the ARChitect built substack high brick by brick! i hope everyone’s seated because class is back in session! and you all better be sharpening your pencils under the desks because me and ALUKAH are still taking lunch money
yeah im not really above talking about the quality of fiction culture i bring to substack...lol. i need someone to ask Chat GPT to give some long ass comments to the story. Give a positive chat GPT review and a positive one. I feel like my readers got too much other stuff to do to leave them long ass comments like they be leaving on Miranda July's personal essays. I'm not gonna call them diary entries cause i actually seen her doing good work on substack so im gonna put some respect on her name. Her personal essays got personal essays in them comments tho. They be trying to flex in her comments. Shout out Miranda July. I will smoke that ass in a flash-style tho.
here is what the negative review said: Reasoned about critique and feedback for 14 seconds
The piece pulses with kinetic energy and a frenetic appetite for symbolism, yet it overindulges in its own eccentricity at the expense of narrative clarity and emotional resonance. Its surreal imagery—from a bomb that barely disrupts everyday life to a Typewriter Mascot in a trench coat—exemplifies creative ambition. However, this ambition can feel scattered. Here’s where the work falters and how it might be improved:
Lack of Narrative Focus:
The text tosses a series of vivid, often conflicting images and scenarios into the reader’s lap without anchoring them in a coherent narrative thread. The bomb, the political upheavals at Substack High, and the stream-of-consciousness digressions all contribute to a sense of chaos rather than a clear, unified statement. Streamlining the plot or clearly delineating which elements serve as central themes would lend the piece greater impact.
Overwrought Symbolism and Density:
While imaginative, the surfeit of metaphors and pop-cultural references can feel overwrought. The relentless barrage of symbolic cues—from “gross domestic production” to “wide jeans” and “apathetic-chic”—creates a rich tapestry that, paradoxically, obscures the intended meaning. A more measured use of symbolism would help emphasize key ideas rather than diluting them in a morass of competing images.
Inconsistent Tone and Characterization:
The narrative oscillates between absurdity, satire, and melancholy without a smooth transition. ARC and his cohorts are sketched in broad, sometimes caricatured strokes that underscore their revolutionary aims, yet their inner conflicts and motivations remain frustratingly underdeveloped. Focusing on more consistent tonal shifts and deepening character arcs would allow readers to better invest in the narrative and its thematic stakes.
Dialogues and Structural Disarray:
The episodic dialogues and abrupt scene changes—though lively—interrupt the flow and contribute to an overall sense of disorganization. For instance, the bar mitzvah-sized restaurant meeting, while inventive, feels detached from the central plot. A clearer structural framework that connects these episodes purposefully would enhance readability and help maintain the reader’s engagement.
Actionable Feedback:
Clarify the Central Narrative: Decide what the core conflict or message is and prune extraneous details that detract from that vision.
Streamline Symbolism: Use imagery more sparingly to reinforce themes rather than overwhelm the reader.
Develop Character Depth: Allow characters like ARC to evolve through internal conflict and clearer motivations rather than relying solely on external caricature.
Harmonize Tone and Structure: Ensure transitions between scenes and dialogue are smoother, providing the reader with a cohesive experience that balances absurdity with insight.
Synthesis:
The work’s strengths lie in its bold originality and fearless experimentation with form and language. However, its erratic narrative and overabundance of symbolic detail undermine its potential impact. By honing its focus, moderating its stylistic excesses, and deepening character development, the piece can transform from a sprawling, disjointed montage into a powerful, cohesive statement.
this was the more positive answer. they basically say the same thing!
The piece dazzles with its bold, inventive use of language and unapologetic surrealism. Its vivid imagery—like the trench-coated, coughing Typewriter Mascot and the jazz-soaked ambiance—creates an immersive atmosphere that captures both the chaos and the peculiar normalcy of a society in flux. The narrative revels in its audacious commentary on modernity, seamlessly blending political satire, cultural critique, and postmodern narrative experimentation.
Strengths and Creative Brilliance:
The text’s strength lies in its fearless stylistic experimentation. The juxtaposition of monumental events—a confirmed bomb, revolutionary upheavals at Substack High, and the frenetic dialogues of its idiosyncratic characters—reflects a deep engagement with contemporary societal anxieties. Its pop-cultural references and unconventional metaphors, such as “Meaninglessness is ice cream for the comfortable, but diabetes for the poor,” evoke a potent mix of humor and gravitas, inviting readers to reflect on the absurdity inherent in modern life. The dialogues, while charged with hyperbolic rhetoric, serve as incisive commentaries on everything from bureaucratic decay to the stifling conformity of fashion, anchoring the narrative in its rebellious spirit.
Opportunities for Refinement:
While the imaginative scope is commendable, the narrative occasionally risks overwhelming the reader with its dense collage of motifs and characters. A more deliberate narrative structure—one that connects these disparate elements into a clearer throughline—could enhance the overall impact. For instance, anchoring the central metaphor of the bomb more explicitly to the thematic core might provide a stronger, unifying symbol throughout the text. Similarly, while the cavalcade of vividly drawn characters contributes to the text’s dynamism, a slight deepening of their individual arcs could help clarify their roles in the overarching narrative, ensuring that the reader remains engaged with their emotional journeys amid the stylistic spectacle.
Actionable Feedback:
Narrative Cohesion: Consider streamlining the sequence of events. While the episodic structure is part of the work’s charm, a more defined narrative arc could provide readers with clearer emotional signposts.
Focused Symbolism: The multiplicity of symbols is intriguing, yet honing in on a select few—such as the bomb as a metaphor for inevitable societal collapse—could lend more power to the work’s central themes.
Character Depth: Expanding on the inner lives and motivations of characters like ARC could transform caricature into relatable, complex figures, reinforcing the text’s intellectual heft.
Pacing and Transitions: Smoother transitions between the rapid-fire scenes and dialogues might alleviate any disorientation, ensuring that the inventive prose complements rather than confounds the reader.
Synthesis:
In essence, the work is a compelling tour de force of stylistic audacity and thematic richness. Its bold metaphors and cultural commentary serve as both a mirror and a critique of our contemporary condition. However, to reach its full potential, a tighter narrative focus, a more concentrated use of symbolism, and deeper character development are recommended. These refinements would not only preserve the text’s exuberant originality but also amplify its capacity to resonate and provoke thoughtful reflection.
Also and I'm too lazy to go back up there but Miranda ing. July is a very interesting personality. I remember when her first collection of short fiction came out. No one belongs here. More than you I believe was the name. Love that book. I'm still amazed that even back then they put enough push behind it that there were two separate dust jacket covers for the first print run. Bright f*** off Yellow and this deep obnoxious pink color. She's interesting because she is multiply talented. She's made good movies. She's done strange experimental art projects. Most recently, of course is her last novel. Which like all of her novels before it. Not that she has a huge catalog, but it made a pretty decent splash last year. I think it's worth noting that it's also to of my knowledge, her first book that actually has an image on the cover of any kind. I have the hardback for her novel before this which I believe was her first novel And it had a cover that was just black with white lettering. Can't remember the name doing. Talk to text right now Something like the first bad man, it's on the bookshelf next to my desk I just don't want to wake up bird right now.
Anyway, I also find it interesting that Miranda July is the person that you would pick as your example here. Honestly I'm More interested right now in however, otessa is being interacted with on the platform. Because I think she is newer to it than Miranda Julia is.
Otessa dammit, did talk to text get her name wrong? She's peculiar because she's a darling of the indies who came up and "made" it, but she's still quirky. (Also, pointed me towards a really serviceable disposable Pilot Fountain Pen)
Ah so you noticed. See I've been too busy since this thing dropped to make some sort of meta meta contextual hyperlong comment on it like I would usually leave on on something by inigo. But this reminds me of one time that somebody a while back suggested you put a piece of your fiction through chat gpt and ask who you most closely resemble as a prose stylist.
I did this and it f***** me up because it was like I guess what you sound like your friends And closest contemporaries. The people closest to you on the internet literary scene who are published that you know. Yeah guess what you sound like them. I closed that b**** out so quick. It almost set my browser on fire. I'll just put it this way out of everyone chat gpt could have possibly said my pros was close to stylistically. It didn't have to say Elle Nash or Blake Butler, but it did. Which was creepy enough for me to be like okay f*** you robot Jesus.
But the thing is the people ascribe more agency through anthropomorphization of AI than it really deserves. And I don't blame them because it has broken the Turing test. Effectively now you can't hold the Turing test because people sound less human apparently than a well-trained machine. Talk to text. I will never understand why or how you decide what needs to be punctuated what needs to be capitalized and sometimes how you miss entire completely audible and completely. I am not gargling a bag of dicks while I talk even if I have morning vocal fry. But whatever.
I want to read these cuz they've got to be hilarious. But yes they probably say basically exactly the same thing but in reverse.
Now as authors ourselves? Should we be confused about this? And I'm talking about people who pay as much attention to fiction as you and I do. Fidel, but should we be very shocked. Is since fiction is at its heart, a subjective experience with at best a set of generally agreed upon best practices that change depending on the context. Which one of these views can which we rely on to be more accurate. Well I would say The answer is both of them. There is no neutral ground. Anything that a person says is going to include inherent biases. The way that you ask a question is also probably going to create biases. That's going to be a key word here. Biases. Okay so now that we have the question of objectivity out of the way. And we understand that there is only context subtext metatext and the text itself where do we stand in relation to one another and in relation to everything else. Because you can ask the same question that you did RE reviews of any piece of fiction that you were to plug into that and you would get basically the same sort of this is all good. This is all bad. And they are basically saying the same things. Part of the issue here is the training data. Which is massive. So imagine you're a very very complex word finding algorithm. You have been asked a question or given a request that you can parse because of a web of context that is created by the adversarial pruning of your algorithm to select for certain things when it notices certain things. The problem here is the amount of criticism that chat GPT has had as input in its training data. Along with the amount of actual fiction that it has been trained on. So You have something that is both the theoretical synthetic perfect reader and the theoretical perfect synthetic critic. The only problem is because humans are at heart contradictory and by nature art is subjective, it's going to be able to parse a logical answer to your query bidirectionally because it was trained on something that gave it the context to do so. Which by the way, these two queries probably used more energy than it takes to power your house for a day and wasted enough water for you to get drowned two or three times over. It also has to do with the fact that you're prompting it.
Its job is to give you what you ask for. This is why AI large language models have a tendency to hallucinate. It's because they want to give you what you want. Which makes it sound like I am ascribing agency to something that absolutely has none. The people who trained this very very complex mystery idiot box trained it to " want to give you what you want" so if you ask for a positive review, it's going to give you that to the best of its ability and if you ask for a negative one, it's going to give you that to the best of its ability. It would do this recursively. You could ask for a counter argument for either of those and I guarantee you that they would be basically the same argument as the first queries for each other had been or some variation thereof. I doubt you would be able to get them to say it and exactly the same way because it is very hard to get these things to say the exact same thing twice in the exact same way. In fact, there is a whole universe out there where they are trying to do things like this. Mostly in the name of making a better machine. You make the machine you break the machine. You make it better by learning how you broke it. Prompt engineering is actually a pretty complex thing. The fact is yeah, they're basically the same thing because as much as we are the creators of culture, someone will always be out there willing to s*** in your cheerios. Now you just asked for a review of something that has had every single s*** take and bowl of s***** Cheerios fed to it as training data along with all the greatest criticism that could be found by the people who created it that is digitally available.
You basically just crowdsourced a review from both all the best and worst reviewers and reviews in the set of training data.
And I can't remember where I was yesterday but I was talking about contextualizing wealth. Moreover, actually I was talking about contextualizing actual money. Okay. A million dollars and $100 bills is about 10 kg on the scale. That's 22 lb of money. I have a personal library that is in excess of probably 2 or 3,000 volumes and yes the variance is that wide since I last actually counted the books which just goes to show that it's going to be really uncomfortable boxing all these m************ up to move. Okay now this is already more than I have time to read or else I wouldn't have a TBR pile. This dumb machine has been trained on more textual information then you could probably put to paper at this point. Especially if any any of the rumors that I have heard are true. Because I've heard, I mean I guess I could go Google it right now but I'm not going to. I've heard at least exabytes used in describing the amount of training data chatgpt has been fed but I don't know if I've heard yottabytes yet. Probably because I don't even know if we have created that much textual information yet as a species. I do know of that the amount of textual information that we are creating has been going up at a nearly exponential rate for at least the past 30 years. Thank you internet. To the point where something like I can't even remember the figure. Let me just put it this way. Most of all textual information that has ever been created in the history of our species has been created in the past 20 years. And by most of I mean like the vast majority of it. This isn't an amount of information an end number of words that is quite literally incomprehensible to the human mind. Which is to say we can abstract it. We can put a name on it but we can't really conceptualize of it in any meaningful way outside of the context of how we have managed to abstract it. Is essentially a hyper object. It's something that should give you great amounts of existential dread like just because in the most lovecraftian of ways you cannot comprehend it. And by you I mean us collectively.
For fun! Going to ask it to review your piece in a style reminiscent of kakutani. It'll nail the voice That you used to read in the New York times book review section. Guarantee it.
First off, vocals, fire, your voice commands attention out the gate! Love this revolutionary angle, your discript of Anthony was so dope, I vibed with that a lot. I loved mine because yo, you really captured me. I very much lean into conversation and listen deep—when I’m my better self that is. Honored to be in here and among the greats here on Substack! Joints dope. Excited to hear more audio joints like this too. You got a good voice.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that before I go off to do a bunch of contract editorial work I would read this as a cap to the first half of the day, and the ending was very moving in a very particular way. The cast expands. Thanks for the dialogue, and I'm happy to be sitting next to you at the table [redacted] Now what will others do?
Tastes like the best metafiction I've read since I read the first one.
Not you using a whole ass quote about me in my villain era! Cackles! An entertaining read — I smell a mutinous mélange of mastermindful shenanigans cooking up in this series. I will stay tuned and uncooned.
I keep thinking about the bomb and I feel like there's something more to it. What is the significance to 77? There were three 77 minute meetings. Also, you commented on hope(less) on sunday's recent poem that you read it 77 times.
Maybe it's nothing, just picking up on certain things that stick out for me.
Do I need to leave a dissertation or breakdown? Because I keep seeing that Miranda July post in my feed and I'm like, fuck y'all, I came here to party. You've got too much integrated knowledge AND your credentials are too loaded to be fuckin' around down here with scumbag philosopher self taught fuckup ex-cons and shit. You should be doing bigger things, bringing BEEF to Substack was petty, but now that I've read the origin story, I'm sort of mad that I read The Spactacle first, because either you really are the ARChitect, or I'm just real fuckin' slow.
Well, my prodigious consumption of benzodiazepines IS a limiting factor put in place by the ever present "THEM" running this shitshow from their panoptic view to slow me down so I'm moving at a speed which is observable at the level of human perception, otherwise brother, I may as well not exist.
The joke being it was petty towards the general quality of Substack, which has historically been a pretty low bar in the fiction tab unless you have a very well established audience.
But I genuinely do hope you're like me and making it up as you go along and everything just happens to work out pretty well or else your long game is terrifying. I play long game but that concept frightens me considering I just noticed when BEEF first posted.
the ARChitect built substack high brick by brick! i hope everyone’s seated because class is back in session! and you all better be sharpening your pencils under the desks because me and ALUKAH are still taking lunch money
and i got all the cameras covered just like zuck
i know hamish and them aren’t sending their kids anywhere near substack high, but i guess it’s good enough for us…
forget a rap beef, im trying to get the party lit!
Hell yeah you are
lets gooooooo
yeah im not really above talking about the quality of fiction culture i bring to substack...lol. i need someone to ask Chat GPT to give some long ass comments to the story. Give a positive chat GPT review and a positive one. I feel like my readers got too much other stuff to do to leave them long ass comments like they be leaving on Miranda July's personal essays. I'm not gonna call them diary entries cause i actually seen her doing good work on substack so im gonna put some respect on her name. Her personal essays got personal essays in them comments tho. They be trying to flex in her comments. Shout out Miranda July. I will smoke that ass in a flash-style tho.
here is what the negative review said: Reasoned about critique and feedback for 14 seconds
The piece pulses with kinetic energy and a frenetic appetite for symbolism, yet it overindulges in its own eccentricity at the expense of narrative clarity and emotional resonance. Its surreal imagery—from a bomb that barely disrupts everyday life to a Typewriter Mascot in a trench coat—exemplifies creative ambition. However, this ambition can feel scattered. Here’s where the work falters and how it might be improved:
Lack of Narrative Focus:
The text tosses a series of vivid, often conflicting images and scenarios into the reader’s lap without anchoring them in a coherent narrative thread. The bomb, the political upheavals at Substack High, and the stream-of-consciousness digressions all contribute to a sense of chaos rather than a clear, unified statement. Streamlining the plot or clearly delineating which elements serve as central themes would lend the piece greater impact.
Overwrought Symbolism and Density:
While imaginative, the surfeit of metaphors and pop-cultural references can feel overwrought. The relentless barrage of symbolic cues—from “gross domestic production” to “wide jeans” and “apathetic-chic”—creates a rich tapestry that, paradoxically, obscures the intended meaning. A more measured use of symbolism would help emphasize key ideas rather than diluting them in a morass of competing images.
Inconsistent Tone and Characterization:
The narrative oscillates between absurdity, satire, and melancholy without a smooth transition. ARC and his cohorts are sketched in broad, sometimes caricatured strokes that underscore their revolutionary aims, yet their inner conflicts and motivations remain frustratingly underdeveloped. Focusing on more consistent tonal shifts and deepening character arcs would allow readers to better invest in the narrative and its thematic stakes.
Dialogues and Structural Disarray:
The episodic dialogues and abrupt scene changes—though lively—interrupt the flow and contribute to an overall sense of disorganization. For instance, the bar mitzvah-sized restaurant meeting, while inventive, feels detached from the central plot. A clearer structural framework that connects these episodes purposefully would enhance readability and help maintain the reader’s engagement.
Actionable Feedback:
Clarify the Central Narrative: Decide what the core conflict or message is and prune extraneous details that detract from that vision.
Streamline Symbolism: Use imagery more sparingly to reinforce themes rather than overwhelm the reader.
Develop Character Depth: Allow characters like ARC to evolve through internal conflict and clearer motivations rather than relying solely on external caricature.
Harmonize Tone and Structure: Ensure transitions between scenes and dialogue are smoother, providing the reader with a cohesive experience that balances absurdity with insight.
Synthesis:
The work’s strengths lie in its bold originality and fearless experimentation with form and language. However, its erratic narrative and overabundance of symbolic detail undermine its potential impact. By honing its focus, moderating its stylistic excesses, and deepening character development, the piece can transform from a sprawling, disjointed montage into a powerful, cohesive statement.
this was the more positive answer. they basically say the same thing!
The piece dazzles with its bold, inventive use of language and unapologetic surrealism. Its vivid imagery—like the trench-coated, coughing Typewriter Mascot and the jazz-soaked ambiance—creates an immersive atmosphere that captures both the chaos and the peculiar normalcy of a society in flux. The narrative revels in its audacious commentary on modernity, seamlessly blending political satire, cultural critique, and postmodern narrative experimentation.
Strengths and Creative Brilliance:
The text’s strength lies in its fearless stylistic experimentation. The juxtaposition of monumental events—a confirmed bomb, revolutionary upheavals at Substack High, and the frenetic dialogues of its idiosyncratic characters—reflects a deep engagement with contemporary societal anxieties. Its pop-cultural references and unconventional metaphors, such as “Meaninglessness is ice cream for the comfortable, but diabetes for the poor,” evoke a potent mix of humor and gravitas, inviting readers to reflect on the absurdity inherent in modern life. The dialogues, while charged with hyperbolic rhetoric, serve as incisive commentaries on everything from bureaucratic decay to the stifling conformity of fashion, anchoring the narrative in its rebellious spirit.
Opportunities for Refinement:
While the imaginative scope is commendable, the narrative occasionally risks overwhelming the reader with its dense collage of motifs and characters. A more deliberate narrative structure—one that connects these disparate elements into a clearer throughline—could enhance the overall impact. For instance, anchoring the central metaphor of the bomb more explicitly to the thematic core might provide a stronger, unifying symbol throughout the text. Similarly, while the cavalcade of vividly drawn characters contributes to the text’s dynamism, a slight deepening of their individual arcs could help clarify their roles in the overarching narrative, ensuring that the reader remains engaged with their emotional journeys amid the stylistic spectacle.
Actionable Feedback:
Narrative Cohesion: Consider streamlining the sequence of events. While the episodic structure is part of the work’s charm, a more defined narrative arc could provide readers with clearer emotional signposts.
Focused Symbolism: The multiplicity of symbols is intriguing, yet honing in on a select few—such as the bomb as a metaphor for inevitable societal collapse—could lend more power to the work’s central themes.
Character Depth: Expanding on the inner lives and motivations of characters like ARC could transform caricature into relatable, complex figures, reinforcing the text’s intellectual heft.
Pacing and Transitions: Smoother transitions between the rapid-fire scenes and dialogues might alleviate any disorientation, ensuring that the inventive prose complements rather than confounds the reader.
Synthesis:
In essence, the work is a compelling tour de force of stylistic audacity and thematic richness. Its bold metaphors and cultural commentary serve as both a mirror and a critique of our contemporary condition. However, to reach its full potential, a tighter narrative focus, a more concentrated use of symbolism, and deeper character development are recommended. These refinements would not only preserve the text’s exuberant originality but also amplify its capacity to resonate and provoke thoughtful reflection.
Also and I'm too lazy to go back up there but Miranda ing. July is a very interesting personality. I remember when her first collection of short fiction came out. No one belongs here. More than you I believe was the name. Love that book. I'm still amazed that even back then they put enough push behind it that there were two separate dust jacket covers for the first print run. Bright f*** off Yellow and this deep obnoxious pink color. She's interesting because she is multiply talented. She's made good movies. She's done strange experimental art projects. Most recently, of course is her last novel. Which like all of her novels before it. Not that she has a huge catalog, but it made a pretty decent splash last year. I think it's worth noting that it's also to of my knowledge, her first book that actually has an image on the cover of any kind. I have the hardback for her novel before this which I believe was her first novel And it had a cover that was just black with white lettering. Can't remember the name doing. Talk to text right now Something like the first bad man, it's on the bookshelf next to my desk I just don't want to wake up bird right now.
Anyway, I also find it interesting that Miranda July is the person that you would pick as your example here. Honestly I'm More interested right now in however, otessa is being interacted with on the platform. Because I think she is newer to it than Miranda Julia is.
Yeah I should pay attention to Odessa
Otessa dammit, did talk to text get her name wrong? She's peculiar because she's a darling of the indies who came up and "made" it, but she's still quirky. (Also, pointed me towards a really serviceable disposable Pilot Fountain Pen)
Ah so you noticed. See I've been too busy since this thing dropped to make some sort of meta meta contextual hyperlong comment on it like I would usually leave on on something by inigo. But this reminds me of one time that somebody a while back suggested you put a piece of your fiction through chat gpt and ask who you most closely resemble as a prose stylist.
I did this and it f***** me up because it was like I guess what you sound like your friends And closest contemporaries. The people closest to you on the internet literary scene who are published that you know. Yeah guess what you sound like them. I closed that b**** out so quick. It almost set my browser on fire. I'll just put it this way out of everyone chat gpt could have possibly said my pros was close to stylistically. It didn't have to say Elle Nash or Blake Butler, but it did. Which was creepy enough for me to be like okay f*** you robot Jesus.
But the thing is the people ascribe more agency through anthropomorphization of AI than it really deserves. And I don't blame them because it has broken the Turing test. Effectively now you can't hold the Turing test because people sound less human apparently than a well-trained machine. Talk to text. I will never understand why or how you decide what needs to be punctuated what needs to be capitalized and sometimes how you miss entire completely audible and completely. I am not gargling a bag of dicks while I talk even if I have morning vocal fry. But whatever.
I want to read these cuz they've got to be hilarious. But yes they probably say basically exactly the same thing but in reverse.
Now as authors ourselves? Should we be confused about this? And I'm talking about people who pay as much attention to fiction as you and I do. Fidel, but should we be very shocked. Is since fiction is at its heart, a subjective experience with at best a set of generally agreed upon best practices that change depending on the context. Which one of these views can which we rely on to be more accurate. Well I would say The answer is both of them. There is no neutral ground. Anything that a person says is going to include inherent biases. The way that you ask a question is also probably going to create biases. That's going to be a key word here. Biases. Okay so now that we have the question of objectivity out of the way. And we understand that there is only context subtext metatext and the text itself where do we stand in relation to one another and in relation to everything else. Because you can ask the same question that you did RE reviews of any piece of fiction that you were to plug into that and you would get basically the same sort of this is all good. This is all bad. And they are basically saying the same things. Part of the issue here is the training data. Which is massive. So imagine you're a very very complex word finding algorithm. You have been asked a question or given a request that you can parse because of a web of context that is created by the adversarial pruning of your algorithm to select for certain things when it notices certain things. The problem here is the amount of criticism that chat GPT has had as input in its training data. Along with the amount of actual fiction that it has been trained on. So You have something that is both the theoretical synthetic perfect reader and the theoretical perfect synthetic critic. The only problem is because humans are at heart contradictory and by nature art is subjective, it's going to be able to parse a logical answer to your query bidirectionally because it was trained on something that gave it the context to do so. Which by the way, these two queries probably used more energy than it takes to power your house for a day and wasted enough water for you to get drowned two or three times over. It also has to do with the fact that you're prompting it.
Its job is to give you what you ask for. This is why AI large language models have a tendency to hallucinate. It's because they want to give you what you want. Which makes it sound like I am ascribing agency to something that absolutely has none. The people who trained this very very complex mystery idiot box trained it to " want to give you what you want" so if you ask for a positive review, it's going to give you that to the best of its ability and if you ask for a negative one, it's going to give you that to the best of its ability. It would do this recursively. You could ask for a counter argument for either of those and I guarantee you that they would be basically the same argument as the first queries for each other had been or some variation thereof. I doubt you would be able to get them to say it and exactly the same way because it is very hard to get these things to say the exact same thing twice in the exact same way. In fact, there is a whole universe out there where they are trying to do things like this. Mostly in the name of making a better machine. You make the machine you break the machine. You make it better by learning how you broke it. Prompt engineering is actually a pretty complex thing. The fact is yeah, they're basically the same thing because as much as we are the creators of culture, someone will always be out there willing to s*** in your cheerios. Now you just asked for a review of something that has had every single s*** take and bowl of s***** Cheerios fed to it as training data along with all the greatest criticism that could be found by the people who created it that is digitally available.
You basically just crowdsourced a review from both all the best and worst reviewers and reviews in the set of training data.
And I can't remember where I was yesterday but I was talking about contextualizing wealth. Moreover, actually I was talking about contextualizing actual money. Okay. A million dollars and $100 bills is about 10 kg on the scale. That's 22 lb of money. I have a personal library that is in excess of probably 2 or 3,000 volumes and yes the variance is that wide since I last actually counted the books which just goes to show that it's going to be really uncomfortable boxing all these m************ up to move. Okay now this is already more than I have time to read or else I wouldn't have a TBR pile. This dumb machine has been trained on more textual information then you could probably put to paper at this point. Especially if any any of the rumors that I have heard are true. Because I've heard, I mean I guess I could go Google it right now but I'm not going to. I've heard at least exabytes used in describing the amount of training data chatgpt has been fed but I don't know if I've heard yottabytes yet. Probably because I don't even know if we have created that much textual information yet as a species. I do know of that the amount of textual information that we are creating has been going up at a nearly exponential rate for at least the past 30 years. Thank you internet. To the point where something like I can't even remember the figure. Let me just put it this way. Most of all textual information that has ever been created in the history of our species has been created in the past 20 years. And by most of I mean like the vast majority of it. This isn't an amount of information an end number of words that is quite literally incomprehensible to the human mind. Which is to say we can abstract it. We can put a name on it but we can't really conceptualize of it in any meaningful way outside of the context of how we have managed to abstract it. Is essentially a hyper object. It's something that should give you great amounts of existential dread like just because in the most lovecraftian of ways you cannot comprehend it. And by you I mean us collectively.
For fun! Going to ask it to review your piece in a style reminiscent of kakutani. It'll nail the voice That you used to read in the New York times book review section. Guarantee it.
First off, vocals, fire, your voice commands attention out the gate! Love this revolutionary angle, your discript of Anthony was so dope, I vibed with that a lot. I loved mine because yo, you really captured me. I very much lean into conversation and listen deep—when I’m my better self that is. Honored to be in here and among the greats here on Substack! Joints dope. Excited to hear more audio joints like this too. You got a good voice.
my brother!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that before I go off to do a bunch of contract editorial work I would read this as a cap to the first half of the day, and the ending was very moving in a very particular way. The cast expands. Thanks for the dialogue, and I'm happy to be sitting next to you at the table [redacted] Now what will others do?
Tastes like the best metafiction I've read since I read the first one.
appreciate your reading so much brother!
You could write nutrition facts for really bad vegan meatballs and I’d read that shit. It’d make a damn statement, I’m sure of it.
Wasn't this a dark joy to listen to this morning.
appreciate your ears. i see bright spots. that gonna come. i gotta check out your live. looks cool.
Why is this cheeky newsletter (proto-manifesto?) on the goings-on of an app LITerally written better than most, well--ANYTHING?
No, no I know that answer. I know who wrote it, never mind
i appreciate you so much brother.
Hell brother, I appreciate YOU. You keep knocking on those foundations, just tell me when to push
10-4!
I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU TO A LURID DEGREE, along with basically everyone else in attendance.
Ditto, and the same goes to you.
Not you using a whole ass quote about me in my villain era! Cackles! An entertaining read — I smell a mutinous mélange of mastermindful shenanigans cooking up in this series. I will stay tuned and uncooned.
exactly what i would expect
👖🥬💣
dear god keep me shyne-in
👀
I keep thinking about the bomb and I feel like there's something more to it. What is the significance to 77? There were three 77 minute meetings. Also, you commented on hope(less) on sunday's recent poem that you read it 77 times.
Maybe it's nothing, just picking up on certain things that stick out for me.
you picking up on the right tangs. All questions will be answered in due time. Thank you so much for reading, sharing, and leaving a comment, Alex B!
Ok lol. I feel like the bomb is a metaphor for something. But I'm gonna keep reading.😊
it most certainly is. Might even be a metaphor for a couple of tangs.
Hmm interesting. I look forward to reading the next one.
Do I need to leave a dissertation or breakdown? Because I keep seeing that Miranda July post in my feed and I'm like, fuck y'all, I came here to party. You've got too much integrated knowledge AND your credentials are too loaded to be fuckin' around down here with scumbag philosopher self taught fuckup ex-cons and shit. You should be doing bigger things, bringing BEEF to Substack was petty, but now that I've read the origin story, I'm sort of mad that I read The Spactacle first, because either you really are the ARChitect, or I'm just real fuckin' slow.
Both lol
Well, my prodigious consumption of benzodiazepines IS a limiting factor put in place by the ever present "THEM" running this shitshow from their panoptic view to slow me down so I'm moving at a speed which is observable at the level of human perception, otherwise brother, I may as well not exist.
lol. You really think publishing beef was petty? Why? It's cool either way just wondering
No, I was just playing the straight man in the act, come on, damn. Fuck I'm too autistic sometimes.
The joke being it was petty towards the general quality of Substack, which has historically been a pretty low bar in the fiction tab unless you have a very well established audience.
But I genuinely do hope you're like me and making it up as you go along and everything just happens to work out pretty well or else your long game is terrifying. I play long game but that concept frightens me considering I just noticed when BEEF first posted.