As the current wave of disruption, manifesting itself through various conversations about artificial intelligence swirling around us (which, from our perspective, would be better described as a »Reflective Intelligence«), builds into a cultural crescendo reminiscent of Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa. Indeed, when, as a kind of embarrassment of thought, even the leading figures in its epistemological field conjure up a dys-utopian race toward civilizational collapse (as with Geoffrey Hinton), it’s easy to overlook how the Computer’s intellectual roots in our Machine Culture date back to the 18th century. And because of this, reflecting back on Digitalisation's origins in the crackling rift of Writing’s electrification becomes even more essential. We’re pleased to share this brief conversation between us about reading between the lines regarding Electrification, Massification, and the shifting definition of Writing in the early chapters of Martin’s Short History of Digitalisation.

Hopkins Stanley and Martin Burckhardt

Related Content

It is difficult to ignore how Capitalism has slipped into a deep values crisis – and indeed, you might be forgiven for thinking we are in a Potemkin village, a zombie economy sustained only by memories of a glorious past or by cash injections from central banks. For this reason alone, our conversation with Peter Fleming was extremely valuable, as he, with his keen sense of fundamental upheavals, recognized the signs of the times early on. Observations like how work has become little more than a mythological narrative for reassuring ourselves of our sense of importance and self-worth, or that universities have turned into dark zones in our era of Human Capital—sometimes jokingly called Whackademia—and that in this morally decayed environment, it is almost impossible to cling to the specter of the homo economicus as the ideal of utility-maximizing rationality. In this sense, it’s only logical that Peter Fleming's dirge ends with a reflection on Capitalism and Nothingness. And while this may be a somewhat somber topic, we found our conversation with him to be very enjoyable and entertaining.

Peter Fleming is a Professor of Organization Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. During his time in London, where he taught Business and Society at City University, he chaired the London Living Wage Symposium at the House of Commons. His work has been recognized with several awards.

Related Content

Following our presentation of the »Labyrinth of Signs,« parts I and II, we now provide a deeply reflective yet light-hearted post-mortem discussion between us to help you understand what it means to be literate. Martin’s concept of Psychotope becomes more understandable as our conversation progresses; it becomes clear how essential the Alphabet is in enabling us to be literate in our thinking, writing, and discourses, revealing that we are essentially working with an outsourced, historical unconscious in how it shapes us through its use. This is evident from the fact that the origin of Symbolic Logic remains a gaping blank space in Philosophy—even more so: it’s hidden within the conspicuousness of its absence. Something I’ve come to know as the Burckhardtian leitmotif of »The Philosopher’s Shame.«

It’s also no coincidence that »Geist der Maschine« features a chapter on how Sigmund Freud developed his concept of the unconscious, which we’ve also translated into English and will be posting soon. For now, it suffices to say that this chapter explains how and why Freud excluded the 19th century’s material culture (meaning its Logic of an Electrified/Telegraphic Society), which fulfilled his metaphysical needs, while simultaneously introducing something like a black box unconscious of the Unconscious into the World as its Psychotope.

Hopkins Stanley

Related Content

The title’s rhetorical question is a tautology. After all, it's evident that when we dream, our bedroom transforms into a space that’s magically filled with all kinds of creatures. In this sense, the engaging little experiment showcased in our short video simply translates our dreamwork into daylight. If we must insist that artificial intelligence is not the creation of some alien, hostile force, it’s because this misconception has long become endemic. When commentators go so far as to view AI as a singularity, a trans-humanist super-intelligence—or worse, a new biological species—they are operating under a profound misunderstanding. This misunderstanding mainly arises because the History of Digitization has remained a blank page thus far. This is why we will present our readers with chapters detailing the events that have shaped the style and spirit of this history over the next few weeks. Our failure to confront this history and its implications for so long may explain the discomfort many of us feel as we contemplate the consequences of this revolution in our lives. Reflecting on the progress made in recent years, driven by projects like OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, and Ollama, it's clear that our working world—indeed, the capitalist value system itself—is facing the crisis Nietzsche described as the devaluation of values. However, in our case, we are dealing with an economic rather than a moral logic of devaluation. Instead of seeking comfort in doomsday rhetoric, it makes much more sense to dare to look in the mirror. While you may encounter your own nightmares, on the other hand, you’re also confronting a dream machine—one that can produce the most wondrous results.

Eigentlich läuft die rhetorische Frage des Titels auf eine Tautologie hinaus. Denn es ist evident, dass, wenn wir träumen, unser Schlafzimmer der Ort ist, der, ganz von selbst, von allen erdenklichen Wesen animiert ist. In diesem Sinn ist auch das kleine, höchst unterhaltsame Experiment, dass sich in diesem kleinen Video niedergeschlagen hat, nichts anderes als eine in die Tageshelle übersetzte Traumarbeit. Wenn man gleichwohl darauf beharren muss, dass die Gebilde der Künstlichen Intelligenz nicht auf eine fremde, feindliche Macht zurückgehen, so weil dieses Missverständnis längst endemisch geworden ist. Wenn sich Kommentatoren dazu versteigen, in der KI eine Singularity, eine transhumanistische Superintelligenz – oder ärger noch: eine neuartige biologische Spezies zu erblicken, hat man es mit einem tiefen Missverständnis zu tun. Dieses Missverständnis rührt nicht zuletzt daher, dass die Geschichte der Digitalisierung bis heute eine Leerstelle geblieben ist – weswegen wir in den nächsten Wochen unseren Lesern die Kapitel präsentieren werden, die in dieser Geschichte stil- und geistprägend sind. Dass man sich dieser Geschichte – und ihren Implikationen - so lange nicht gestellt hat, mag das Unbehagen erklären, das die meisten Zeitgenossen heimsucht, wenn sie darüber nachdenken, welche Folgen diese Revolution für ihr eigenes Leben haben mag. Schaut man sich die Fortschritte an, die sich in den letzten Jahren (forciert durch Projekte wie OpenAI, Claude oder Gemini oder Ollama) Bahn gebrochen haben, ist evident, dass unsere Arbeitswelt, ja, das kapitalistische Wertesystem hier vor jener Bewährungskrise steht, die Nietzsche als Entwertung der Werte gefasst hat, nur dass man es in diesem Falle nicht mit einer moralischen, sondern einer durchaus ökonomischen Entwertungslogik zu tun hat. Anstatt hier Trost in einem Weltuntergangsvokabular zu suchen, ist es sehr viel sinnvoller, den Blick in den Spiegel zu wagen. Mag sein, dass man hier den eigenen Alpträumen begegnen, anderseits hat man es mit einer Traummaschine zu tun – die ganz wunderbare Ergebnisse zeitigen kann.

Related Content / Themenverwandt

Who comes up with something like that? (Carmela Soprano)

It's been a good two years since we entered the world of AI-generated images, and during this time, tools like DALL-E and Leonardo.ai have become familiar companions in image production. And during this period, we’ve been exploring the artistic capabilities of our own Company Machine, the in-house metaphor machine we developed, which can translate texts and conversations into truly surprising images from scratch. This is why we were very curious to test the much-hyped Google VEO software, using images from our Company Machine that are pretty unusual themselves. Here is a little demonstration of what you can count on in the future. Count on? No, that's the wrong word. It might be more appropriate to speak of the anticipation of a magic mirror that translates what it receives into gestures—amounting to nothing less than the complete unleashing of the Imagination’s power. The following is the result of a compilation of a fun day Hopkins, Martin, and I spent together trying to teach this ex nihilo Image World to walk.

Related Content

At a time when productivity theater, task masking, and sham production have become commonplace, it is clear that we’re facing a profound crisis of work, indeed, of everything considered valuable in our society. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that the principle of performance itself has come under criticism. This crisis has drawn our attention to Daniel Markovits, whose work explores whether the widely revered meritocracy is actually a trap. Consider that the term meritocracy was coined just over sixty years ago, suggesting that this could mark the beginning of the gradual erosion of its meaning. Because the Ivy League university system, whose tuition fees increase each year—so much so that it's questionable whether many students could ever repay them with their ›hands,‹ or more accurately, with their minds—favors only those who have access to the necessary financial resources, while excluding those born into less comfortable circumstances. As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that we’re currently dealing with an incestuous ruling class in which our elite universities exhibit the characteristics of a closed society primarily focused on self-reproduction. Nevertheless, it seems that this pale cast of thought is affecting the students and graduates of these elite institutions. Why else would it be seen as good form to portray oneself as demonstratively overworked compared to those in lower castes? This brings us back to where we began: the question of whether all this might be a significant productivity charade against our discontent with Modernity.

Daniel Markovits (born August 4, 1969) is the Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the founding director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. His book The Meritocracy Trap was named one of the best books of 2019 by The Times.

Related Content