hidden truth about Gjallarhorn. He imagines by setting Agnika aside, the Seven Stars obfuscated mechanisms to curtail their authority and an ethos more welcoming to people like him. (There is a lot we could discuss about the ways McGillis is immunised against some forms of bigotry by his station, despite his illegitimate status, and how he exploits more disadvantaged soldiers like Ein Dalton and Isurugi Camice for his own ends. It's just, that'd be another two thousand words and I really need to wrap this up.)

Yet if we follow Rustal's advice and heed history, the timeline shown in Season 1 has Gjallarhorn dolling out sections of Mars to the blocs a mere three years after the Calamity War ended. Among the many things we don't know about Agnika is if he survived the War, but whether he did or not, his organisation pretty instantly became a tool of social division and exploitation. The most we may allow is that its original purpose was truly noble. Its actions once the apocalypse had been averted speak for themselves.

This has been long walk, I suppose, for the fairly succinct summary of McGillis as a character who rejects private truth in favour of embracing a public, propagandising lie. I am compelled by the idea even so. Capitalism is far from the only system to have claimed universal virtue while benefitting merely a select few, but it has gone uniquely hard on the idea 'you can make it too'. Given IBO's uncluttered depictions of a world run for profit (with the complicity of ostensibly non-capitalistic institutions), taking a cynical read on Agnika's supposed ideology is trivial. Human triumphalism and Gjallarhorn conceptualised as the arbiter of fair competition dovetail into the show's unjust present in a manner too neat to discount. More than anything else, the choice McGillis makes is a common one in real life.

Sometimes, that's a positive thing, pushing people to insist on making promises come true to the detriment of the swindler proffering them. Others, it is a source of profound disorientation, leading in very dark directions as blame for the dissonance is attributed to anything but the root cause.

[This seems is as good a juncture as any to remark that McGillis is not a proponent of anything we can easily label fascistic. He focuses on individual freedom irrespective of national identity; he is attacking people genuinely perpetuating his world's ills; and he definitely doesn't bother courting a disaffected public by playing to middle-class anxieties. He doesn't need to. His plan is to enact a coup from high up inside a military hierarchy, while promising to lessen the force exerted against society. Though there are links to be traced between his ideology and fascist rhetoric, it isn't the avenue his circumstances compel him to go down.]

[I am 100% certain he would've gone in that direction if they had, but that's a counterfactual, not what the show actually presents.]

How McGillis got to where he did is another of IBO's many examples of adaptations to extremis that look utterly bonkers when seen at a remove. An outsider, thrust into the realm of a vicious upper class, he accurately declared the whole thing a nest of lies and hypocrisy. He could never buy the pretences it sold, to others and to itself. His very existence was damning disproof. Then, at his lowest ebb, he found a story about what it should be and that – that he bought, hook, line and sinker.

Already primed to consider power the be-all and end-all of life, he took Agnika's story as a guide to gaining the upper-hand, going so far as to tell Rustal (then a young adult) that the only thing he now desired was Bael. Though it seems he lapsed into a wait-and-see approach between prepubescence and his mid-twenties, witnessing children from Mars fighting using Gundams makes him believe destiny is taking a hand in events and the time has come to act. He betrays Carta and Gaelio, his two closest friends, both heirs to other Seven Star families, for the sake of clearing his path forwards. These were the first people to treat him like a normal child and he admits with his dying breath that he reciprocated their affection. This was part of why he killed/attempted to kill them: in their company, he started losing the will to pursue his dream, put off guard by finally having something positive in his life. So he chose to violently reject them, unable to give up on what he'd started.

That could easily be McGillis' epitaph. He is characterised by an overwhelming commitment to seeing through his power-grab, even if it means fighting an entire fleet to go personally kill Rustal. This is very far from a sane response and we might say likewise about everything he does prior. From his gleeful divinations at the sight of ancient relics, to his rapturous exultation on activating a machine he knows just required the appropriate brain/computer interface, the personality lurking beneath his habitually polite mask is little short of unhinged.

Which is of a piece with a group of teenage orphans clinging tight to the idea a good life lies just beyond the next battle, having internalised that proving their strength is the only way to survive. McGillis has to think taking on Agnika's mantle will bring him what he wishes, because otherwise his actions have been for nought, nothing can be changed, and the misery he endured is inescapable. It's the same self-reinforcing spiral, turned up to eleven.

(Re)imagining the world

In the final outcome, Iron-Blooded Orphans refutes McGillis' individualism, albeit not without caveat. Destabilising the Seven Stars creates space for incremental change and self-interestedly assisting independence activists lays the groundwork for Mars' eventual freedom from Earth. McGillis does create a “storm in this stagnant world,” with lasting consequences regardless of how swiftly it subsides. Nonetheless, his death is a futile one compared to the other causalities during the finale, who all manage to make their last acts count for something. Where Tekkadan share a mutually-supporting community – they are a 'pack of wolves' – he stands alone and saves nothing of what mattered to him.

As I said above, I don't want to treat IBO as a story solely and absolutely about capitalism. In a similar vein, I'm not trying to position an interpretation of Agnika as a vector for capitalist propaganda as the intended one. There are multiple moving parts here, spinning out from that serious consideration of child-soldiers as more than just a trope in fiction aimed at teenagers. My read on those parts is contextualised by my cultural background (I do now want to look into how Japan's own aristocracy mutated with their forced induction into global capitalism).

At the same time, McGillis indisputably misapprehends how a structure within a capitalist environment works because he wants to believe a version of what says about itself. And The Life of Agnika Kaieru is an artefact of that environment. Even without knowing more about its authorship, publication or veracity, and setting aside what McGillis brings to the table (his desire for power was set years before he'd heard of Agnika), the fact he finds it in Iznario's library speaks volumes. Biographies are not neutral objects. As alluded to above, the act of public remembrance shapes culture and hence society. I think it both reasonable and interesting to look at McGillis' arc with the assumption the book is ultimately commensurate with everything he was reacting against.

What would have happened had McGillis won is another moot question when the narrative hinges specifically on his failure. But a land of competition, overseen by the supreme authority of Gjallarhorn, where the only moral law derives from the dreams of the strong?

Perhaps the most damning thing to be said of McGillis' principles – of Agnika's principles – is that they would produce a world functionally identical to the one we started with.

———

Postscript:

For the sake of absolute clarity, I do not believe whether a story is about capitalism or not has any bearing on its quality. My discussion of the other Gundam shows is intended purely to highlight what I see as a fundamental difference between what they are doing and what IBO is. I don't think it is a problem that G-Witch is a personal/courtly drama, or that Wing is focused on fighting in a more philosophical than material sense, or that the franchise has overall tended towards addressing conflict per se, without any serious interrogation from an economic angle.

Stories can only fail at what they attempt, not at what they don't.

I nevertheless stand by what I said. A piece of fiction concerned merely with some generalised notion of 'human greed' is not about capitalism in any meaningful sense, and I fear that's where most Gundam shows land, one way or another, when they touch on corporate interests.

[Index of other writing]

[theswordwizard]

ai art: both sides

I think a lot of non-artists are also just really and truly not understanding the big picture. I personally could not care less about that cat image, it was fun, whatever, but you are only producing those kinds of images in the sense that an art director "produces" whatever art they are in charge of. They are telling another artist what to do, even guiding them, but they are not considered the artist themselves. Artists who are creating their own art, who are trying to survive off of their work (many of whom have some form of disability, as art is easy to do while sitting down, etc), who are already in the middle of fighting to not just be tossed aside for a product which doesn't even produce the results it claims, are reacting negatively because they are seeing that in parallel with tabling spaces taken up with people presenting generated art as their own illustration, and game devs/producers using it as a way to explicitly avoid paying people for work, while using something that was trained on their work.

"Why do people react so strongly to things possibly being AI art?" If you want to keep it out of the courts, then public opinion matters all the more. It's about a party line that is easily communicable. Most artists are going to be strongly anti-AI because that's the best way to protect themselves than trying to "open a discussion" about it. It's like nurse scabs. We can argue back and forth all day about the intricacies of scabbing for important jobs, but at the end of the day the party line will generally be "scabbing is bad," "we don't like scabs," "scabbing harms workers."

People are trying to compare people getting mad about it to people getting mad about Duchamp's fountain, which just lets me know about their level of art education, and the level of which they like to talk out their ass.

Duchamp's fountain isn't a major point in art history because of the object itself, its because of the STATEMENT. It is because of the placement of the object IN THE GALLERY. It is the equivalent of a political pamphlet, but summed up in a single object that incites discussion around his political statement. It isn't about the object it is about the CONCEPT. We can literally call anything we want "art" if we dedicate ourselves to reframing it and treating it as such, it's just that most non-artists don't even care. They want the label of being an artist without even putting in an effort to. It's like if I wanted to be called a photographer and I wanted people to treat me as such, and so I just made a portfolio of pictures I took off of Pinterest or even a stock photo site, because I've decided that it's the photos I would WANT to take, and thus I can just act like they have anything to do with me.

There have been arguments over much more "similar" things for a long time too. Since the 90s Richard Prince has been taking people's instagram photos, making slight tweaks to avoid copyright, and then printing them large scale and selling them for tens of thousands of dollars. Technically legal, kinda shitty, as he does it without even contacting the (plenty of times, women) original posters. And that's just with selfies people have taken! But I don't see people mentioning that because a lot of people don't like him, and most people arguing to legitimize AI art to be uncontested don't actually care that much about contemporary art. They have zero real interest in being an artist and talking about art to that degree, to have those discussions in a way that isn't validating themselves. Duchamp's fountain in a gallery incites discussion because galleries are places of art discussion. If someone brought a crate of mechanically woven baskets (that they bought from amazon) to a craft fair, people are going to be rightly pissed off. It's about context.

It's also, in my opinion, a similar discussion to the one that was big on twitter not too long ago, where people argued that artists weren't obligated to be able to draw non-white and/or disabled people. Which, sure, but you probably aren't that good of an artist if you don't know how to. And someone going through a portfolio of exclusively white people might go "huh, only white people. interesting." (I even want to include a gotcha here! If an artist has a portfolio of white people, and they have a section talking about their focus being painting their family tree in like, northern Ireland, it's gonna be a totally different story. why, you ask? because there is an underlying concept other than "wow this artist really only likes white people." this is part of the reading comprehension test that will follow.)

And you know what, I'm going to be honest - and this is likely a result of me not being a photographer - but I'm not even really talking all that much about AI photo edits, outside of the large scale implications of what it means that anyone can create a highly realistic image of anything they want (including political figures, female celebrities, you see my pattern here) with zero effort, on a mass scale we've never seen previously. I think they should only be used with stock, and I even think that photographers who upload their works should get additional payments from it. I actually had used a generator back in 2019 for a project, well before this even became a discussion, and it was even featured in a gallery show for a bit! The overall theme was "fake news," so it was a conceptual piece with fake landscape photography that I made with some beta tool. The point was the tool in combination with the tool's result, not how pretty the fake pictures were. I also want to say it was trained a lot more ethically than a lot of the generators that are so popular today.

And this isn't to say that you have to have a gallery or be so fully integrated in a physical art scene or whatever to be able to make conceptual art or talk about it - honestly I think zines that could actually combine whatever your concept is with having room to talk about it, and they're easy to create both physically and digitally and share. maybe just don't have it be around "look at all these pretty pictures that I made with AI." similar to how people at the art book fair aren't going to be impressed with me being like "look at all these pretty pictures I found on Unsplash."

Sure, AI art is "real art," but it's not illustration or photography or whatever, it's conceptual art. Which means it's main goal is to incite thought and discussion about it. Like the D&D book's release that suddenly turned to being about the AI art they used. So if you want to be an artist using primarily AI, go ahead, no one can stop you, but the topic is culturally significant with the current fight between the entertainment unions to protect their livelihoods, so the discussion will be heated.