Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Neal Stephenson’s AI Predictions

Science fiction, when revisited years later, sometimes doesn’t come across as all that fictional. Speculative novels have an impressive track record at prophesying what innovations are to come, and how they might upend the world: H. G. Wells wrote about an atomic bomb decades before World War II, and Ray Bradbury’s 1953 novel, Fahrenheit 451, features devices we’d describe today as Bluetooth earbuds.

Perhaps no writer has been more clairvoyant about our current technological age than Neal Stephenson. His novels coined the term metaverse, laid the conceptual groundwork for cryptocurrency, and imagined a geoengineered planet. And nearly three decades before the release of ChatGPT, he presaged the current AI revolution. A core element of one of his early novels, The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer, is a magical book that acts as a personal tutor and mentor for a young girl, adapting to her learning style—in essence, it is a personalized and ultra-advanced chatbot. The titular Primer speaks aloud in the voice of a live actor, known as a “ractor”—evoking how today’s generative AI, like many digital technologies, is highly dependent on humans’ creative labor.

Stephenson’s book, published in 1995, explores a future of seamless, instant digital communication, in which tiny computers with immense capabilities are embedded in everyday life. Corporations are dominant, news and ads are targeted, and screens are omnipresent. It’s a world of stark class and cultural divisions (the novel follows a powerful aristocratic sect that styles itself as the “neo-Victorians”), but it’s nevertheless one in which the Primer is presented as the best of what technology can be.

But Stephenson is far more pessimistic about today’s AI than he was about the Primer. “A chatbot is not an oracle,” he told me over Zoom last Friday. “It’s a statistics engine that creates sentences that sound accurate.” I spoke with Stephenson about his uncannily prescient book and the generative-AI revolution that has seemingly begun.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Matteo Wong: The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer is a book that adapts to and teaches a young girl, which seems to resonate with the vision of AI chatbots and assistants that many companies have for the near future. Did you set out to explore the idea of an intelligent machine in imagining the Primer?

Neal Stephenson: The idea came to me after we had a kid and got this mobile that was designed to suspend over the crib. It had very primitive, simple shapes on it because, when they’re newborns, their visual systems can’t resolve fine details. So there would be a square and a triangle and a circle. And then, after a certain number of days or weeks had gone by, you were supposed to pop those cards off of the mobile and snap on a different set that had a more appropriate fit for what their brains were capable of at that age. That just got me to thinking: What if you extended that idea to every other form of intellectual growth?

The technology that drives the book wasn’t really AI as we think of it now—I was talking to people who were working on some of the underlying technologies that would be needed to communicate on the internet in a secure, anonymous manner. I guess it’s implicit that there’s an AI in there that’s generating the story and increasing the degree of sophistication in response to the learning curve of the child, but I didn’t really go into that very much; I just kind of assumed it would be there.

Wong: A lot of companies today—OpenAI, Google, Meta, to name a few—have said they want to build AI assistants that adapt to each user, somewhat like how the Primer acts as a teacher. Do you see anything in the generative-AI models of today that resembles or could one day become like the Primer?

Stephenson: About a year ago, I worked with a start-up that makes AI characters in video games. I found it rewarding and fascinating because of the hallucinations: I could see how new patterns emerged from the soup of inputs being fed to it. The same thing that I consider to be a feature is a bug in most applications. We’ve already seen examples of lawyers who use ChatGPT to create legal documents, and the AI just fabricated past cases and precedents that seemed completely plausible. When you think about the idea of trying to make use of these models in education, this becomes a bug too. What they do is generate sentences that sound like correct sentences, but there’s no underlying brain that can actually discern whether those sentences are correct or not.

Think about any concept that we might want to teach somebody—for instance, the Pythagorean theorem. There must be thousands of old and new explanations of the Pythagorean theorem online. The real thing we need is to understand each child’s learning style so we can immediately connect them to the one out of those thousands that is the best fit for how they learn. That to me sounds like an AI kind of project, but it’s a different kind of AI application from DALL-E or large language models.

Wong: And yet, today, those language models, which fundamentally predict words in a sequence, are being applied to many areas where they have no specialized abilities—GPT-4 for medical diagnosis, Google Bard as a tutor. That reminds me of a term used in the book instead of artificial intelligence, pseudo-intelligence, which many critics of the technology might appreciate today.

Stephenson: I’d forgotten about that. The running gag of that book was applying Victorian diction and prejudices to high-tech things. What was probably going through my mind was that Victorians would look askance at the term artificial intelligence, because they would be offended by the idea that computers could replace human brains. So they would probably want to bracket the idea as a simulation, or a “pseudo” intelligence, as opposed to the real thing.

Wong: About a year ago, in an interview with the Financial Times, you called the outputs of generative AI “hollow and uninteresting.” Why was that, and has your assessment changed?

Stephenson: I suspect that what I had in mind when I was making those remarks was the current state of image-generating technology. There were a few things about that rubbing me the wrong way, the biggest being that they are benefiting from the uncredited work of thousands of real human artists. I’m going to exaggerate slightly, but it seems like one of the first applications of any new technology is making things even shittier for artists. That’s certainly happened with music. These image-generation systems just seemed like that was mechanized and weaponized on an inconceivable scale.

Another part of it was that a lot of people who got excited about this early on just generated huge volumes of material and put them out willy-nilly on the internet. If your only way of making a painting is to actually dab paint laboriously onto a canvas, then the result might be bad or good, but at least it’s the result of a whole lot of micro-decisions you made as an artist. You were exercising editorial judgment with every paint stroke. That is absent in the output of these programs.

Wong: Even in The Diamond Age, the Primer seems to provide commentary on artists’ labor and tech, which is very relevant to generative AI today. The Primer teaches a girl, but a human actor digitally connected to the book has to voice the text aloud. (...)

Stephenson: The scenario I was laying out in The Diamond Age is that the ractors are a scarce resource, and so the Primer is more of a luxury product. But eventually, the source code for the book falls into the hands of a man who wants to manufacture it on a massive scale, and there’s not enough money and not enough actors in the world to voice all those books, so at that point, he decides to use automatically generated voices.

Wong: Another theme in the novel is how different socioeconomic classes have access to education. The Primer is designed for an aristocrat, but your novel also traces the stories of middle- and working-class girls who interact with versions of the book. Right now a lot of generative AI is free, but the technology is also very expensive to run. How do you think access to generative AI might play out?

Stephenson: There was a bit of early internet utopianism in the book, which was written during that era in the mid-’90s when the internet was coming online. There was a tendency to assume that when all the world’s knowledge comes online, everyone will flock to it. It turns out that if you give everyone access to the Library of Congress, what they do is watch videos on TikTok. The Diamond Age reflects the same naivete that I shared with a lot of other people back in the day about how all of that knowledge was going to affect society.

Wong: Do you think we’re seeing some of that naivete today in people looking at how generative AI can be used?

Stephenson: For sure. It’s based on an understandable misconception as to what these things are doing. A chatbot is not an oracle; it’s a statistics engine that creates sentences that sound accurate. Right now my sense is that it’s like we’ve just invented transistors. We’ve got a couple of consumer products that people are starting to adopt, like the transistor radio, but we don’t yet know how the transistor will transform society.

by Matteo Wong, The Atlantic |  Read more:
Image:Illustration by The Atlantic. Sources: Heritage Images; Amy E. Price / Getty
[ed. Great book. Kind of went off the rails in the end (in my opinion), which is a shame because the rest of it is terrific.]

Tuesday, February 6, 2024


Dennis Magdich, All-in-one Watchman, 1989
via:

2023 Letter

I. Walking

The trunk of an elephant might feel cool to the touch. Not what one expects, perhaps, from 200 pounds of writhing muscle, strong enough to uproot a tree, which tapers down to two “fingers,” giving it enough delicacy to detect the ripest berry on a shrub, and pluck it. Feeling an elephant’s trunk draws you to her other great feature: melancholic eyes that are veiled by long and dusty lashes. This combination of might with the suggestion of serene contemplation is surely the reason that elephants seem to embody a special state of grace.

I encountered several of these big beasts on a trek through the mountains of northern Thailand in December. The occasion was a “walk and talk” organized by Kevin Kelly and Craig Mod, who launched a dozen people on a 100 kilometer walk over seven days from Mount Inthanon to the center of Chiang Mai.

Our journey took us through elephant grounds, banana plantations, and coffee shrubs, finishing within Chiang Mai’s old city walls. The landscape shifted marvelously as we descended from the mountain into the city. At higher altitude, Mount Inthanon is home to forests of relict pine, each tree looking like a skinny and very tall piece of broccoli, their foliage wreathed in fog every morning before the sun broke through. At middle attitude, we found teak trees. Deforestation over the past few decades has spurred villagers to protect some of the oldest teaks by wrapping their trunks in saffron monk robes, thus “ordaining” them. At lower altitudes we saw the vegetation typical of rainforest: bamboo groves, lychee orchards, and banana plants. I found the latter unexpectedly beautiful. Bananas grow in bunches on a rough stem, under enormous leaves that are tall enough to allow an elephant to rest in their shade.

Waterfalls dotted the trail, which allowed us sometimes to take a dip in the afternoon heat. It wasn’t just the natural landscape that was so stunning. Terraced farms, carved into hillsides, were attractive too. Local villagers have in recent years started cultivating strawberries, some of which are sold directly at roadside stands. These highland farmers understand cash crops. This region of northern Thailand, after all, was a major grower of the opium poppy until the 1980s. At that point, the Thai government (in a coordinated campaign with neighboring countries) eradicated nearly all opium production, enticing — or more often, compelling — farmers to plant other crops. That didn’t stop, however, one of the villagers from reminiscing about the days when the fields produced “Doctor O.”

One of the ideas of the walk-and-talk, as Craig puts it, is to put adults in situations they may not have experienced since they were kids: “new people, unknown environs, continuous socializing, intense conversations.” Our demographics leaned toward the middle-aged and self-employed: people who could afford to disconnect from family and work obligations for what was really a ten-day commitment in early December. Few of the twelve of us had previously met anyone else on this trip and a long walk is a fast way to get to know someone. Talking happened naturally, as the landscape continuously reconfigured us into knots of two or three. Our conversation weaved into a single strand over the nightly dinner, with Kevin moderating over one topic.

It didn’t take long for people to open up: to talk about how they decided to join the walk, and very quickly onwards to their lives, their work, and their struggles. The central conversation every night featured topics to which everyone can contribute, so our discussions had prompts like “home,” “fears,” and “failures.” These more general topics were extraordinarily effective in prompting people to be vulnerable, which helped to bind the group together. (If I did another walk-and-talk, I might try leaning away from consensus. That is, to treat the dinners more like a workshop, in which everyone comes prepared with a 15-minute talk on something they’re working on, then open up for discussion. I concede, however, that not everyone would find it a thrilling idea to end a strenuous day with a lecture.)

We carried small packs during the day and had a larger bag forwarded to our nightly accommodations. We stayed along waterfalls, in elephant sanctuaries, at a glamping site that looked as if transplanted from California, and terminating in a Chiang Mai hotel shaded by a 200-year-old tamarind tree. There was also the bizarre. One night, we were the only guests at a resort so creepy that we debated whether the whole thing was a front for tax fraud. Its bungalows looked like they were the 3-D printed output of an AI generator that received a detailed description of Antonio Gaudí’s Park Güell. That the hotel staff kept taking photographs of us, as if they were documenting that they had real guests, didn’t allay our unease that our presence could be abetting a fraudulent enterprise.

I think it would be wonderful if the walk-and-talk could be a commonplace activity. I can imagine doing one every few years, alternating between walking with close friends and entrusting group selection to someone else. The challenge is that this format requires a gargantuan effort of planning. Some off-the-shelf walks are possible, for example along pilgrimage routes, but many will have to be bespoke. Our heroic guide on this trip is an American hotelier who has lived in Chiang Mai and China over the last 30 years, who took it upon himself to hike our route five times before leading the rest of us along. A well-organized walk demands planning not only the route, but also booking accommodations for around ten people, finding a quiet restaurant every night, and a dozen other things. (Craig’s comprehensive guide features all the items to consider.) A 100 kilometer walk is difficult to pull off anywhere in America: the suburban, car-centric reality of this country means that it’s hard to find a walkable route that has accommodations spaced in intervals of approximately 15 km.

Then again, committing a chunk of time to go abroad may as well be a strength of the format. These walks are not a family weekend activity, a spontaneous trip with friends, or an offsite meant to produce workplace bonding. They’re much more serious than that. It takes special concentration, after all, to reproduce the magic of being a child. One of the things that this walk provoked me to do was to write this year’s letter on what I saw in Thailand.

I stayed for the whole month of December in Chiang Mai. In part, for food. Whole new culinary vistas open up once you’re ready to eat jungle. My favorite Northern Thai meals featured a papaya salad (or Burmese tea leaf salad), with some grilled meats — pork jowl, half a chicken, spare ribs — and a seafood soup in clear broth. For sides, one can order pork with lemongrass and ginger grilled in a banana leaf, crushed young jackfruit mixed with chilies, and sometimes a fried honeycomb. I’ve never eaten honeycomb before. It’s a strange thing to savor, the texture like biting into a pillowy piece of toast, expressing only a hint of honey. For dessert, I can imagine nothing more perfect than to have slices of a ripe mango on the side of sticky rice, the latter plump from being soaked in coconut milk, and coconut cream drizzled on top of the whole thing.

And I stayed, in part, to explore highland Southeast Asia. My 2022 letter was preoccupied with Yunnan, which is on the other side of mountain ranges from Chiang Mai. This is the same vast highland region populated by marginalized folks who have deliberately tried to put themselves beyond the reach of powerful states, the most domineering of which have been Burmese, Tibetan, and especially Han-Chinese. By moving into rugged terrain and practicing mountain agriculture, they’ve managed to maintain an arms-length relationship with valley kingdoms, taking as much “civilization” as they require. In Yunnan I was in land of the Bai and the Dai peoples; the hill tribes in Chiang Mai include the Karen, Akha, Shan, and Hmong.

These Thai highlands absorbed a wave of new people yearning for statelessness this year. In Chiang Mai, I encountered a great mass of young folks who no longer wish to live in China.

II. Running


The most important story of China in 2023 might be that the expected good news of economic recovery didn’t materialize, when the end of zero-Covid should have lifted consumer spirits; and that the unexpected bad news of political uncertainty kept cropping up, though the previous year’s party congress should have consolidated regime stability. China may have hit its GDP growth target of 5 percent this year, but its main stock index has fallen -17% since the start of 2023. More perplexing were the politics. 2023 was a year of disappearing ministers, disappearing generals, disappearing entrepreneurs, disappearing economic data, and disappearing business for the firms that have counted on blistering economic growth.

No wonder that so many Chinese are now talking about rùn. Chinese youths have in recent years appropriated this word in its English meaning to express a desire to flee. For a while, rùn was a way to avoid the work culture of the big cities or the family expectations that are especially hard for Chinese women. Over the three years of zero-Covid, after the state enforced protracted lockdowns, rùn evolved to mean emigrating from China altogether.

One of the most incredible trends I’ve been watching this year is that rising numbers of Chinese nationals are being apprehended at the US-Mexico border. In January, US officers encountered around 1000 Chinese at the southwest border; the numbers kept rising, and by November they encountered nearly 5000.

Many Chinese are flying to Ecuador, where they have visa-free access, so that they can take the perilous road through the Darién Gap. It’s hard to know much about this group, but journalists who have spoken to these people report that they come from a mix of backgrounds and motivations.

I have not expected that so many Chinese people are willing to embark on what is a dangerous, monthslong journey to take a pass on the “China Dream” and the “great rejuvenation” that’s undertaken in their name.

The Chinese who rùn to the American border are still a tiny set of the people who leave. Most emigrés are departing through legal means. People who can find a way to go to Europe or an Anglophone country would do so, but most are going, as best as I can tell, to three Asian countries. Those who have ambition and entrepreneurial energy are going to Singapore. Those who have money and means are going to Japan. And those who have none of these things — the slackers, the free spirits, kids who want to chill — are hanging out in Thailand.

I spent time with these young Chinese in Chiang Mai. Around a quarter of the people I chatted with have been living in Thailand for the last year or two, while the rest were just visiting, sometimes with the intention to figure out a way to stay. Why Thailand? Mostly out of ease. Chinese can go to Thailand without having to apply for a visa, and they can take advantage of an education visa to stay longer. That category is generous, encompassing everything from language training to Muay Thai boxing lessons. Many Chinese sign up for the visa and then blow off class.

Some people had remote jobs. Many of the rest were practicing the intense spirituality possible in Thailand. That comes in part from all the golden-roofed temples and monasteries that make Chiang Mai such a splendid city. One can find a meditation retreat at these temples in the city or in more secluded areas in the mountains. Here, one is supposed to meditate for up to 14 hours a day, speaking only to the head monk every morning to tell him the previous day’s breathing exercises and hear the next set of instructions. After meditating in silence for 20 days, one person told me that he found himself slipping in and out of hallucinogenic experiences from breath exercises alone.

The other wellspring of spiritual practice comes from the massive use of actual psychedelics, which are so easy to find in Chiang Mai. Thailand was the first country in Asia to decriminalize marijuana, and weed shops are now as common as cafés. It seems like everyone has a story about using mushrooms, ayahuasca, or even stronger magic. The best mushrooms are supposed to grow in the dung of elephants, leading to a story of a legendary group of backpackers who have been hopping from one dung heap to another, going on one long, unbroken trip.

Most of the young Chinese I chatted with are in their early 20s. Visitors to Thailand are trying to catch up on the fun they lost under three years of zero-Covid. Those who have made Chiang Mai their new home have complex reasons for staying. They told me that they’ve felt a quiet shattering of their worldview over the past few years. These are youths who grew up in bigger cities and attended good universities, endowing them with certain expectations: that they could pursue meaningful careers, that society would gain greater political freedoms, and that China would become more integrated with the rest of the world. These hopes have curdled. Their jobs are either too stressful or too menial, political restrictions on free expression have ramped up over the last decade, and China’s popularity has plunged in developed countries.

So they’ve rùn. One trigger for departure were the white-paper protests, the multi-city demonstrations at the end of 2022 in which young people not only demanded an end to zero-Covid, but also political reform. Several of the Chiang Mai residents participated in the protests in Shanghai or Beijing or they have friends who had been arrested. Nearly everyone feels alienated by the pressures of modern China. A few lost their jobs in Beijing’s crackdown on online tutoring. Several have worked in domestic Chinese media, seriously disgruntled that the censors make it difficult to publish ambitious stories. People complain of being treated like chess pieces by top leader Xi Jinping, who is exhorting the men to work for national greatness and for the women to bear their children.

Many people still feel ambivalence about moving to Thailand. Not everyone has mustered the courage to tell their Chinese parents where they really are. Mom and dad are under the impression that they’re studying abroad in Europe or something. That sometimes leads to elaborate games to maintain the subterfuge, like drawing curtains to darken the room when they video chat with family, since they’re supposed to be in a totally different time zone; or keeping up with weather conditions in the city they’re supposed to be so that they’re not surprised when parents ask about rain or snow.

There still are some corners in China that are relatively permissive. One of these is Yunnan’s Dali, a city on the northern tip of highland Southeast Asia, where I spent much of 2022. There, one can find the remnants of a drug culture as well as a party scene for an occasional rave. But even Dali is becoming less tenable these days since the central government has cottoned on that the city is a hub for free spirits. The tightening restrictions emanating from Beijing are spreading to every corner of the country. “China feels like a space in which the ceiling keeps getting lower,” one person told me. “To stay means that we have to walk around with our heads lowered and our backs hunched.”

I lingered with a group of Dali folks who moved to Chiang Mai over the past year. These are people in China’s crypto community who’ve found it increasingly more difficult to hang on after Beijing banned miners and exchanges. In 2022, police disrupted a festival they held called Wamotopia, which became a gathering point for crypto people and digital nomads. The idea was to burn a big wooden cat in a field in Dali at the conclusion of the festival, but Chinese police dispersed the event shortly after it began. So this year they moved to Thailand. (...)

None of the headline events were explicitly political. There are enough people who will still return to China that the organizers felt that they didn’t need to invite official scrutiny. But a current of politics electrified side conversations. People bemoaned both how difficult life is in China and how difficult it is to emigrate. A lot of folks wanted to define themselves as “citizens of the world,” as people belonging to “Earth” rather than any nation. But that runs up against the hard fact that they hold Chinese passports, which is more difficult to travel with than many other passports.

I attended one event in a private home billed as a talk on the Chinese diaspora. Around 30 people sat in a living room, listening to the history of Chinese in Southeast Asia. They would spend much of the time talking about themselves as “Jews of the East.” It has apparently become a meme in the Chinese crypto community to use Semitic tropes to describe how they’ve become a beleaguered people driven out of their homeland, trying to make it overseas by plying their talent of being astute middlemen. I find this comparison overdramatic. It’s hardly the case that trading crypto constitutes an inalienable identity and has suffered real persecution. But such is the discontent they feel.

I’ve never felt great enthusiasm for crypto. After chatting with these young Chinese, I became more tolerant of their appeal. Digital currencies are solutions looking for problems most everywhere in the Western world, but they have real value for people who suffer from state controls. The crypto community in China has attracted grifters, as it has everywhere else. But it is also creating a community of people trying to envision different paths for the future.

That spirit pervades the young people in Chiang Mai. A bookseller told me that there’s a hunger for new ideas. After the slowdown in economic growth and the tightening of censorship over the past decade, people are looking for new ways to understand the world. One of the things this bookshop did is to translate a compilation of the Whole Earth Catalog, with a big quote of “the map is not the territory” in Chinese characters on the cover. That made me wonder: have we seen this movie before? These kids have embraced the California counterculture of the ‘90s. They’re doing drugs, they’re trying new technologies, and they’re sounding naively idealistic as they do so. I’m not expecting them to found any billion-dollar companies. But give it enough time, and I think they will build something more interesting than coins.

by Dan Wang |  Read more:
Image: : Craig Mod
[ed. Fascinating. If you read one post today, make it this one. Much more on China and life in general. It suddenly seems odd there aren't more 'on the ground' travelogues like this.]

Monday, February 5, 2024

Still Growing

Everyone’s a Sellout Now

When Rachael Kay Albers was shopping around her book proposal, the editors at a Big Five publishing house loved the idea. The problem came from the marketing department, which had an issue: She didn’t have a big enough following. With any book, but especially nonfiction ones, publishers want a guarantee that a writer comes with a built-in audience of people who already read and support their work and, crucially, will fork over $27 — a typical price for a new hardcover book — when it debuts.

It was ironic, considering her proposal was about what the age of the “personal brand” is doing to our humanity. Albers, 39, is an expert in what she calls the “online business industrial complex,” the network of hucksters vying for your attention and money by selling you courses and coaching on how to get rich online. She’s talking about the hustle bro “gurus” flaunting rented Lamborghinis and promoting shady “passive income” schemes, yes, but she’s also talking about the bizarre fact that her “65-year-old mom, who’s an accountant, is being encouraged by her company to post on LinkedIn to ‘build [her] brand.’”

The internet has made it so that no matter who you are or what you do — from nine-to-five middle managers to astronauts to house cleaners — you cannot escape the tyranny of the personal brand. For some, it looks like updating your LinkedIn connections whenever you get promoted; for others, it’s asking customers to give you five stars on Google Reviews; for still more, it’s crafting an engaging-but-authentic persona on Instagram. And for people who hope to publish a bestseller or release a hit record, it’s “building a platform” so that execs can use your existing audience to justify the costs of signing a new artist.

We like to think of it as the work of singular geniuses whose motivations are purely creative and untainted by the market — this, despite the fact that music, publishing, and film have always been for-profit industries where formulaic, churned-out work is what often sells best. These days, the jig is up.

Corporate consolidation and streaming services have depleted artists’ traditional sources of revenue and decimated cultural industries. While Big Tech sites like Spotify claim they’re “democratizing” culture, they instead demand artists engage in double the labor to make a fraction of what they would have made under the old model. That labor amounts to constant self-promotion in the form of cheap trend-following, ever-changing posting strategies, and the nagging feeling that what you are really doing with your time is marketing, not art. Under the tyranny of algorithmic media distribution, artists, authors — anyone whose work concerns itself with what it means to be human — now have to be entrepreneurs, too.

“Authors are writing these incredible books, and yet when they ask me questions, the thing that keeps them up at night is, ‘How do I create this brand?’” says literary agent Carly Watters. It’s not that they want to be spending their time doing it, it’s that they feel they have to. “I think that millennials and Gen Xers really feel like sellouts. It’s not what they imagined their career to look like. It inherently feels wrong with their value system.”

Because self-promotion sucks. It is actually very boring and not that fun to produce TikTok videos or to learn email marketing for this purpose. Hardly anyone wants to “build a platform;” we want to just have one. This is what people sign up for now when they go for the American dream — working for yourself and making money doing what you love. The labor of self-promotion or platform-building or audience-growing or whatever our tech overlords want us to call it is uncomfortable; it is by no means guaranteed to be effective; and it is inescapable unless you are very, very lucky. (...)

You can see this tension play out in the rise of “day in my life” videos, where authors and artists film themselves throughout their days and edit them into short TikToks or Reels. Despite the fact that for most people, the act of writing looks very boring, author-content creators succeed by making the visually uninteresting labor of typing on a laptop worthwhile to watch. You’ll see a lot of cottagecore-esque videos where the writer will sip tea by the fireplace against the soundtrack of Wes Anderson, or wake up in a forest cabin and read by a river, or women like this Oxford University student who dresses up like literary characters and films herself working on her novel. Videos like these emulate the Romantic ideal of “solitary genius” artistry, evoking a time when writing was seen as a more “pure” or quaint profession. Yet what they best represent is the current state of art, where artists must skillfully package themselves as products for buyers to consume.

It’s precisely the kind of work that is uncomfortable for most artists, who by definition concern themselves with what it means to be a person in the world, not what it means to be a brand. There’s been a fair amount of backlash to this imperative, recently among musicians on TikTok. (...)

The system works great for record labels or publishing houses, who can hand over the burden of marketing to the artists themselves. But that means, as Montgomery says, “If you have absolutely no knowledge of video creation, good fucking luck.” The labor of making TikToks — and if you want to reach the most people in the shortest amount of time, TikTok is pretty much the only place to go — requires both tedium and skill. You’ve got to get used to the app’s ever-evolving editing features, understand the culture of the platform, make yourself look presentable but not too presentable or risk coming off as inauthentic, prepare for and practice what you’re going to say, but again, not too much. And you’ve got to do it again and again and again, because according to every single influencer ever, the key to growing your audience is posting consistently.

More than that, you’ve got to actually spend your time doing this stuff on the off chance that the algorithm picks it up and people care about what you have to say. You’ve got to spend your time doing this even though it’s corny and cringe and your friends from high school or college will probably laugh as you “try to become an influencer.” You’ve got to do it even when you feel like you have absolutely nothing to say, because the algorithm demands you post anyway.

by Rebecca Jennings, Vox | Read more:
Image: Eleni Kalorkoti for Vox
[ed. Plus, it helps if you're good looking. See also: Are These Recipes Good, or Is the TikTok Chef Just Good-Looking? (NYT):]

"In an article for IZA World of Labor titled “Does It Pay to Be Beautiful?” Eva Sierminska and Karan Singhal explained that “empirical results support the fact that ‘better-looking’ people receive a wage premium, while those with ‘below-average’ looks incur a wage penalty.” In their overview of the research on the beauty premium, they said that men actually faced a greater plainness penalty than women did. They also found that being attractive was especially important in jobs dealing with customers, because customers preferred to deal with attractive salespeople and waiters, and that as a result, more attractive people gravitated toward those kinds of jobs.

In a sense, when anyone puts a video on social media, anyone who consumes it is a customer. But on top of individual human preferences for beauty, there is also an algorithm’s invisible sorting. (...)

That said, he thought there’s more pressure lately for people with all sorts of expertise (or no expertise) to put themselves in their content. So let’s say you’re an expert in Excel spreadsheet hacks. Whereas once you might have just put the spreadsheet on the screen, now you’re putting your mug on there, too. “I’ve definitely spoken to many younger people on TikTok, and they say that there’s more pressure to put your face on the internet to make a TikTok,” Chayka said. “You need to put yourself, your full corporeal body online in a way that wasn’t necessary with Twitter, for example, or Tumblr or even early-days Instagram.”

via:

Bad dog
via:

Julian Lage; Billie Eilish (2024 Grammys)


[ed. See also: Grammy Awards 2024: See the complete list of winners (EW). There were 94 categories (yes, 94!), with five finalists in each.]

What Does Being Sober Mean Today?

 For Many, Not Full Abstinence.

Mike Reed, a musician and Uber driver in Arizona, said he quit drinking alcohol more than a decade ago when his roommates got so fed up with his unruly behavior that they threatened to kick him out.

Sobriety became such a core part of Mr. Reed’s identity that he launched an online dating website called “Single & Sober,” but in 2020, Mr. Reed, a Navy veteran, said he found himself struggling as his sister, who had Down syndrome, was dying of cancer.

Mr. Reed, 43, began smoking marijuana. More recently, he went to a clinic for infusions of ketamine, and tried tiny doses of psychoactive mushrooms. Mr. Reed said those substances improved his mood — and he still regards himself as sober, because he remains alcohol free.

Notions of what constitutes sobriety and problematic substance use have grown more flexible in recent years as younger Americans have shunned alcohol in increasing numbers while embracing cannabis and psychedelics — a phenomenon that alarms some addiction experts.

Not long ago, sobriety was broadly understood to mean abstaining from all intoxicating substances, and the term was often associated with people who had overcome severe forms of addiction. These days, it is used more expansively, including by people who have quit drinking alcohol but consume what they deem moderate amounts of other substances, including marijuana and mushrooms.

“Just because someone has a drinking problem doesn’t mean they have a problem with every single thing,” Mr. Reed said.

As some drugs come to be viewed as wellness boosters by those who use them, adherence to the full abstinence model favored by organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous is shifting. Some people call themselves “California sober,” a term popularized in a 2021 song by the pop star Demi Lovato, who later disavowed the idea, saying on social media that “sober sober is the only way to be.”

Approaches that might have once seemed ludicrous — like treating opioid addiction with psychedelics — have gained broader enthusiasm among doctors as drug overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.

“The abstinence-only model is very restrictive,” said Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who specializes in medical cannabis and is a recovering opioid addict. “We really have to meet people where they are and have a broader recovery tent.”

It is impossible to know how many Americans consider themselves part of an increasingly malleable concept of sobriety, but there are indications of shifting views of acceptable substance use. (...)

Dr. Nora Volkow, a psychiatrist who since 2003 has led the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said she was trained to think that “the only way out of an addiction is total and full sobriety.” Over the years, she said, she came to see that as unrealistic for some patients. Reduced use, or replacing highly addictive drugs like opioids with cannabis, may be a decent outcome for certain people, she said in an interview.

“You come to realize that there are people that are able to recover and yet they are not absolutely free of every substance,” Dr. Volkow said.

Weighing Risks

The concept is shaking up the field of addiction medicine.Adherents of the full-abstinence model, which include Narcotics Anonymous, follow a 12-step process that includes turning to a higher power to regain “sanity.” Members often celebrate sobriety milestones with tokens or coins to reflect how long they have abstained from using alcohol or drugs.

The danger of abusing opioids and alcohol has become increasingly clear in recent years. But questions remain in the medical community about the risks of some drugs now often touted as wellness enhancers rather than guilty pleasures — cannabis products as sleep aids, ketamine infusions to treat depression, and psychoactive mushrooms to ease anxiety.

Addiction treatment centers have responded with concern to the shifting definitions of sobriety.

Dr. Joseph Lee, the president of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the nation’s largest nonprofit addiction treatment provider, said that people with severe substance use problems are generally the least equipped to make wise decisions about drug use.

“One truth about risk in people is that we all do a very poor job of assessing our own risk,” he said. He added that he had grown concerned about claims from new cannabis and psychedelic ventures as they compete for business. “They know exactly who they are targeting, and those people who are being targeted are misassessing their risk,” he said. (...)

Individual Paths

Maya Richard-Craven, a journalist from Pasadena, Calif., said she has thought a lot about mitigating risk since she went to rehab in 2019 after her alcohol use became a problem.

She said she relapsed in 2020, consumed by anxiety early in the pandemic, and later turned to cannabis, regarding it as a healthier way to take the edge off. By 2021, she said she was smoking excessively, “to the point where I wanted to not feel anything.” That prompted her to “put down the pipe” and publish an essay warning about the risks of California sober.
 
More recently, Ms. Richard-Craven, 29, said she has resumed using marijuana but with greater restraint, typically smoking no more than half a joint at the end of the workday and the rest before bedtime. She credited cannabis with helping regulate her appetite, improving her sleep and, most of all, easing distress after a sexual assault. Still, Ms. Richard-Craven said she believed people with serious addictions should steer clear of all substances for at least their first year of recovery.

“That first year, you’re all over the place,” she said.

Others, like Connor Hunter-Kysor, 29, of Philadelphia, said that while he does not doubt that some people who have struggled with addiction can find a healthy approach to substance use, he has concluded that full abstinence is the right answer for him.

Addiction runs in his family, he said, and past efforts to consume drugs in moderation always failed.

“It’s a disease,” Mr. Hunter-Kysor said. “I know myself and I don’t want to play with fire any longer.”

Tiffany Fede, of Austin, Texas, once held similar views, but her outlook changed after her husband died in 2020.

Seeing him struggle with opioid addiction, Ms. Fede said she did what she had learned in the addiction recovery circles where their romance began years earlier: She watched him like a hawk, persuaded his dealer to stop supplying pills and balked when her husband suggested that taking psychoactive mushrooms might be helpful.

“I put my foot down,” said Ms. Fede, 43. “I was indoctrinated by this belief system that held that that would be harmful.”

Still, Ms. Fede said, her husband died of a methadone overdose.

Grieving, Ms. Fede said she began using magic mushrooms herself, an experience that led her to recalibrate her approach to mind-altering substances. Ms. Fede said she took three grams of psilocybin mushrooms, a trip that “helped me to not feel lonely for the first time.”

Ms. Fede said she no longer regards terms like sobriety useful and has ceased to think of herself as a recovering addict. (...)

Ms. Fede said she had stopped obsessing over the events that led to her husband’s death. One question, though, continues to tug at her: If she had indulged his desire to try treating his opioid addiction with magic mushrooms, would he still be alive?

by Ernesto Londoño, NY Times | Read more:
Image:Meridith Kohut for The New York Times
[ed. The concept of meeting people 'where they're at' is a central tenet of Harm Reduction-based strategies, and in my experience, the last thing doctors actually do. I don't know what they're teaching in med school these days or the last few decades (data entry?) but it sure isn't listening, or treating each patient as a unique individual and not just a basket of symptoms. Patients have no agency in the decision-making/risk assessment/treatment process. All the easier for AI to take over soon; then what services will doctors provide?]

Saturday, February 3, 2024

Mind Games: Crystal Hefner on Life in the Playboy Mansion

There was this bathroom in the Playboy Mansion, just off Hugh Hefner’s bedroom, that was clad in black marble, with a black marble tub, black toilet and heavy curtains to shut out the light. The way Crystal Hefner (née Harris) describes it, this room sounds like a manifestation of the darkest part of Hefner’s mind. When she moved into the mansion as one of his three live-in girlfriends (she became his third wife in 2012, when she was 26 and he was 86), she’d work out which nights he expected sex because, instead of his regular dinner of tinned chicken noodle soup, crackers and cream cheese, he’d order a BLT. He took so much Viagra it made him deaf. Afterwards, the girlfriends and any other blonde guests Hef had invited up from the party would shower off the baby oil he insisted they use for lube, despite their recurring infections, and Crystal would watch the two lovebirds that lived in a cage in the corner. (...)

Crystal moved into the mansion to replace Holly Madison, previously Hefner’s “number one girlfriend” of three he had at the time. In 2008, after sending in her photograph, Crystal had been invited to one of his infamous Playboy parties. She moved in soon after, quitting her psychology degree for a different kind of education. “Once you went in,” she writes, “it was so hard to find a way out.”

Her book is named after a promise she made to Hefner. Does it suggest, I ask, that he knew you were unhappy? She breathes, contemplative, then slowly shakes her head. “I honestly don’t know. Now it seems like a threat. But I do remember someone asking him, ‘What if these women are just after you for your money?’ And he said, ‘Well, as long as they’re after me!’ Hef was on the extreme side of narcissism, so I truly believe that he thought everybody really wanted to be there. Really enjoyed the sex, really enjoyed the old movies, loved literally everything he enjoyed.”

She chuckles lightly. “It was his friends’ country club. They came and got the free buffet and the staring-at-the-girls, and brought articles about him to him and it was just the Hef show.” For years Crystal only said good things; she cared for him, she brushed away criticism, she built relationships with his four adult children. But now, six years after his death at 91, she’s decided to talk about her life “imprisoned” in the Playboy Mansion and, in doing so, ask questions about abusive relationships, identity and the impact of a libertarian culture Hefner helped usher in.

This is not the first time one of Hefner’s girlfriends has spoken out. In a 2022 documentary, Karissa Shannon (who was 18 when Crystal joined her and her twin sister in the mansion) said she’d had an abortion at 19 because he refused to use condoms. Susie Krabacher, who moved in at 18, said Hefner drugged and raped her. In Holly Madison’s 2015 memoir she wrote that at the depths of her despair she contemplated drowning herself in his bathtub.

The difference between their stories and Crystal’s is partly in the timing; she has written this in the long shadow of #MeToo, with all the politics and therapeutic reckonings that entails. Partly it’s that, as his wife, she had a particular, peculiar insight. And partly it’s that this is not a shocking tell-all: though there are revelations about sex and cash, it’s a story about power, celebrity and, in a mansion that looked grand from a distance, but inside was mildewing and falling apart, the dark truths that glamour can hide. (...)

The girlfriends had to be home every evening for a 6pm curfew and none were allowed to work. Hefner would make them queue up to receive a weekly allowance (“gas money”). “The whole mansion had this gross vibe to it. All the misogynistic actors that preyed on women – this was their meeting ground. And I just thought, that’s how people are.” And to be fair to her, many were: she was humiliated on chatshows, blackmailed, controlled.

Even when Crystal led a season of the hit reality show, The Girls Next Door, which followed Hefner’s girlfriends about their syntheticised daily lives, his production company received $400,000 an episode and she received nothing. This was the last mainstream hurrah for the Playboy brand: six seasons of telly that were equally banal and fascinating, with the girlfriends laughing and bickering and grooming themselves. It revealed how being a giggling, beautiful blonde was a full-time job. And the sight of geriatric “Hef” sliding in and out of scenes in his silk pyjamas somehow made him seem even older.

After Crystal had been promoted to main girlfriend, she felt important. But, “I quickly started thinking, ‘How can this person really love me when they want four other people in the bedroom with us?’” She describes the weekly sex as if it was a degrading chore, unkeen to dwell on details – she says she’s easily “grossed out” today. “I did things that I wasn’t comfortable with. I wasn’t physically attracted to an 80-year-old man. I was just trying to get through it. And the other girls? Nobody liked each other. But we’d just be there for Hef.” Things changed for her when, “I realised I had no freedom. Everything was based on Hef’s schedule and I never got a say. Which,” she coughs discreetly, “is the opposite of the liberation and freedom that, supposedly, Playboy was meant to be about.” (...)

Obituaries reignited a long debate about his cultural legacy as an architect of the sexual revolution. But as Crystal explains, detailing the ways he’d pat her head and tell her to dye her roots, loudly compare the girlfriends’ bodies, encourage plastic surgery and play them off against each other, it became clear how little his grand project had to do with sex and how, in fact, it was all about power.

She buried him in the plot he’d bought next to Marilyn Monroe (another businessman bought the crypt above her, where he was buried, as per his wishes, face down). The symbolism was deafening. Hefner’s early success had been down to Monroe: at 27, he launched Playboy with a naked photograph that he ran without her consent. Crystal shakes her head. “I went along with everything for so long, but I was brainwashed, really. How was that all OK? I was in the middle of it for a decade and I’m still trying to figure it out. Like, how did he get away with this?” Another small cough.

When he proposed, he offered the ring in a music box that played a song from The Little Mermaid, the story (Crystal writes) of the princess who so wants to belong to a different world that she “trades her voice for a chance to walk around on human legs and find love”. She signed a prenup, almost grateful, perhaps, that this time the disparity was in black and white. Because the worst part about the transactional relationships she and her fellow girlfriends maintained, was that they never made explicit. “You went into his orbit offering all of yourself, and you had no idea what you’d get back.” It might be “gas money”, it might be a Playboy spread, or fame.

“Power is insidious when it masks itself as generosity,” she writes, “and generosity is insidious when it’s a camouflage for control. And both power and generosity are confusing when they gaslight you into believing they could be love.” 

by Eve Wiseman, Crystal Hefner, The Guardian |  Read more:
Image: HMH Foundation

Toilet Plume

Toilet plume: A toilet plume is the dispersal of microscopic particles as a result of flushing a toilet. Normal use of a toilet by healthy individuals is considered unlikely to be a major health risk. However this dynamic changes if an individual is fighting an illness and currently shedding out a virulent pathogen in their urine, feces or vomitus. There is indirect evidence that specific pathogens such as norovirus or SARS coronavirus could potentially be spread by toilet aerosols, but as of 2015, no direct experimental studies had clearly demonstrated or refuted actual disease transmission from toilet aerosols. It has been hypothesized that dispersal of pathogens may be reduced by closing the toilet lid before flushing, and by using toilets with lower flush energy. (Wikipedia). More here.

via:

Groundhog Days


In Woodstock, Ill., where Groundhog Day was filmed, hundreds of fans gather every year, year after year, to celebrate their favorite movie.

At 6:00 this morning, I set out for Woodstock Square by foot. The clerk at the Best Western called a cab for me, but there was no answer. It’s four degrees outside, and windy, so when I see a building labeled police department, I walk in to ask for a ride. After some questioning, my request is granted, and I find myself in a police cruiser with Officer David. There were no cabs, I tell him apologetically. “Oh, there’s one guy,” he says. “But, you know, he’s been busy with the storm and the Super Bowl and all.” He grants my request to sit in the front seat and drops me at the square, just in front of Starbucks.

In Starbucks, I run into Rick Bellairs, the organizer of the Groundhog Days festival. I ask him if he expects a large turnout. “No,” he says, laughing. He suspects the weather will keep people away. Bellairs invites me next door, to the Stage Left Cafe, where the polka band and committee members are warming up. It’s here that I get a different sense of the event. Before it was Groundhog Days, the multi-day celebration, it was an annual breakfast, just an opportunity for local participants to gather and tell stories about their days working on the film. The mood at Stage Left is convivial, neither totally earnest nor ironic. Here in the Midwest, inclement weather means one might go weeks without seeing friends—this time of year, I can go weeks without seeing my next-door neighbor—and Groundhog Days is, to locals, something to do in February.

After the prognostication, we adjourn to the Moose Lodge for the annual Groundhog Breakfast. The polka band plays. Groundhog Day is running, muted, on the televisions in the corners of the rooms. I am finally eating a real meal. Bob Hudgins, the location manager, who came in from Austin, gets up to speak. He’s been coming to the fest for more than a decade, but looks humbled and happy, standing before a packed room. This town’s got a bit magic, he says. “The fact that we are here, and it’s all because of a silly movie. Harold Ramis made a good one.”

On Friday night, at the annual Groundhog Dinner and Dance at the Moose Lodge in Woodstock, Ill., Theresa from Sun Prairie, Wis., approaches my table after noticing my recorder and notebook. Visiting the town where her favorite movie, Groundhog Day, was filmed, she tells me, was on her bucket list, and she was surprised to learn she wouldn’t need to travel all the way to Punxsutawney to cross it off. She and her husband drove down earlier in the afternoon, and are staying through the weekend.

She becomes flustered when I pick up my recorder. “Am I going to be on TV?” she asks. She declines to state her last name with a wave of her hands, declaring she is not important enough to be interviewed. But she does have some advice for me.

“Here’s what you can say in your story: Hey, campers! You don’t need to go all the way to Punxsutawney. You can come right here to Woodstock, where Bill Murray made the film and it’s so special.”

Theresa’s response is far from unusual here at Groundhog Days, a five-day celebration of the filming of the 1993 movie in Woodstock, 50 miles northwest of Chicago. The attendees can be divided into two camps, each as enthusiastic as the other: the tourists, who are rapturous about the film, and the locals, who are rapturous about their town.

by Jennifer Rice Epstein, TMN | Read more:
Image: Jennifer Rice Epstein for The Morning News
[ed. This gives me a chance to repost one of my favorite Groundhog Day movie essays: Love and Death (DS).]

The Point of “Point Break”

There are certain images that slither past good taste and politics and sink their teeth straight into the subconscious. For instance: a man dressed in a tuxedo and a Ronald Reagan mask, using a gasoline pump as a flamethrower. He is torching his getaway vehicle and taking his time; the scene isn’t shot in slow motion, but I always remember it that way. In about thirty seconds, a cop will tackle him, prompting a long foot chase, but for now he waves his weapon like a kid with a sparkler on New Year’s Eve. We can’t see his expression, but Reagan’s face is grinning, and I’d like to imagine that the face underneath is, too. Don’t all bad guys dream of being children again?

The masked man is Patrick Swayze, the cop is Keanu Reeves, the woman who has sicced one on the other is the director Kathryn Bigelow, and the thing that binds them all together is “Point Break.” Those of us who love the film, which is showing in a new restoration, at Metrograph, talk about it in much the same way that others talk about “Showgirls”—i.e., as what used to be called a cult movie, before it became clear that there are only cults of varying sizes. It was released in 1991, the year of “Nevermind” and Desert Storm, though you could also think of it as the era when everyone in Hollywood movies looked slightly wet—appropriate here, since “Point Break” is about surfing. Also law enforcement and skydiving.

Describe any film too briskly and you risk turning it into a screwball comedy. (“Phantom Thread”: she feeds him poisonous mushrooms, but he digs it.) That said, the crucial thing to know about “Point Break” is that Keanu Reeves plays a star quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes named Johnny Utah who becomes an F.B.I. agent and goes undercover with a gang of surfers—led by Swayze’s character, a lion-maned fellow by the name of Bodhi, as in Bodhisattva—who dress up as ex-Presidents and rob banks. It sounds weird, but then all action thrillers—all genre movies—are weird, albeit in a way that we spend our lives learning to ignore. Not “Point Break,” which wears its weirdness so cockily that its cousins start to seem like the real oddballs. (...)

Working with the cinematographer Donald Peterman, Bigelow packs “Point Break” ’s first act with dull, grayish-blue interiors that seem not filled with but made of L.A. smog: banks, offices, a sad indoor pool. One reason that the ensuing plot swerves feel right is that, after fifteen minutes of this, you welcome some fresh air and sunshine. As Utah embraces the ways of the surfer, the color palette moves from grayish to yellowish, and then, when Bodhi hips him to skydiving, from yellowish to cloudless blue. For the final scene, in which Bodhi finally gets his comeuppance, Bigelow takes us back to the beach, but also to those miserable smoggy grays, as though to suggest Utah’s world swallowing Bodhi’s whole.

Taken together, this can all feel like a string of vivid tableaux: a nighttime orgy of beach football; Reeves all pink and dewy, cuddling with his love interest in a black-sheeted bed; Swayze (well, mostly his stunt double Matt Archbold) riding giants, longboard muddying the air with seminal spurts of seawater. When you’re not gulping down a set piece, you’re starved for the next one—which is only right, since chasing the next big rush is more or less the point of “Point Break.” One particular rush is conspicuously un-chased: nobody watches this film without wondering why Bodhi and Utah don’t just sleep together. (“You want me so bad, it’s like acid in your mouth,” the surfer tells the cop.) But you could make a similar observation about almost any macho American movie of the period—compared with Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers horsing around in the surf in “Rocky III,” Reeves and Swayze look practically monkish. Besides, “Point Break” is the rare action flick that explains why its homoerotic subtext never becomes text: with death sports, Bodhi and Utah have discovered something better than sex. The catch is that their thrill-seeking is non-fungible and thus ultimately solitary; in “Point Break,” there is only you and your bottomless appetite. Surfing leads the adrenaline junkie to bank heists, and onward to free-falling, kidnapping, and bigger waves. Utah’s partner orders two meatball subs and then, before he’s taken a bite, regrets not ordering three.

“Point Break” is all about pushing it to the limit, so allow me to take this a step further. Once you’ve been numbed to the oddities of the plot and dialogue, what jump out at you, paradoxically, are the bits you already recognize. Consider Keanu Reeves’s voice. In all likelihood, you have been hearing this voice for years; it’s Keanu Reeves, the guy who speaks an obscure dialect of English called Uh, the actor who, in the early nineties, was known to millions as half of Bill and Ted. Which makes it all the more fascinating that Reeves is playing a straight-edged detective who is pretending to be a SoCal guy. There is a brief, early scene in which Utah, dipping his toe into his undercover persona, affects a surfer-bro accent, i.e., his own but even drawlier. It is a genuinely disorienting moment—reminiscent of the famous tale of how Charlie Chaplin entered a Chaplin lookalike contest and got second—so that when Reeves returns to his “normal” voice in the next scene, it’s as though you’re hearing him for the first time. Each “uh” is a symphony.

As with Keanu Reeves’s voice, so with everything you know, or thought you knew, from other movies: the disillusioned hero throwing his badge in the muck; the novice turning into a pro in a single montage; the detective with a heart of gold mourning his partner’s death with a “Noooooo” so long you could stand up, leave the theatre, answer some work e-mails, walk back to your seat, and still be less than halfway through. To ask what Bigelow does, exactly, to make these things seem so jarring is to miss the point. She doesn’t have to do anything.

by Jackson Arn, New Yorker |  Read more:
Image: via: Shutterstock; Getty Images; Melissa Herwitt/E! Illustration

Thursday, February 1, 2024

The Michelangelo preset


byebyetrixcom, ©2016

Is TikTok Over?

How much time do I spend on TikTok? I can tell you which chiropractor is demonstrating their technique without even seeing their face. I know which fashion content creator is partial to Rei Kawakubo, and who has a preposterous Carol Christian Poell collection. I know which New York City microinfluencers go on vacation together, and which creators are building a modest following joking about the music of a small scene of rappers who make Playboi Carti sound like Kendrick Lamar.

Through endless hours of scrolling — an hour a day, at least, for several years now — I’ve been accumulating hyperniche expertise predicated on my interests, conscious and subconscious. The result has been a gathering of online characters that, at this point, shape my cultural consumption far more than any celebrity or news source.

This is what TikTok intends to do, tapping into pure id, drilling down on what you know and what you might want to know in hopes that you never leave the app’s forever scroll. Of all the social media platforms, it holds the greatest promise of kismet. It’s the one that has seemed most in tune with individual taste and most capable of shaping emerging monoculture.

But increasingly in recent months, scrolling the feed has come to resemble fumbling in the junk drawer: navigating a collection of abandoned desires, who-put-that-here fluff and things that take up awkward space in a way that blocks access to what you’re actually looking for.

This has happened before, of course — the moment when Twitter turned from good-faith salon to sinister outrage derby, or when Instagram, and its army of influencers, learned to homogenize joy and beauty. (Some apps, like the TikTok precursor Vine, were shuttered before ever becoming truly tiresome.) Similarly, the malaise that has begun to suffuse TikTok feels systemic, market-driven and also potentially existential, suggesting the end of a flourishing era and the precipice of a wasteland period.

It’s an unfortunate result of the confluence of a few crucial factors. Most glaring is the arrival of TikTok’s shopping platform, which has turned even small creators into spokespeople and the for-you page of recommendations into an unruly bazaar. The site is also seeing diminishing utility as an organic music discovery vehicle, weakening its connection to the one major entertainment industry that’s come to rely on it the most. 

That fractured link has made it more challenging for TikTok to create and shift monoculture, which it had appeared poised to do over and over again in the early 2020s. (...)

Finally, and maybe most stubbornly, there’s TikTok’s personalization algorithm itself, which drives you further and deeper into your own taste, until it has been rinsed almost wholly dry — an asset that becomes, over time, a liability. All in all, you’re left wondering how a format designed for infinite scroll has come to feel so finite.

Just a handful of years ago, TikTok seemed destined to become the long-running platform for the short-form video revolution, the YouTube of phone-consumed content. Its most appealing videos have a homespun, almost accidental feel. You encounter them, get amused by them and then let them pass through. And yet some things stick around long enough to become true mainstream cultural successes: comedic routines, dance steps, slang. A vast decentralized conversation is taking place every day, and the promise of the app is that you might keep tabs on it while also being shown offramps to something new. (...)

With less common ground, users are increasingly seeing TikTok as a place to potentially monetize their online lives, an implicit acknowledgment that all this time spent online is a kind of labor. The D.I.Y. micro-ads that now clog the feed feel the most portentous — death by a thousand affiliate links. TikTok Shop began in September, and it quickly reoriented the app toward hawking. You can sell a product of your own, but most people make videos promoting products already in the shop, and then make a small commission if they lead to a sale.

The effect of seeing all of these quasi-ads — QVC in your pocket — is soul-deadening. Often, around two of every five videos are for products I don’t need: I have been offered a version of an ad for a specific magnetic phone charger over 100 times, easily, and I have seen people shilling for one specific oil-pulling dental health concoction even more often. The possibility of making a few bucks has turned ordinary people into creative directors and provided a steady flow of free advertising and marketing ideas for pennies on the dollar.

I knew the algorithm had fully broken me when I watched a video of a woman dismantling the lint trap on her dryer and immediately wondered why she hadn’t linked to TikTok Shop for the magnetic screwdrivers to rein in the tiny screws that were falling all over the place, or the slim cordless vacuum that would have sucked out the flyaway dust.

The speed and volume of the shift has been startling. Over time, Instagram became glutted with sponsored content and buy links, but its shopping interface never derailed the overall experience of the app. TikTok Shop has done that in just a few months, spoiling a tremendous amount of good will in the process.

But perhaps nothing has been as central to the TikTok experience as music; the app’s early era was accelerated by a merger with the lip-syncing app Musical.ly in 2018, and “sounds” are one of the platform’s organizing principles, allowing users to sort videos by the background music they pick.

The ability to search clips by sound made TikTok perhaps the most sinisterly effective music distribution tool since terrestrial radio. It combined happenstance with vast audience, allowing music that people enjoyed, or were paid to enjoy, to explode on an immense scale. The randomness seemed to come from the bottom up: On any given day of media consumption, TikTok offered the best chance to be charmed by something utterly unexpected — say, a sped-up remix of a song by Miguel or Lil Uzi Vert, or a guy on a longboard listening to Fleetwood Mac and breezily drinking cranberry juice.

In the year or two before the pandemic, TikTok was unmatched as a music discovery tool. But Covid forced everyone onto their phones, creating a content deluge. When marketers and publicists realized that TikTok was their best hope for attention, they swarmed, turning the app into a conventional promotional dust bowl. (...)

The way visual content is developing on the app, though, appears to be de-emphasizing music, too. Legible short-form ideas like dance routines and outfit videos seem to have given way to videos that lend themselves to smooth-brained and extended viewing, like clips of taming an unruly lawn or cleaning a muddy area rug. This is visual A.S.M.R., no sound required. (TikTok has also been encouraging some creators to post longer, original videos less reliant upon the intellectual property of others.)

It all underscores a fundamental TikTok issue that remains unsolved: There hasn’t yet been an evolution in optimal content form. The narrative styles that will work best in this format haven’t been honed yet, at least not by professionals. For an app that claims a lot of attention, it doesn’t demand much brainpower. That leaves TikTok vulnerable to the moments when viewers, to put it simply, snap out of it.

by Jon Caramanica, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Stephen Dybus
[ed. See also: On TikTok, who owns a viral dance? (Vox); and, Universal Music Group Pulls Songs From TikTok (NYT):]

"On Tuesday, a day before its licensing contract with TikTok was set to expire, Universal — the largest of the three major record companies — published a fiery open letter accusing TikTok of offering unsatisfactory payment for music, and of allowing its platform to be “flooded with A.I.-generated recordings” that diluted the royalty pool for real, human musicians.

TikTok confirmed early Thursday that it had removed music from Universal, and videos on the app began to show the effects of the broken partnership. Recordings by Universal artists were deleted from TikTok’s library, and existing videos that used music from Universal’s artists had their audio muted entirely. Universal songs were also unavailable for users to add to new videos.

A video posted by Kylie Jenner in September, for example, using a song by Lana Del Rey, who is signed to a Universal label was silent, with a note saying, “This sound isn’t available.” (Commenters to the video had remarked on the music.) Other videos carried similar statements, including “Sound removed due to copyright restrictions.


via:
[ed. How to do it. Much nicer.]

One Big Reason Migrants Are Coming in Droves: They Believe They Can Stay

For decades, single young men, mainly from Mexico and later Central America, did their best to sneak past U.S. border agents to reach Los Angeles, Atlanta and other places hungry for their labor.

Today, people from around the globe are streaming across the southern border, most of them just as eager to work. But rather than trying to elude U.S. authorities, the overwhelming majority of migrants seek out border agents, sometimes waiting hours or days in makeshift encampments, to surrender.

Being hustled into a U.S. Border Patrol vehicle and taken to a processing facility is hardly a setback. In fact, it is a crucial step toward being able to apply for asylum — now the surest way for migrants to stay in the United States, even if few will ultimately win their cases.

We are living in an era of mass migration — fueled by conflict, climate change, poverty and political repression and encouraged by the proliferation of TikTok and YouTube videos chronicling migrants’ journeys to the United States. Some six million Venezuelans have fled their troubled country, the largest population displacement in Latin America’s modern history. Migrants from Africa, Asia and South America are mortgaging their family land, selling their cars or borrowing money from loan sharks to embark on long, often treacherous journeys to reach the United States.

In December alone, more than 300,000 people crossed the southern border, a record number.

It is not just because they believe they will be able to make it across the 2,000 mile southern frontier. They are also certain that once they make it to the United States they will be able to stay.

Forever.

And by and large, they are not wrong.

The United States is trying to run an immigration system with a fraction of the judges, asylum officers, interpreters and other personnel that it needs to handle the hundreds of thousands of migrants crossing the border and flocking to cities around the country each year. That dysfunction has made it impossible for the nation to expeditiously decide who can remain in the country and who should be sent back to their homeland.

“I don’t know anyone who has been deported,” Carolina Ortiz, a migrant from Colombia, said in an interview in late December at an encampment outside Jacumba Hot Springs, about 60 miles southeast of San Diego and a stone’s throw from the hulking rust-colored barrier that separates the United States from Mexico.

For most migrants, the United States still represents the land of opportunity. Many come seeking work, and they are going to do whatever it takes to work, even if that means filing a weak asylum claim, several lawyers said.

To qualify for asylum, applicants must convince a judge that returning to their home country would result in harm or death on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Ms. Ortiz, 40, said she intended to apply for asylum based on violence in Colombia. Her chances of winning are slim, because violence alone typically does not meet the standard for persecution. Even so, she will be shielded from deportation while her claim is pending and will qualify for a work permit.

Underfunded immigration courts that adjudicate claims are strained by the swelling caseload, so applications languish for years, and all the while, migrants are building lives in the United States.

Ms. Ortiz, a nurse, said she had borrowed “millions,” in Colombian pesos (several thousand dollars) to pay the smugglers who brought her to the doorstep of the United States, a gap in the wall championed by former President Donald J. Trump. She waited two days in the cold, desert winds lashing her tent, for agents to come and take her.

When agents showed up, they transported Ms. Ortiz to a facility where she was given paperwork that said she had entered the country illegally, had been placed in deportation proceedings and must appear before an immigration judge.

The court date was Feb. 19, 2026.

She was then released. In Ms. Ortiz’s mind, everything was going according to plan. “I wanted to do everything the right way,” she said, after arriving in Colorado a few days later. She had been assigned an “alien” number used to track immigration cases.

Most asylum claims are ultimately rejected. But even when that happens, years down the road, applicants are highly unlikely to be deported. With millions of people unlawfully in the country, U.S. deportation officers prioritize arresting and expelling people who have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety.

by Miriam Jordan, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Erin Schaff for The New York Times