Recently read Brian Merchant’s latest piece on the upcoming election, and I felt like making a quick-and-dirty prediction:

If Harris wins, I expect there will be some pretty harsh regulation against Silicon Valley. Putting aside everything but simple political pragmatism:

1. Elon Musk’s election antics and Trump’s support from tech billoinaires have shown SV holds a significant amount of power over politics - power which will almost certainly prove a constant thorn in Harris’ side. As such, it’d be in her self interest to kneecap the Valley ASAP.

2. Public opinion of Silicon Valley has taken a pounding over the years for a variety of reasons, with the AI slop-nami just the latest and most serious grievance the public has against them. Any tech regulation a Harris presidency makes (especially against AI) is gonna enjoy significant public support from day one.

I’ve seen this floating about quite a bit, and everyone I know is dunking on it - the most frequent comparison I’ve seen is calling it “Minecraft with dementia”.

NASB - Brian Merchant’s celebrating the first anniversary of Blood in the Machine’s release

Reading through it, its clear an earlier comment of mine was dead-on - the public image of the Luddites has been fully rehabilitated, and we can primarily credit Merchant for pulling it off.

Happy cake day, Charlie!

The sole silver lining of this situation is that Logan’s deplorable behaviour probably scared at least a few shops away from stocking Lunchly - not just because of the risk you end up selling some mold-ridden garbage (most likely to kids), but because you risk Logan starting a harassment campaign against you or your store.

I’d say they did do some damage to tech’s wider image by becoming a pop-culture punchline and a mark of shame rolled into one.

Incidents like Seth Green’s Ape getting kidnapped, the public exploitation of George Floyd’s death and the legendary dumpster fire that was The Red Ape Family, plus the onslaught of dogshit NFT art and the nonstop scams and deception within the NFT/crypto sphere all led NFTs to become widely and rightfully panned, with NFTs getting unflatteringly compared to beanie babies and NFT profile pics getting either right-click saved to mock their supposed “ownership” or blocked on sight, depending on how people generally felt.

Monday here, Appreciate the shout out.

I definitely can see the election bringing some nuclear backlash against tech, and probably some harsh regulation against AI as well - we’ve already had Trump using AI to lie about Swift supporting him and deny Harris’s public support at a rally, so the Dems already have plenty of material to use against the industry if they win.

Going by the Atlantic, there’s opposition to AI from both the Dems and the Reps, so whoever wins in November, the industry’s gonna find little support from the White House.

Judging by some stray articles from WIRED and The Atlantic, Merchant’s likely done plenty to rehabilitate the Luddites’ image.

I suspect Silicon Valley’s godawful reputation and widespread hatred of AI have likely helped as well - “machinery harmful to commonality” may be an unfamiliar concept to Joe Public, but “AI is ruining the Internet/taking your job/scamming your parents” is very fucking tangible to them.

Pulling out a previous post of mine, the NFT craze likely helped indirectly, by killing technological determinism’s hold on the public and badly wounding Silicon Valley’s public image.

Of those two, technological determinism’s death was probably the more important one - that idea’s demise meant the public was willing to entertain that new tech developments from Silicon Valley could be killed in their crib, that they wouldn’t inevitably become a part of public life, for worse or (potentially) for better.

Quick update - Brian Merchant’s list of “luddite horror” films ended up getting picked up by Fast Company:

To repeat a previous point of mine, it seems pretty safe to assume “luddite horror” is gonna become a bit of a trend. To make a specific (if unrelated) prediction, I imagine we’re gonna see AI systems and/or their supporters become pretty popular villains in the future - the AI bubble’s produces plenty of resentment towards AI specifically and tech more generally, and the public’s gonna find plenty of catharsis in watching them go down.

Stop dickriding the growth mindset, and we’ll stop being so mean about it.

Going outside awful’s wheelhouse for a bit:

Logan Paul doxed and harassed a random employee for posting a sign saying Lunchly was recalled

You want my take, the employee in question (who also got a GoFundMe) should sue Logan for defamation - solid case aside, I wanna see that blonde fucker get humbled for once.

The AI lawsuit’s going to discovery - I expect things are about to heat up massively for the AI industry:

ZITRON DROPPED

Robinhood’s about to make a whole new generation of apes:

Crypto NG+ AI% Speedrun (no skips)

Thinking about it, the public and spectacular failure of NFTs probably helped AI with speedrunning its rise and fall (mainly its fall), for two reasons.

First, it crippled technological determinism (which Unserious Academic interrogated in depth BTW) as a concept. Before that, it was generally assumed whatever new crap the tech industry came up with with would inevitably become a part of daily life, for better or for worse.

The NFT craze, by publicly and spectacularly failing despite a heavy push from Silicon Valley, showed the public that it was possible to beat Silicon Valley and prevent the future it wants from coming to pass, that resistance against them is anything but futile.

Second, the NFT craze’s failure publicly humiliated the tech industry, as NFTs became a pop-culture punchline and supporting NFTs became a public mark of shame for anyone involved. If crippling technological determinism made it cool to resist Silicon Valley, then the public humiliation of NFTs helped make it uncool to support SV, a trend which I feel has helped amplify emnity against AI.

eigen “Breeding Stock for Me, Unwilling Abortions for Thee” robot

Raytheon can at least claim they’re helping kill terrorists or some shit like that, Artisan’s just going out and saying “We ruin good people’s lives for money, and we can help you do that too”

Jingna Zhang found an AI corp saying the quiet part out loud:

In a previous post of mine, I noted how the public generally feels that the jobs people want to do (mainly creative jobs) are the ones being chiefly threatened by AI, with the dangerous, boring and generally garbage jobs being left relatively untouched.

Looking at this, I suspect the public views anyone working on/boosting AI as someone who knows full well their actions are threatening people’s livelihoods/dream jobs, and is actively, willingly and intentionally threatening them, either out of jealousy for those who took the time to develop the skills, or out of simple capitalist greed.

Goodness kids need some better role models because sometimes it seems 90% of people on the social networks are morally bankrupt.

The world needs another Mister Rogers, but I’m not sure if the world wants another Mister Rogers.

Amazon used an AI-generated image as a cover for 1922’s Nosferatu, and it got publicly torn apart on Twitter:

On a personal note, it feels to me like any use of AI, regardless of context, is gonna be treated as a public slight against artists, if not art as a concept going forward. Arguably, it already has been treated that way for a while.

You want me to point to a high-profile example of this kinda thing, I’d say Eagan Tilghman provided a textbook example a year ago, after his Scooby Doo/FNAF fan crossover (a VA redub came out a year later BTW) accidentally ignited a major controversy over AI and nearly got him blacklisted from animation.

I specifically bring this up because Tilghman wasn’t some random CEO or big-name animator - he was just some random college student making a non-profit passion project with basically zero budget or connections. It speaks volumes about how artists view AI that even someone like him got raked over the coals for using it.