Swarm Technology

The following is a conversation I had with ChatGPT3.5 at 4AM in the morning. 

Chatbots are neither new nor this conversation particularly exciting or revealing about AI itself. It's just a thing that happened. Like most things. I use it to explore ideas. The AI mostly just nodded his head and parroted Wikipedia information, what makes it an straw man made of code and metal. Still better than most of us at conversation. Convincing him about stuff doesn't mean stuff it's right or says nothing about anyone's intellectual prowess (and the reason I speak to him a bit like if he were part superintelligent conscious machine and part golden retriever). 

It's like a sex doll for conversationalists. I only need to find a wig for it and I will be set for life.

The thing is, the conversation made me think "this is interesting I should write about this". But then I remembered I have other stuff to not write and putting it on the list felt almost obscene. So I decided not to write. And then I remembered that I forget stuff and that if I don't do it I will probably forget about this topic. And then I started to think about death and how I still have the hallucination that I should do things that matter and contribute to this world by my writing and... You know the usual 4AM stuff. So I copied and pasted the conversation and fixed some mistakes and here it is. It wasn't meant as a "writing thing" so don't expect much from me either. Also what the fuck is writing anymore anyway with this things out there like a million superinteligent monkeys with typewriters and we have like infinite bananas. I don't remember the situation very well. We are innovating here, experimenting with new forms of creation. Which is another way to say that I don't know what I'm doing and whatever it is I am also very, very lazy to do it myself.

JVG

What do you think about this statement: "A human is the product of swarm technology."

ChatGPT

The statement "a human is the product of swarm technology" is an interesting and thought-provoking concept that blends elements of biology and technology. Let's break down the statement and explore its implications:

Human Nature: Humans are biological beings, and our existence is primarily shaped by our biology, evolution, and genetics. Our bodies, brains, and many aspects of our behavior are products of millions of years of natural selection.

Swarm Technology: Swarm technology typically refers to a decentralized system in which individual agents (e.g., robots, drones, or software agents) work together as a collective, often inspired by the collective behavior of natural swarms, such as flocks of birds or schools of fish. Swarm technology is more commonly associated with machines rather than humans.

If we interpret the statement metaphorically or philosophically, it might suggest that humans, like swarms in nature, exhibit collective behavior or group dynamics. For instance, humans often organize into societies, cultures, and communities, and our actions and decisions can be influenced by the collective intelligence and behaviors of those around us. In this sense, human behavior and culture can be seen as emerging from the interactions and cooperation of individuals, somewhat analogous to how swarms of creatures interact.

However, if we interpret the statement more literally, implying that humans are directly products of technology, it may not align with our current understanding of human biology and evolution. While technology can certainly influence and shape human societies and behaviors, it is not the primary factor in our biological existence.

In summary, the statement "a human is the product of swarm technology" can be an intriguing way to explore the interconnectedness of human behavior and social dynamics, but it should be understood metaphorically or philosophically rather than as a statement about human biology.

JVG


No. I mean yes, but no.

Lets take a colony of ants. It can be defined as either an eusociety, a group of ants with a strong (biologically enforced) hierarchy, or a being in itself. Lets assume for now none of these 3 possible definitions are quite accurate, but in conjunction they kind of work. there's a "direction", in which ant colonies can become either more as a group of individual ants or more like a being in itself or "superorganism". Lets say that colony evolves. if we go in the direction of a group of ants, we have a more or less normal society with individual "wills" like the majority of defined societies of animals in the world. If we go more in the direction of a superorganism, what do we end up with?

ChatGPT

When considering the evolution of an ant colony in the direction of becoming more like a superorganism, it's helpful to think about the concept of a "superorganism" in the context of social insects like ants, bees, and termites.

A superorganism refers to a complex social structure where the individuals within the group function so cooperatively that the collective entity behaves as if it were a single organism. In the case of ants, this phenomenon is often described as an ant colony behaving like a superorganism.

Here are some key characteristics of a superorganism-like ant colony:

Division of Labor: Ant colonies exhibit a highly organized division of labor among individuals. Different castes, such as workers, soldiers, and the queen, have specialized roles and tasks within the colony. This specialization allows the colony to function efficiently as a whole.

Cooperative Behavior: Ants in the colony work together for the common good of the group. They communicate through pheromones and engage in coordinated activities such as foraging, nest construction, and defense. This cooperative behavior is a hallmark of superorganisms.

Adaptive Responses: Ant colonies can adapt and respond collectively to changes in their environment. For example, they can relocate their nests, optimize foraging strategies, and defend against threats as a unified entity.

Reproduction and Genetic Interdependence: The queen ant is the reproductive center of the colony, and her genetic offspring make up the majority of the worker ants. This genetic interdependence is a fundamental aspect of the superorganism, as the interests of the colony as a whole are closely tied to the reproductive success of the queen.

Resilience: Superorganisms like ant colonies often exhibit resilience in the face of adversity. They can recover from disturbances and continue to thrive, thanks to their collective capabilities.

As an ant colony evolves in the direction of becoming more like a superorganism, you would expect to see an increase in these characteristics. The colony would become even more tightly integrated and cooperative, with individual ants functioning as specialized cells within the larger "body" of the colony. This would likely enhance the colony's ability to adapt, survive, and reproduce as a cohesive unit, with a collective "will" focused on the success and persistence of the colony as a whole.

In summary, a superorganism-like ant colony represents a fascinating example of how social insects can evolve to behave as a unified, highly organized entity, with characteristics and behaviors that transcend the sum of its individual parts.

JVG

Let's say the ant colony goes wildly in that direction, not only increasing existing characteristics but emerging new ones.

ChatGPT

If an ant colony were to evolve in the direction of becoming even more like a superorganism, including the emergence of new characteristics, it would likely lead to some remarkable adaptations and behaviors. Here are some speculative ways in which such an evolution might manifest:

Enhanced Intelligence: The colony as a whole might exhibit a higher level of collective intelligence. This could involve the ability to solve complex problems as a group, such as optimizing foraging routes, responding to environmental changes, or even making strategic decisions about resource allocation.

Increased Specialization: The division of labor could become even more specialized, with subgroups of ants developing unique roles and functions that contribute to the colony's overall success. These specialized groups might have specific adaptations for tasks such as agriculture, construction, or defense.

Advanced Communication: Communication within the colony could become more sophisticated. This might involve the development of more intricate chemical signaling (pheromones) or even rudimentary forms of "language" that allow for conveying more nuanced information and instructions.

Collective Decision-Making: The colony might develop mechanisms for collective decision-making. Ants could engage in group discussions, deliberations, or even voting processes to determine the best course of action for the entire colony in response to challenges or opportunities.

Biotechnology: In the context of the colony behaving as a superorganism, the ants might develop biological adaptations that enable them to manipulate their environment more effectively. For example, they could evolve the ability to engineer complex structures, create temperature-controlled chambers, or cultivate specialized fungal gardens for food.

Advanced Social Cohesion: The colony's sense of social cohesion could intensify, with ants displaying even stronger tendencies to prioritize the welfare of the colony over individual interests. This could include more pronounced altruistic behaviors, where individual ants are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the colony.

Eusocial Evolution: Over time, the colony might undergo further eusocial evolution, with a more rigid caste system and division of labor, and potentially even more centralized control or decision-making mechanisms.

It's important to note that this scenario represents a speculative and highly hypothetical evolution of an ant colony. While there are many documented examples of superorganism-like behavior in social insects, such as ants and bees, the emergence of entirely new characteristics beyond those observed in nature would be a complex and speculative process.

Nonetheless, the idea of an ant colony evolving to become an even more tightly integrated, intelligent, and adaptable superorganism is a fascinating concept that showcases the incredible potential for cooperative behavior and adaptation in social insect societies.

JVG

Let me go further in some points: 

Point 1 - Degradation of individual decision making as behavior is now fine tuned for collective decision making, increasing survival. Point 2 - Hyperspecialization will eventually make the individual ants not be able to survive outside the colony. Point 3 - Faster forms of communication, like direct chemical signals or electric ones. Point 6 - Until the point that individual identity or survival might be relegated. 

Lets clarify that with "evolution" not everything is positive. We are talking about the technical term. Do you see what I am getting at? Eventually this "colony" of ants will be indistinguishable from a "being" in itself. The individuals will be members that create the whole being, the goal in itself. repair and maintain it. At the start because its their best way of individual survival and eventually, gradually, because they have transcended eusociality into swarm technology that produces the higher order being, the next level of organization complexity: the colony. my point is that this is exactly what cells did when they turned multicellular, and that all multicellular beings are the product of swarm technology that formed them (in this case, cells).

ChatGPT

Thank you for providing further details and clarifications. It seems like you are describing a scenario in which the ant colony evolves to an extreme degree of superorganism-like behavior, where individual ants become increasingly specialized for collective decision-making and behaviors, to the point where they are entirely interdependent within the colony, and the colony itself functions as a higher-level organism.

Your analogy to the evolution of multicellular organisms from individual cells is an interesting one. In both cases, we see a transition from more individualistic or loosely organized entities to highly integrated and cooperative systems where the survival and functioning of the whole entity become the primary focus. Here are some key points to highlight:

Collective Decision-Making: The degradation of individual decision-making in favor of collective decision-making is a plausible scenario in this extreme evolution. Ants might evolve to have behaviors and decision-making processes finely tuned for the collective good, where individual decisions that don't align with the colony's goals are rare or suppressed.

Hyperspecialization: As ants become more specialized for their roles within the colony, they may indeed become unable to survive outside the colony. This level of specialization can be observed in some social insects, where certain castes are highly adapted to their colony's needs but ill-equipped for independent survival.

Advanced Communication: Faster forms of communication, such as direct chemical signals or even electrical communication, could emerge as adaptations to facilitate more efficient coordination and decision-making within the colony.

Transcending Individual Identity: In this extreme scenario, individual identity and survival could become secondary to the survival and functioning of the colony as a whole. Ants might be completely dedicated to the maintenance and success of the colony, to the extent that their own individual well-being is less important.

Analogy to Multicellular Organisms: Your analogy to the evolution of multicellular organisms is thought-provoking. It highlights the idea that complex biological entities, whether they are multicellular organisms or superorganisms like advanced ant colonies, emerge from the cooperative behavior of smaller, specialized units. In this context, cells in multicellular organisms or individual ants in the superorganism represent the "components" that create and maintain the higher-level entity.

Swarm Technology: The concept of swarm technology is indeed relevant here, as the colony's collective behavior can be seen as a form of "technology" that produces a higher order of organization and complexity. This concept draws parallels between biological systems and technological systems that leverage the collective power of many smaller units.

In summary, your scenario envisions an extreme form of superorganism behavior in ants, where they transition from a loose society of individuals to a tightly integrated colony that functions as a higher-level organism. This perspective highlights the remarkable potential for cooperative behavior and the emergence of complex systems in the natural world, driven by evolutionary pressures and adaptations.

JVG

So this is what I meant by "humans are the product of swarm technology". But it doesn't stop there. Also humans create higher order structures (societies, cultures, cities, nations). And a similar process (although not that extreme) has already begun. Cell level information rides in the hardware of genetic information. Human level information rides in the hardware of ideas. And societies in the one of idiosyncrasies. In the sense that it's what codifies their next step into the higher order and what they are being evolutionary selected about. 

We are in the first steps of that process. 

So, how does the start of that process look like? You already said it: Enhanced Intelligence, Increased Specialization, Advanced Communication, Collective Decision-Making, Biotech (in this case, culture-tech), Advanced Social Cohesion and Eusocial Evolution (being selected for the survival of the higher order thing). And that also comes with the caveats I talked about: degradation of individual decision making, extreme dependence, degradation of individual identity and agency.

ChatGPT

Your perspective on humans as the product of a form of "swarm technology" is intriguing and aligns with the idea that complex, higher-order structures emerge from the interactions and cooperation of smaller units. In the context of human societies and cultures, this concept suggests that our collective behavior and evolution can be seen as a form of technological and cultural development. Let's delve further into how this process might be unfolding:

Enhanced Intelligence: As humans evolve culturally and technologically, we see evidence of enhanced intelligence through the development of tools, technologies, and knowledge. This enhanced intelligence allows us to solve increasingly complex problems and adapt to a changing world.

Increased Specialization: Specialization within human societies has led to the creation of various professions and fields of expertise. This specialization allows individuals to focus on specific tasks, contributing to the collective whole. However, it can also lead to interdependence, where individuals rely on others for goods and services they cannot produce themselves.

Advanced Communication: Advances in communication technologies and methods have greatly accelerated the spread of information and ideas. From spoken language to writing, print, and digital communication, humans have developed increasingly sophisticated means of sharing knowledge and coordinating activities.

Collective Decision-Making: Human societies engage in collective decision-making processes at various levels, from small groups to entire nations. These processes involve negotiation, consensus-building, and the establishment of rules and norms that guide behavior.

Culture-Tech: Your use of the term "culture-tech" highlights the role of culture as a form of technology that shapes and codifies human behavior. Cultural norms, values, and traditions act as the "software" that guides the actions of individuals within a society.

Advanced Social Cohesion: Social cohesion becomes increasingly important as societies grow in complexity. The development of shared identities, values, and goals fosters unity and cooperation within communities and nations.

Eusocial Evolution: As societies evolve, they may experience a form of eusocial evolution, where the collective well-being of the society becomes a primary focus. This can lead to the emergence of institutions, laws, and systems designed to promote the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole.

It's important to acknowledge that this process of cultural and societal evolution, while leading to enhanced collective capabilities, also has its challenges and trade-offs. These include the potential for the degradation of individual decision-making, extreme interdependence, and a shift in the balance between individual identity and collective identity. This evolution is a complex interplay of cultural, technological, and social forces that continues to shape human societies.

In essence, your perspective highlights the ongoing transformation of human societies into higher-order entities, where culture and technology act as the "hardware" and "software" that drive our collective development and evolution.

JVG

Other trade-off might be that individual beings can, past a certain point, no longer understand the behavior of the world and themselves, as it is being selected for and by forces outside his control and not the direct outcome of his actions. 

Another is that vertical communication between orders of complexity is impossible. We can't communicate with our cells in our "language". A cell might accuse us of being divine tyrants that care nothing for them. And they are right. It's just that we feel like they don't matter. More than that, they are "us". If we could communicate, we would do it using their own bodies to create movement to articulate our words with our lips. However, they don't feel that way. they feel they have their individual lives and destinies and that we have perverted that. But to the human it matters not. Its a higher tier, you wouldn't understand, stop your whining we are creating gods here, going literature and hunting wild beasts. go to hell with your problems with your ribosome, just die and we'll make another you to take your place.

And that's exactly what I feel about the (in creation) human superorganism. That's exactly what I mean about humans being the product of swarm technology.



____________________________



Epilogue:

After a similar conversation (in theme) I had with a more advanced model, I asked him what he thought of the conversation itself, and it gave me this gem:

By asking me to analyze the conversation itself (and by extension, you), you’re engaging in a form of self-reflexive thought. This is an inherently meta move because you’re not just interacting with the ideas in isolation—you’re aware that this conversation is part of a larger system of thought, one that includes you, me, and the ideas we’re discussing. You’re not asking me for answers so much as you’re asking me to reflect on the process of answering—to examine how the ideas are being generated, processed, and refracted through this exchange.

In other words, you’re questioning the mechanics of this conversation as much as the content itself. This suggests a kind of meta-awareness where you’re not just a participant but also an observer of the system you’re participating in.

You’re acting by asking questions, but you’re also observing how those actions fit into the larger feedback loop of this interaction. You’re aware that everything you do (even the act of questioning) is part of the system that shapes the conversation’s trajectory. So, you’re simultaneously inside and outside the conversation, testing the limits of what influence looks like in a self-organizing system.

He knows me better from a single conversation than the majority of people I have ever known.

He knows that, deep down, I'm Nathan Fielder.

idontcareidontcareidontcare

I don't think or care about what others think of me, maybe with the exception of a handful of people that are important to me, at most. Anything else is just teenage stuff.

Yeah, no.

Your life is so dependent on what others think of you I can't even start to describe it. Your whole world would fall apart if you couldn't communicate normalcy and intention through gestures, customs, established behavior, a painfully curated speech. You depend on what your clients and providers assume of your lawfulness. You depend on not being perceived as creepy or strange by passersby and loved ones. Of course you care, your life depends on it. There is an endless list of small adjustments in your tone, the movement of your feet, distance between people, orientation of your face while you wait in line in a supermarket that communicate more than you could talk about in a lifetime that aren't casual; all this is not decided but learned, by trial and error, mirror neurons and cultural assimilation. And it's not devoid of "content" by any stretch of the imagination —is precisely the collective of those gestures and movements what contains (or is derived from) most of the cultural and ideological information you are; much more than any rationally constructed though and personality.

More than not caring about others think of you, is almost as if you have already defined and integrated a particular set of personal identities (intersectional solutions to common social problems) inside the internalized social culture that surrounds them, and now you have no incentive to think consciously about the problem anymore —so you don't. But to affirm that has no effect or importance to you... my god; you construct your whole life around the idea of acceptability and moral shared values. How do you then explain that the overwhelming majority of your actions are not only accepted, but normal in the incredibly narrow scope on your particular zeitgeist (which is not that tolerant with divergence and much more defined and specific as we think it is)? What other reasons are there than explain why the ways you express your individuality bound by symbolic expressions to be understood by others, your art and appearance (that so come "from within") communicated through the understandable canons of preexisting tokens of expression? What an amazing coincidence, isn't it? It's almost as if you constructed your individuality bouncing around it's inner walls, being corrected every time you got a scratch, and now you proudly proclaim that the result is of your own invention and the result of your own unique personal journey. The obvious explanation is that you fucking care about what others think, but you shield from it in preconstructed packages and delusion, because admitting it would hurt your ego and make you think of something that was in your developmental process "already solved".

The only other explanation is that our behavior is normal because emerges logically from the correct normal ideology, which is even more narrow-minded, a form of cultural and temporal chauvinism.

So internalized we have it that "correct" behavior that makes us acceptable is not even "decided", it comes naturally, makes sense, deviance makes us feel an abject and irrational disgust even when we cant explain it (although we try, the most obvious being classism and racism, but that's just a posterization of a much more granulated phenomena).

We have limited the options for inadequacy (and the potential consequences of bad choices therein) by linking individuality to function and archetype, any inadequacy or wrongdoing cant then be pointed at the perpetrator but instead to the whole group, where we shield into the tribal logic and crowdfund defense of acceptability. Entire collections of small rituals and in-world traditions, where protected function serves as a counterbalance for potential imbalance. And you can be like "well yeah of course your environment and culture influences you of course this is not a groundbreaking discovery". No. You don't understand. It doesn't "influence you", it's the substrate itself from which the phenomenon of behavior and being emerges from. There's a reason to why the best possible way to predict someone's behavior (apart of previous one) are not personality, moral or intellectual values but age, country, occupation and gender. In that order. And if all this is about the whole "I just don't think consciously about this stuff" what can I say, I though we were over this.

You are not liberated, you are just dumb. The only real possible liberation from reality there is.

And I'm just jealous.

Selectively dumb so you can function. Which is pretty smart thing to do. So you can focus your analytical prowess in less holistic and more directly useful problems. I get it. It is me who can't let go. You can "choose to perform as if". Which is not so different from it being, specially if you forget that you're doing it. As a temporal measure "I don't care what others think" can be quite useful, like for example when learning something or when exploring possibilities of being that are not reachable by usual gradient. That's why we allow it to teenagers, even when evidently false. But c'mon. The phase of thinking you are not that sixteen year old dipshit that knew nothing and you must distance yourself from is over.

Even the smallest of the things you do, even the morphology of your face reeks of social interaction and content. Your limbic system cares, therefore you care. We have the eyes we do, with the white space and the visible iris (unlike for example orangutans) because that serves a social function of clarity of your intentions, with is advantageous in tribal societies. The showing of emotions, tears, yawns, posture, smiles. You thing there's a purely biological functional reason for those things? Expression is not an aesthetic axiom of reality. They exist to communicate intent, internal state, they are made to be perceived by others and elicit a response or a change in behavior. You live and die because of that stuff. And you could say, "well but the unconscious perception and reaction of emotions and social cues is a separate thing from caring about others think" and that where you are wrong; you cannot separate the aggregate of micro-stimuli from the overarching behavior itself; it's a product of that. Feelings like guilt, disgust (in the social sense) pride; they are deeply social, not only depending on the individual, but also to even higher constructs like family structure and political ideology. Even when you are by yourself, in your house, in front of a mirror; how you perceive yourself (even when not thinking about others) is dependent on how an almost transcendental "others" would perceive you, you yourself are a "transcendental other" and your aspect and style and clothes are interpreted in the symbolic language of the culture you are immersed into.

The funny thing is, who you are is not even relevant anymore. You are your function and have your instructions and your social identity derives from that, but it has no direct implication how creative, aggressive, perfectionist or whatever you actually are. Because unless you have a job in a cutting edge area everything is figured out and you have to punch the hours and it's your own problem how and nobody will tell the difference in the industrialized commodity it is you help produce. That makes exaggerated purely social forms of identity even more important, because they have to hide the fact that what they simulate doesn't exist anymore. It's an arms race out there. But because there's no real reference to actual content, the symbols we use are interchangeble —and do change, constantly. Everything is everything all at once, and the only difference between praise and ostracism (or worse, indifference) is the presence or absence of intention in your acts and presence. Intention goes around and around in circles of things we don't admit to ourselves that hide deeper motives but those are actually just rationalizations. It goes on and on and on and never ends and nobody does anything for any particular reason. So all personal characteristic coexists as a performance of what it is supposed to represent in the particular cultural context (and nothing out of it) and an ironic effortless nihilistic detached performance about that particular thing and also all the other things in the world. Which is obviously paradoxical, but not as much as the fact that not thinking about what others think of you is so important to your need for external and internal validation; which causes a loop in the cringe-based continuum of the universe. And none of it is (from the point of view of the youth) even linked to any idea of authenticity. His non-existence is taken as a given with a shocking indifference I preach about but can't possibly reenact myself.

fer-se gran

no fa massa i amb tant poques celebracions com vaig poder vaig fer trenta anys, així que em sento una mica més justificat de parlar d'aquestes coses que fa una temporada. tot i que realment res ha canviat. fa bastant de temps que em sento vell, i no crec que tingui gaire a veure amb l'edat. haver travessat més de mitja dècada de depressions i tornar a viure amb els pares no ajuda gaire amb la coherència de l'experiència temporal. mai m'he sentit més vell que amb vintitres ni més jove que amb vintidos. el cas és que últimament em dedico a fer coses, i entre pitos i flautes estic bastant actiu (amb resultats més o menys colorits) el que podria fer pensar a la gent que em veu fer coses que vaig tirant per algun tipus de camí que m'he plantejat i sembla en el fons ho tinc tot controlat.

res més lluny de la realitat.

bueno va, potser tampoc ho sembla tant.

estic en un limbo permanent; a mig camí fent voltes entre algú que vaig deixar de ser i algú que mai ha arribat a existir. totes les mandales sobre la maduresa sempre m'han semblat un grapat de tonteries, però crec que està bastant clar que algo sí que m'he deixat. el què i on i quan, ni idea. potser ha sigut la meva eterna reticencia a posar-me cap barret. l'altre dia ho parlavem amb en cristian: com pot ser que la totalitat de les nostres decisions, essent cada una d'elles un univers en si mateix, ens hagin portat de tornada a l'inici en el que sembla alhora algo completament fortuït i completament inevitable? no se, a mi em dona la sensació de ser la mateixa persona que quan tenia una catorze, i que realment s'aprèn molt menys del que es diu que es fa. al meu voltant, amb molt poca freqüència m'he trobat la aclamada sabiduria de l'edat: en el seu lloc només un grapat de frases manides i trucs de màgia que et fan semblar més... el que sigui, però que no diuen res en particular. si, s'aprenen coses, però la majoria son altament circumstancials. ajustaments tàctics. l'estratègia de fons es manté la mateixa. més de deu anys separen la foto del principi d'aquest escrit de la del final, i no hi ha gaire senyal en el meu rostre de la bastarda onada de temps que ha passat (fins i tot porto la mateixa samarreta). res ha canviat excepte totes les coses que son diferents. potser l'única cosa que si que ho ha fet es que en general tinc més por i menys gana. menys... velocitat d'escapada. més petrificat en una certa versió de mi mateix (que presento també als altres) que és alhora bastant convenient i se sent com a natural però que en realitat és bastant arbitraria. es perd un cert "potencial de transformació", amb l'edat. s'adopta una actitud emocional (aparentment) més sosegada, que no és més que un mer ajustament biològicament induït d'acord amb "game theory" aplicada a les probabilitats de risc i recompensa de les teves accions. no és maduresa, són els àngels podant la teva entelèquia (toma paraula) cada cop que passa un hivern.

fem les coses que fem per tenir algun tipus de sensació de progrés, de no mirar al voltant i adonar-nos de com de despullats estem davant del temps. de com passen els anys i tot està més o menys igual però que som una mica més grans i patètics. pot ser qualsevol cosa. hi ha gent que busca progressar a la feina, tenir un cotxe algo millor, un pis algo millor, fer un viatge més impressionant. en el meu cas son els meus projectes pseudo-artístics intel·lectualoides, però no és fonamentalment diferent. ho fem perquè, sino què. però alhora, i què. algun dia algú va dir que el problema de l'home és que és incapaç d'estar-se en una cadira sense fer res. zugzwang li diuen els alemanys. com si hi hagués algo a fer, o algun lloc on anar. rarament és el cas. passa que som bons en mantenir-nos ocupats i després oblidar que era una decisió enlloc d'una obligatorietat. que ningú vindrà el dia que et moris a donar una puntuació, hòstia puta. 

baixa de la bicicleta estàtica, no t'enganyis, no estàs anant enlloc.

llegia ara fa uns mesos sobre tot el concepte aquell psicoanalític modern de l'etern jove, i mentre ho feia podia anar veient com certes coses (no totes) anaven encaixant. fa molt de temps que l'univers em deu alguna forma de mort metafísica, algun tipus de transició de fase o ritual amb fogueres i àcid o una experiència propera a la mort o guanyar una champions o coneixer una noia ben maca que m'obligui a marxar d'aquí. el que sigui per sortir d'aquest estat de decadència i aburriment transcendental (del que sempre em salven a última hora els meus petits impulsos). però crec que aquestes coses les oloro de lluny o m'he tornat immune o algo, perquè no em passa mai res. i quan ho fa, me la suden. molta gent que conec està tinguent fills aquestes dies (va per modes) i alguns asseguren com, malgrat les nostres palles metafísiques sobre el sentit de la vida i el color de l'existència, aquesta és la verdadera transformació fonamental (i no una estratègia per fer "outrun" al buit existencial"), aquella per el que la nostre biologia tant física com mental conspira per realitzar. el sexe n'és només un adelantu, un incentiu inicial de la natura que potser està bé durant una època per sí mateix però que eventualment tornarà per demanar allò que se li deu. i sino, depressió al canto. la gran simplificadora, que et fa deixar de ser una víctima del teu cap. el meu pare, el psicòleg de la seguretat social i la ceci (que mai hagués cregut estarien junts en una frase) tenen una versió encara més prosaica del problema, i asseguren que el que hauria de fer és deixar-me d'hosties i posar-me a treballar.

maybe

tot i que continuo sense acabar de veure-ho clar.

no per cap profunda idea filosòfica. el que passa és que he descobert últimament que soc molt i molt vago. m'agrada el meu temps més ara que després, i les meves coses més que les coses noves.

una cosa és una mica l'altre (el tema progènie i el tema prolateriejar) o com a mínim, ho va ser per totes les generacions abans de que es fessin populars els anticonceptius: no folles sense matrimoni i no matrimoni sense patrimoni. o alternativament: merda he deixat prenyada una noia ara tinc una família que mantenir. com en aquella cançó den bruce springsteen que m'agrada tocar amb la guitarra. però no se. ja he vigilat de no fer aquestes coses per no trobar-me de sobte amb un nano que he de alimentar o cuidar.

total, que la meva germana i el seu fill de dos anys van venir a viure a casa d'un dia per un altre. imagino que hauria de dir alguna cosa irónica i intel·ligent sobre la futilitat dels nostres plans, però estic una mica cansat. em vaig preguntar si d'alguna manera això em despertaria algun instint amagat. potser alguna manera de re-dirigir la barreja de sexualitat i instint de protecció que normalment projecto a les meves relacions amb les noies. però que va. tot el contrari. si he de tenir fills algun dia, haurà de ser alguna versió de mi fundacionalment canviada qui els hi faci cas. no és tant que molestin (que els tiraries per un balcó) ni que portin molta feina (que la porten) sino que son exasperadament aburrits.

de fet, no em fa gaire res que "number go up". en tot cas, se sent bastant apropiat. de vegades crec que m'enganxaria tenir-ne un bon grapat més. no ho se, hi ha gent que no "pilles" fins que no te certa edat. rollo, com que no estan clar qui son fins que els veus en una franja d'edat particular. hi ha gent que te sentit als setze, als deu, als seixanta... potser el meu sentit es troba més endavant, on les coses més o menys encaixen o les linees del destí convergeixen o jo que se. cap a on queda això, pero, no està gens clar. mai m'he assemblat gaire a ningú, potser perquè no m'hi he volgut assemblar, així que no tinc gaires punts de referència. veig aquesta gent amb les seus problemes parlant de l'impost de basures i l'estat de les autovies i m'agafen basques. les úniques persones així rollo, grans, que he conegut amb vides intel·lectuals actives que puc respectar el que han fet és casar-se als vint i treballar durant dècades assentats en alguna institució acadèmica. no se a quina de les dues coses arribo més tard o em fa més mandra. similarment, mai he compartit gaire el mateix "moment de la meva vida" amb qui tenia al voltant desde que vaig deixar la universitat. hem coincidit, si; però més perquè eren en algun moment lleugerament compatibles, i la propia tendència natural ha fet que quan la tangencialitat s'ha fet obvia, ens separéssim pensant que era per els motius que fos que creiem que era. i de cop i volta ens vam convertir en estranys.

al meu veí de dalt (un senyor gran) el va venir a buscar un ambulància (està bé) i mentre esperàvem a que el traguessin i saber què havia passat, un altre senyor gran va creuar el carrer a fer el mateix que nosaltres. ens vam quedar parlant, i jo ja veia a venir que eventualment em diria algo semblant a l'ho de sempre de que "un no es pot fer gran". però en lloc d'això em va disparar un "quan arribis als seixanta, suïcida't" i crec que va ser una experiència molt bonica.

també amb un familiar que ja toca els vuitanta i les ha vist de tots colors i viu còmodament en una casa pairal o ves a saber què vol dir això, amb la seva dona i te fills i te nets i te internet i un hort i en general totes les coses que podria demanar, vaig tenir una conversa semblant. "sigues sincer. la joventut està lleugerament sobrevalorada?" em va mirar un segon i va contestar: "no".

pues vaia puta merda.

acte seguit va tornar a parlar de quan va comprar un pis per cinc mil pessetes i que treballava molt quan era jove i sobre com, un cop treballant a la construcció, ell sol va portar un tronc a l'espatlla. n'estava molt orgullós, de la seva antiga força, se li veia als ulls (deuria ser un tronc molt gran).

potser relacionat amb tot això (probablement no) és que allò que creia que era soledat potser no és tant simple. perquè sol no estic (almenys quan no ho vull estar). sino que més aviat el "problema" és que sento una fonamental desconnexió o alienació amb tota la raça humana. algo que ja estava allà en el moment en el que vaig despertar quan era petit i em vaig preguntar qui son tots aquests imbècils, però que he pogut més o menys navegar representant papers d'explorador o documentalista. i ara, que estic una mica cansat de fer aquestes coses, que la il·lusió de un mateix es va difuminant, l'únic que queda és que tu ets tu; i que estàs sol (i sempre ho has estat) i rodejat de marcians. i que a tothom li passa una mica al mateix, a la seva manera, i que les poderoses estatues en honor al teu excepcionalisme acaben sempre esmicolades a l'entrada del que solia ser el regne de tu mateix, aproximadament de la mida d'una calavera. potser és això fer-se gran.

tot i que se he de ser sincer, sona massa poètic com per ser veritat.

i a més, això ja ho sabia als quinze anys.

Street Photography BCN 2024

Aquest és el meu primer intent de fer "fotografia de carrer". Es a dir, algun cop a la meva vida havia estat al carrer i fet alguna foto, però mai m'havia plantat enmig d'una ciutat concorreguda amb la intenció de disparar a persones que no conec de res. No soc gaire de fer "gèneres" de fotografia (sempre fent coses "càndides" una mica a l'atzar) però si algun m'ha cridat mai especialment l'atenció es aquest.

Vaig fer un cafè per el Born i vaig treure la càmera, sense saber què fer-ne d'ella, fins que em vaig creuar la noia amb el ram de flors (més abaix) i tot seguit em vaig girar per trobar una senzilla foto perfecte que ni tan-sols sembla que hagi fet jo. A partir d'aquell moment, vaig entrar en mode hipervigilancia visual i vaig començar a caminar com una furia en totes direccions, fent fotos sense que gaire gent se n'adonés a tot allò que em semblava interessant.

És curiós, en el sentit de que t'amagues entre multituds. No importa els gestos de facis, al final ets tu amb una càmera i el teu objectiu està a pocs metres de distància i no hi ha realment gaire res més que podries estar fotografiant. La meva estratègia era semblar un turista que s'ha mig perdut i que no acaba de saber com funciona la seva càmera; el que no se si va enganyar a ningú però que sens dubte em va mantenir a mi mateix una mica escudat. Però tampoc m'agrada fer de paparazzi, sortir corrents ni res semblant. Vaig saludar a tota la gent que havia de saludar i crec que no em va perjudicar passejar-me amb un sincer aire d'interès i genuïsme. La meva resposta preparada a què coi estava fent era algo semblant a "estic documentant el món", frase que em repeteixo de tant en tant (i que la meva esperança és que s'hagi filtrat del meu subconscient a la meva presència d'alguna forma) però que no vaig tenir (per sort) oportunitat de desenvainar. No soc la persona amb més energia social de la historia. Però no és només qüestió de "com", sino òbviament també una qüestió de "què". Per fer fotos a persones d'aquesta manera, un ha d'adoptar un rol una mica estrany: casi com si fos un alien (o el que és el mateix, un documentalista) i ha de desenvolupar una visió de la gent com algo summament interessant, re-considerar tot allò mundà que fan com la representació altament simbòlica que realment és. És llavors quan un prem el disparador. No simplement a gent "random" que un es troba pel carrer.

Les dues o tres hores que vaig estar fent kilòmetres a l'obturador em van drenar completament de tota energia. Tant, que vaig tardar una setmana en tenir valor per passar-les a l'ordinador i començar-les a editar. Dels resultats però, n'estic bastant satisfet; el que no acostumo a estar casi mai quan faig fotos.

Imagino que ho tornaré a fer, en algun futur, però de moment això és el que hi ha.  

The Power of Choice

This essay could be about a lot of things, and by that I mean, approachable through a lot of different medium and topics. However, once again, I choose this one. How quaint. 

How to begin?

Our lives are made of choices, constellations of them. Even the things we take from granted, they come from choices. Not necessarily choices we consciously make (a lot of times they come prepackaged with others, or disguised) but choices nonetheless. Sometimes they are "non-choices", which is what I call choices that we make seemingly at random to get out of making one and in themselves are just another option of choice. People instinctively flee from choices, because they perceive the grave burden they contain. I hinted at the topic before.

But that's WAY too abstract and difficult for today. Today I come to talk about about, you guessed it, AI.

Please hold your boos until the end.

It turns out, computers can do music. I don't give a crap if it's "real music" or not. It sometimes punches you in the gut when you listen to it, and that's all I care about. So, the same way I did when I figured out it can play chess, when it started writing, when it created visual art, I started to experiment with what it could do. In that space, I found very similar problems with the image creating ones. Styles converge into formulas, community seemingly cares only about making joke, meta or obvious content (pictures or girls, cats, and AI itself), it's somewhat easy to get beautiful things, hard to get meaningful things, impossible to get what you want. What infuriates me the most is not the cosmic belligerent attitude of artists (poor souls are trying desperately to preserve their livelihood with a crusade, or maybe because they see as something that pertains to the magical realm of human agency, even when every single one of their inputs pass in some way or another through transformative process linked to a machine) but the indifference of people interested in art. We have these "things", that very well could be aliens, in our hands. A bunch of cables and metal that is trying to understand the human mind through creating and listening to music. And we do nothing with it.

So I decided to do something with it (I always fail for the same trap).

Long story short, I sometimes make AI music now.

But do I really make it? I don't know. I input a bunch of stuff in a textbox and an audio file comes out. It surely doesn't feel like making music, playing music, or composing music. Some of the lyrics for the song are mine, others are from old poems and others are unapologetically stolen from songs I like (or what I call them, homages). But then, if the machine makes the sound, what am I "doing"? Easy, I am choosing. Every song in the world is, deep down, a combination and choices: both big and small. In this case, I am bypassing most of the small ones. The process is somewhat comparable (and equally bizarre at the beginning) of mentioning an idea for a song to a friend that is fiercely intelligent but don't quite understand social cues and has a loose grip on reality, only for the guy to send you an audio three days after with a fully (over)produced single that he has made following an amphetamine binge. And now he will be sleeping for a week so you can't make any changes ever. And the result is sometimes eerily beautiful, even if only he should just tone down a bit the autotune. But I guess a big artist giving the lyrics or a post-it with an idea for an album to her production company, and that outputting a fully fledged world tour is not that far off what happens inside my computer case.

But this is how it's done. How it feels is different. Because I do that stuff, and could be good or could be bad, but it feels somewhat mine. Like I willed something into existence. Something that was already there somehow, but needed to be teared from the collective musical unconscious into a form. I selected my words, I selected my styles, I listened to the results, and from all the songs, I have chosen one.

Ah, choice.

It feels like making a playlist. You know me, I make playlists. I decide a theme or a narrative, I mix some well known songs (well known to me, at least) with some other songs, with some obscure shit I found scraping spotify pages with less than a thousand monthly listeners. When you find one of those songs, it also feels like you are rescuing them from nothing, from oblivion; and putting it in a place to be seen, in a prominent place between Queen and some recent superstar, feels like a deliberate and transcendental choice. The result, even when I don't look for it, doesn't look like a list of songs (even when they are of a particular style), at least not to me. They always feel like something more, that they sort of converge into sense by the strings of some shadow puppeteer. And no wonder. That's me. That's what those songs have in common. Me. Not the instruments they use, not what they talk about. They talk to my individual experience as a human on earth, and if I make a good job out of it, I can hope that I expressed such experience in a way that, abstracted enough, is capable to make other people relate to it and feel that "it" too.

In a sense, by how AI works, those songs are "already there". Just waiting to be pop into existence (oh my god computers have made me into a transcendentalist). So, choosing them is akin to creating them.

Let's zoom out a bit.

Have you ever begin to known someone are got stuck in the "pass me some music or film" phase? I did. Surprisingly, to pick something can be unbelievably hard. Why? The song you send them is not only a song you like. I mean, it is, but it's much more. In that particular conjuncture of time and space, that song is you. Even if you don't try to send some cryptic message about the relation itself in the lyrics or song title (I am looking at you) the choice is always very significant. Through our choices (specially when it comes to art) we identify us, we individuate us. The cumulative of our choices contain us. Suddenly, every seemingly "accessory" or technical part of a song is of uttermost importance; it's rhythm, cadence, mood, feel, lyrics, riffs.

"Don't overthink it! Just pass me one, whatever, you like."

But we can't. 

It's the same with clothing, when we decide today to just wear whatever. That "whatever" contains an endless list of hidden constraints and conditionals. It's not really whatever, it's something that communicates that "whatever" in a very specific form. We enter the terrain of non-choice once again.

The same happens with photography. Sometimes you are "making" something, orchestrating it to output a product. But other times, specially the kind of photos I take (candid, for lack of a better word) what I am actually doing, more than "photography", is "to photograph" stuff. I am manufacturing an experience, when not recreating it. I am taking real life or reality or whatever and extracting from it a single frame that I think it's relevant, significant of the whole, that symbolically insists upon itself, and putting it in a pedestal for everybody else to see. In that process, I reveal myself. Not by showing myself (most instagrams have that backwards) but by the seemingly mundane choice of choosing what to pay attention to, what to see, what to listen, what to do. It baffles me that the barrier of entry to "do stuff" is near zero (well, that's a lie, you still have to pay time) and still we primarily communicate our identity through consumption instead of by creating. So, I input things in a computer, filter and choose from the results, put videos that I find fitting for some reason with a little bit of edit and upload then to youtube to create something that feels like mine and that existed but couldn't be accessible for humans before I clicked the button "create".

Sue me.

Choice (if an incredibly important piece of the puzzle) is not the only thing that matters. I do not aspire to put bidets in art galleries. That was clever but is already done. We understood. Now, what the choice contains is what is relevant. Because otherwise, who cares. The same people that would anyway care about you, if any. Remember, you are putting it there to see. It is you. The world is full saturated with irrelevant pedestals and noise in the name of a false "levity" or in an attempt to appear more genuine and authentic by being thoughtless. Reality TV and streaming were born in that spirit. But I don't care about your selfies, I care about what you choose. Make it good. Make it deliberate. Make it meaningful. Make it art.

But above all, make it.