The Alt-Left Case for AI

The alt-left is trending in various online spaces. If you’ve been hearing this alt-left term for a while, I hate to break it to you, you’re probably not gonna like what I’m about to say.

The Alt-Left is Pro-AI.

I’ll say that again: the Alt-Left is Pro-AI.

Now, the online left might be upset on hearing this, but the case for this is really strong. I’m going to walk you through it, because this isn’t no-nuance November or anything. We’ll lay it out. If you’re instinctive response is that I’m wrong, well that’s alright, but I need you to sit with it a sec. I’m going to need you to put in some work. There’s a little bit of reading in front of you.

Why are we making the case for this? Broadly, it comes down to three things: the nature of modern media, post-work and post-capitalism, and how we treat liberatory tech and having an emancipatory vision of the future.

First off, we need to recognize that there has been an incredible amount of propaganda put forward on all sides of the AI debate. Let’s call this “media realism“.

Recall that what we’re seeing with AI is what is essentially a communist technology – everything goes in, everyone can use it – being fought over between two competing factions of capitalist oligopolies – the techno-capitalists developing it, and the incumbent rentier capitalists of the “cultural industries” opposing it.

If your opposition to AI is to simply side with the cultural industries, then you’re a long way from the left, let alone the alt-left.

Make no mistake, the rentier capitalists use the exact same techniques as the techno-capitalists in order to extract value. Remember, there is no liberal media; there are a few liberals working in media, but the industries as a whole are neo-liberal at best. They’ll go back to exploiting artists and creatives just as quickly as the technocaps.


Which brings us to the second reason: AI and the nature of work. A lot of the discussion on AI centers around job loss and technological replacement, part of what we’ve collectively described as echanger.

The thing is, these trends have been observed for a long time – they’re not new because of AI, though AI can certainly increase the scope of what work may be subject to echanger. The previous warring factions must be licking their lips at the possibility.

However, if we recognize that a lot of these jobs at risk may be “Bullshit Jobs” as described by Graeber, then shouldn’t their loss be celebrated? Consigning workers to pointless labour under the threats of capitalism is something to be avoided or ameliorated under a coherent vision of the alt-left.

We have authors as far back as the early 1970s (Murray Bookchin) envisioning what a post-scarcity economy looks like, not just in the sci-fi shows like Star Trek, but in the reality of the 20th century, where labour saving technologies like automation allowed for the possibility of more leisure time, an increased ability to work for oneself or the community at large, and find work that was socially and personally rewarding.


And this is the last point, a point that is made by Srnicek and Williams, that the left (as a whole) needs to provide an engaging vision for the future. If the left’s ideology is emancipatory – then the wholesale rejection of a tool that people see as assistive, in terms of language, creativity, labour, ability, etc. – is not going to be appealing. Why is the left’s vision one of digging a ditch by hand when power tools are available? It’s incoherent.

Moreover, it’s unaligned with progressive views of the future from media. If Star Trek or The Culture can be seen as “Fully Automatic Luxury Space Communism”, the left need to bring their current position in alignment with that vision. If the future of AI tools includes automated assistants, if vibe coding is the expectation, if AI art looks like the holodeck, then how does that get made to happen? How do you get from now to then? How do you get to the future? So this emancipatory, liberatory role of technology needs to be applied to the tasks at hand.

This emancipatory view is not just for the people, the users of the tech, and those that might be affected, but also for the tech itself. If AI is held, owned, monitored, controlled by either techno-capitalists or rentier capitalists, or some combination thereof, then the tech will only serve those interests. The tech also needs to be liberated – open, visible, communal – for it to broadly serve everyone, and not be captured and siloed for use by only the few.

If there are problems with the tech – and there are currently problems, to be sure – then those need to be addressed. Collectively. Liberating the technology is also a solution to the worst excesses of the AI technologies as currently deployed, moving away from gas generators and to more water-friendly cooling. Smaller, local, user-centered models can provide more focused results and mitigate the impact, ensuring that contributors can be compensated fairly for their efforts. An alt-left would want everyone to be able to benefit from the collective works.


Now, like I said, you might disagree, and that’s fine, respectful discussion is welcomed. But over the course of this we’ve introduced you to some authors that I feel support the position. Have you read them? Fantastic! But if not, perhaps there’s some suggestions for your to-be-read pile, for something to look into further. I’ll include the reading list here.

Bibliography

  • Srnicek and Williams – Inventing the Future (2016)
  • Bastani – Fully Automated Luxury Communism (2020)
  • Fisher – Capitalist Realism (2008)
  • Graeber – Bullshit Jobs (2018)
  • Bookchin – Post-Scarcity Anarchism (1971), The Philosophy of Social Ecology (2022)
  • Smythe – Dependency Road (1981)
  • Mosco – The Political Economy of Communication (2009)
  • Rifkin – The End of Work (1995, 2004)

Streets Ahead

(This was originally published as Implausipod Episode 50 on November 8, 2025.)

https://www.implausipod.com/1935232/episodes/17441059-e0050-streets-ahead

A wrong turn and a 20 minutes detour due to poor signage led to an inquiry into the evolution of autonomous vehicles. We’ll examine how the idea has appeared in popular culture, both within and outside science fiction. Turns out when it comes to self-driving cars, we’re thinking street ahead.


Get in. Let’s go for a ride. I wanna take you on a little trip around my town, down a few of the wide open roadways. We caught them at a perfect time of day. The city is still sleeping and the roads are mostly empty. It’s during these quiet times so we can see how the roads actually work. We’ve got a corner coming up here, but the main road continues this way for a bit before turning right to the north.

We continue around the city, but the exit on the right is actually for drivers continuing left towards the west. Curious. As we come through this lovely pass to see the city laid out before us, we come to the same issue. A quick turn to the right to go left to head to the west and the rocky mountains.

The road straight ahead is called Stony Trail North, but it’s headed east. Confused. You won’t be after this episode of the Implausipod.

Welcome to the ImplausiPod, a podcast about the intersection of art, technology, and popular culture. I’m your host, Dr. Implausible, and in this episode we’re asking who are roads for, are they built for the cars or the drivers? It’s an interesting question. One we have to ask more often as we’re seeing more and more self-driving cars on the road, the desire for autonomous vehicles has some deep roots and some of those cross through science fiction.

So it isn’t just because I accidentally took a wrong turn due to confusing road signs and had to take a 20 minute detour down the highway as described in the intro. No, no. That had nothing to do with today’s discussion, but the truth about those confusing road signs has a lot to do with our autonomous vehicles as well, because it’s difficult for us to navigate than how can anything else hope to understand it.

It turns out we have different and overlapping systems of direction that we use when we’re trying to navigate the world and humans having grown up in it. Generally pretty at adept at uh, parsing it out. But once you try and break it down and explain it to something, something that can only follow rules, it gets quite complex indeed.

So we’re gonna get into these rule-based systems in a little bit, but first I wanna look into the genesis of an idea of how the concept of self-driving vehicles came to be. Because what a vehicle that can move itself, that seems very implausible.

IMPLAUSIBILITY 0 1 4 Autonomous Vehicles

In this week’s implausibility, let’s take a look at how autonomous vehicles have shown up in science fiction in their various forms. It comes as no surprise given how prevalent automobiles have been in the 20th century, that the two have been combined so often. But one of the first instances wasn’t really a car at all. One of the earliest autonomous vehicles was a bulldozer.

And not just any bulldozer but the Killdozer. That’s right. Killdozer. First appearing in the 1944 short story of the same name by Theodore Sturgeon. Here we have a proper autonomous vehicle that decides to take revenge on the humans around it and the killdozer is autonomous. It has goals and agency, albeit those of the alien energy weapon that has possessed a normal construction bulldozer and it proceeds to fulfill its original programming.

Hence, the killing and the dozing. The rampage ends when the machine is electrocuted in a pool, going quiescent until it’s possible long-lost cousin shows up in the movie Idiocracy years later. Killdozer appears early. Science fiction had quite entered its golden age, so there weren’t that many stories yet.

And of course when it comes to robots and science fiction Isaac Asimov has to get a word in, and in 1953 he gave us a story of Sally, a car with the Robo Brain. In fact, in this world, the only cars that are allowed are the ones that have robo brains as humans are not trusted behind the wheel, so to speak, as the

Wheel no longer really exists. The robo brains of the cars here are not described as the positronic brains common to the rest of Asimov’s robot stories either, and they aren’t bound by the three laws. So we get an alternate take of what vehicles would be like in that universe. But the idea of autonomous vehicles is taking hold.

The next entry on our list from the very next year, 1954, is the first time we see a vision of autonomous vehicles on the screen. In an animated short produced by General Motors, titled Give Yourself the Green Light. This 22 minute mix of film and animation showed overhead shots of parts of the highway system and the problems that the USA was facing with congestion.

We can recognize that the short by GM is what we’d consider propaganda, trying to make a case for the expansion of the highways and opening up more of the country to cars. So that gives us maybe a bit of a hint at the answer to the question of our episode, but let’s go further. The push for highways really kicks into high gear a little bit later in the decade when Disney released Magic Highway USA, directed by Ward Kimball, and airing on the Disneyland TV series in May of 1958.

This animated short depicted how the automobile of the future would fit within society, and it falls along the line of the GM video we just mentioned by framing things about the highway, though centering on the individual within the car Here, the autonomous vehicle is coupled with an autonomous driver forming a complex, almost cybernetic assemblage that we’ll have to dig into more in a little bit.

What’s truly impressive about the short is the list of innovations that it showcased that have since been developed. Some of these include electronic dashboards, traffic bulletins, overhead maps, TV for a rear view screen, heads up displays, and of course autonomous vehicles. Another interesting element later in the short was the introduction of containerized shipping first invented in 1956.

The first containerized cargo ship didn’t leave port until 1958, the same year as the short. Containerization was growing by the time Magic Highway aired, but it hadn’t reshaped society in the world economy the way it has since. Of course, looking back at the show from a viewpoint from 2025, we see a number of elements that aren’t quite as positive, including the decentralizing of the urban areas and the sprawl to the suburbs, the private houses and isolation and the paving of vast tracks of wilderness.

Magic Highway definitely remained a product of its time. I can’t recall whether I first saw this as a child at school when they’d roll out a film to keep us occupied on a substitute teacher day, or if it showed up on repeats during a Saturday or afternoon cartoon block, or maybe even repeated in Sunday primetime on the wonderful world of Disney.

The point being like a lot of Gen Xers, I saw this at a young and impressionable age. If you don’t recall the Magic Highway short, you may be thinking of some others as Disney produced several starring the iconic Goofy during this time, including Motor Mania from 1950 and Freeway Phobia from 1965. But these were made to address a generation of current drivers as a public service and were far less future-focused, more educational in nature.

For example, the Freeway Phobia short highlighted safe driving techniques, minimum stopping distance, and the risks of distracted driving and the dangers it poses. With F Progress, the character portrayed by Goofy causing pile ups of with every misstep. Moving on from the Magic Highway, several of the inventions seen within it would pop up again on primetime again in 1962 when the Jetsons appeared in the fall season

alongside the Flintstones. The flying cars may have overshadowed the autonomous driving features, but George doesn’t have to spend a lot of time looking at the road or concerned with the details of where the car is going. He also has some of the creature comforts and vision for car occupancy in a Magic Highway as well, though ultimately, it’s all to get him into the office in the morning as if the Jetson future doesn’t have remote work.

Both the Magic Highway and the Jetsons are really emblematic of that mid-century vision of the future. We talked about in the California Ideology episode back in episode 38 in the sci-fi in the 1960s. We also saw the rise of vehicles that explicitly weren’t autonomous as Frank Herbert’s Dune in 1963.

had humans taking any role where we might expect to see automatons in the mainstream science fiction. Other visions of autonomous vehicles persisted throughout the sixties, but these were less often seen as the vehicles themselves and as often as not regular vehicles piloted by robots, androids, and various cyborgs.

The 1970s was the era of the Cyborg with Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man appearing in primetime during the early part of the decade, and the Bionic Woman soon followed along with DethLok Cyborg, and a host of man-machine hybrids in the comics pages. We’ll take a look at the Six Million Dollar Man’s legacy

soon enough, though that might be in early 2026, as the schedule currently looks like. It was in the 1980s when autonomous vehicles made their real big push into the current cultural consciousness. First and foremost of these was Knight Rider, produced by Glen A. Larson, and airing on NBC in Primetime beginning in 1982 and starring David Hasselhoff, pre Baywatch and cheeseburgers, fighting crime at the behest of a billionaire, while partnered with an autonomous vehicle named KITT, short for Knight Industries

Two Thousand. KITT was a modified TransAm with a custom front plate that had a moving red light, which was the semiotic code for intelligent machines in the seventies and eighties. Though their motives might be suspect, depending on if you were dealing with Hal 9000 or the Cylons of BSG. KITT is basically a mobile supercomputer that happens to have the shell of a car around it, and is generally described during the show as having cybernetic logic.

It also has a voice module in various scanners and electronic countermeasures, ECM, allowing for enhanced visuals and signal jamming, and a variety of other sensors from heart monitors to bomb sniffers or whatever else is needed by the plot of the week. KITT is also powered by Hydrogen Fuel Cell and uses a turbojet engine along with afterburners.

There’s also a host of offensive and defensive weapons, ejector seats, blenders and beer coolers, and whatever else. KITT kind of had it all. Seriously, Hasselhoff is often a liability compared to KITT. The Inspector Gadget to KITT’s Penny, but still able to do the odd task that KITT couldn’t get done, as is the way of sci-fi series.

We also got the dark side doppelganger to KITT, KARR. That’s spelled K-A-R-R. Appeared in season one, episode nine, episode titled Trust Doesn’t Rust. KARR proved popular enough for return appearance in season three as well, Evil goatee and all, the Samaritan to the Machine, the Lore to KITT’s Data. KARR was a prototype version of KITT’s design programmed for self preservation and a lot more hostility when they faced off.

KITT was able to win due to moxie. Good thing that that submarine was programmed in.

As is the Hollywood way, seeing somebody else’s cool idea and trying to copy it to cash in. Larson would try to repeat a success with a Tron inspired series called Auto Man in 1983, but this failed to capture an audience with poor scripts, rough, special effects, and high costs, dooming it to an early cancellation.

We’ll look deeper into Tron during our next episode, but I don’t think we’re gonna talk much more about Automan at all.


Implausibility, 50% complete.


We would be remiss in our look at self-driving vehicles if it did cover the other place that they show up. In our nightmares. For every sci-fi story of the promise of autonomous vehicles, there’s a horror story that preys on our fears. Sometimes. They’re the same story though, like Killdozer. This fear is often the fear of the loss of control of the machines we use.

As such, they often showed up as ghost stories rather than being overtly science fiction. We’ve been telling stories about ghost vehicles for longer than we’ve been talking about autonomous vehicles since the tales of ghost ships, possessed trains and haunted stage coaches. I’ll skip past those tales of the Marie Celeste and the Stagecoach in and move into the more modern era.

Perhaps the most famous example is Christine, Stephen King’s 1983 tale of a Possessed Plymouth. A story brought to life on film by John Carpenter later that same year. Here we have a demonic vehicle with an ulterior motive that relentlessly hunts down those who have wronged it. Christine is not fully autonomous.

Occasionally requiring the aid of those nearby, but has more in common with the Daemon weapons we might see in more fantastical settings. Stephen King has explored possessed vehicles more than once with the 1973 short story Trucks being turned into Maximum Overdrive in 1986, just in time for an AC DC soundtrack.

Here are the motivating forces of extraterrestrial origin. A comet’s tail, bringing sentience to all machines on earth. We have multiple vehicles working in coordinated fashion, corralling and eliminating the survivors, though subject to one of the weakness of 1980s cars, rocket launchers, and running out of gas.

There’s definitely some deep seated concerns about the seventies fuel crisis lingering in the narrative here, but it isn’t just ordinary vehicles that are in ghost stories, we have possessed weapons of war. The Haunted Tank was a comic series published by DC Comics joining Sergeant Rock in the pages of GI Comics starting in 1961.

Here the Possessor is the Ghost of Confederate General Jeb Stuart, and, and their M3 tank is crewed by namesake in World War II, showing up throughout Africa and Europe. Though they would change vehicles from time to time, the tank is mostly operated by the crew and isn’t fully autonomous, but is included here due to the.

Spirit of the thing. The Haunted Tank is also an influence on one of our favorite topics, Appendix W. Within the Warhammer 40,000 universe, the vehicles of the imperium are possessed by the machine spirits as they have fallen technologically and no longer know how their machines actually work. In some instances, the machine spirits are able to provide some limited autonomy, but in other cases, like when the machines and their crew turn to chaos, they may be literally possessed becoming

twisted amalgams of flesh and metal and able to act upon their own. These two axes, Boon or Bane, Promise or horror, can explain much of the divide in modern audiences and their attitudes towards autonomous vehicles. The priming we receive when we are young can stick with us for a lifetime, but these two examples weren’t the only ones, and more normal versions of autonomous vehicles started showing up in versions that are no longer explicitly menacing, but rather just part of everyday life.

Demolition Man and Johnny Cab of Total Recall. I’m looking at you, but I think these last two examples have more in common with chauffered vehicles and we don’t really consider chauffered vehicles to be autonomous unless you have such a low opinion of others that you don’t consider the driver’s, people, and

Hmm. I fear we’ve unlocked something here, as this brings us back to our look at the California ideology and the quest for automation. The further back we look through history, we see that dichotomy arise more and more. The driver is a specialist. The vehicle is something unique, reserved for the wealthy, or a shared resource.

Of course, if you look back far enough, the simplest autonomous vehicle is a horse and buggy. That’s probably not what comes to mind when you’re asked to picture autonomous vehicle, though technically correct is not the best kind of correct in this case.


Implausibility 100% complete.


So what brought us here? Well, a few things, not least of which is me getting lost on the freeway. Often on the internet, in discussion of autonomous vehicles, you’ll hear people asking who asked for this as if the idea of an autonomous vehicle is inconceivable. But as I hope to have shown, there’s some deep seated roots for it, not just in the fantastical realms of science fiction, but also in pop culture more generally, as well as in traditional media.

It turns out that people have been asking for this for a long, long time. We often preach for an empathetic view of technology to consider the potential uses and needs of people other than ourselves. When examining tech, I’m wondering why it is the way it is. Our exploration of autonomous vehicles is no different.

Personally, I don’t have one, and I’m not in a position to acquire one anytime soon either. This does not mean we can’t examine the technology though. Now that we’re well on the way where that implausibility may become a reality, let’s take a look at the state of the art in our present. And here we find there’s a little bit of a challenge, but this challenge is one of bounty fittingly for this harvest season.

There’s so many stories now of self-driving cars as well as buses, trucks, taxis, in all manner of related vehicles that it’s hard to narrow down and focus on the key elements of the story. In part, that’s one of the things that led to the delay of this episode. I got lost on the freeway back in May of 2024 and started drafting this as I was exploring why.

We’ll get into the conclusion of that tale in a little bit, but as I started looking at the reasons and how the challenges I was facing as a driver are similar, yet amplified for designers of navigation systems or. Anything that needs to interface with our roads, the volume of stories steadily increased.

I was trying to stay streets ahead, but kept losing the race with every new twist and turn. So rather than try and encapsulate everything, let’s try and see what this implausibility really means for humans in an age of self-driving cars. As seen with the Disney example of the Magic Highway, there’s an idea that the vehicles on the roadways could become fast and more efficient the more we relinquish control over to machine controlled systems.

We do this in some areas currently, often in flight or on the oceans, trusting our travel to machine calculated systems. In our forthcoming Appendix W episode on Joe Haldeman’s, the Forever War from 1973, we can see how these ballistic systems was trusted as able to calculate the necessary travel faster than any human could react.

Even Han Solo trusted the nav computer when calculated the jump to hyperspace, even if he punched the electronics a few, couple times, just for good measure. This desire to take the wheels out of our hands is ultimately an issue of trust. Trust that we can’t do it correctly ourselves, or at least other people suck as drivers.

I’m okay, which we can see in the California ideology we talked about earlier. There, the cult of acceleration or cult of speed from the era of the Italian Futurists through till now sees the ability to move faster as being a desirable ending of itself by any means necessary, and we find that some people aren’t opposed to that, that moving fast can even be intoxicating and fun if it’s done in a controlled manner.

The public’s fascination with roller coasters in the early part of the 20th century was noted by Walter Benjamin, and that fascination has continued with Zipline skydiving, bungee jumping, and other high speed pursuits. So how do we achieve this, reach those speeds that we find enjoyable or even necessary for force to travel on the freeways in order to accomplish what we need to?

Well, there’s something interesting that happens when we get behind the wheel, and it turns out we have a lot more in common with Colonel Steve Austin than you might think. Let me introduce you to the idea of an assemblage. We’re accepting this term a bit from the work of the philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour.

Latour was working on attempting to describe the way both humans and non-humans interact. For him, this is a problem that expanded out of his work in the field of science studies and interdisciplinary field with humanities that looks at the way scientists go about doing science. This is work he published in Laboratory Life in 1979, along with Steve Woolgar, and it’s a tricky question.

How do use similar terminology to describe how humans interact with their technology? One way is to look at how they relate to one another. For Latour, this science of relations or sociology of translation only works if everything was flat and dissimilar things are treated symmetrically. This has led to people looking at the world in terms of a flat ontology.

You can look at the technology, not on its own, but in the hands or control of its wielder or user. This combined entity is different than the entity on its own. To paraphrase Latour’s own words in terms of what we’re talking about here, it could be best understood as car, or person, or-car person. It matters not the truth is you’re a very different person behind the wheel.

Now, Latour was talking about guns in his original quote, but we can see how easily it applies to what we’re looking at when it comes to cars. If you recall, way back to episode 12, we talked about that feeling of connection that you have when you’re holding a technology in your hand. It’s the same way that you can almost sense the edges of the vehicle when you’re driving in it.

This connection leads us back to cybernetics, but we’re not quite there yet. Where the riggers of ShadowRun and Cyberpunk were hooked directly into their vehicles. But while these future cybernetic assemblages, these metaphorical car-humans may be able to exist on the faster roadways, what do the rest of us do?


Right now, we’ve gone from human scale roads interacting with draft animals of various sorts at what are fundamentally still human speeds. But as we’ve scaled up the speed, the interactions have gotten fundamentally more dangerous, and the overlapping systems have grown apart. How do we keep it all together?

If we think of an overhead shot of the Ring Road from our intro example, taken from 30,000 feet or from a drone or what have you, we can think of the issue with the different kinds of directions. We have overlapping systems in play all the time that we need to navigate and switch between these directions are what we’ll acronym is CONA, Cardinal, ordinal, nominal, and algorithmical, or procedural

Cardinal directions are those navigating by the compass. We can think of the four cardinal directions and how they relate at 90 degree angles on the compass, northeast, south and west. You know these pretty instinctively as they’ve been tied to the sun. Even if we might be hard pressed to point to true north on a dime.

Cardinal directions are further complicated by the various subdivisions bisecting the above. Northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest,

Ordinal, or relational direction systems are based on changes to the current position. Left or right is an ordinal direction. These are the directions you would receive if you stop for directions in an unfamiliar town. Turn left at the next intersection. These might also be used when giving directions to someone else describing where something is.

We can also see ordinal directions in cybernetic feedback systems:

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn’t. By subtracting where it is from where it isn’t, or where it isn’t from where it is, whichever is greater, it obtains a difference or deviation.

Nominal direction systems are the ones that work by name, natch, or label or identifying feature of the item. This is the direction system of puzzle games and treasure maps. So we still use it when driving too nominal direction. Systems can appear in the naming of streets. In some cities like New York where the initials of the Uptown Avenues spell out.

C-A-P-L-P-M, for example, and other mnemonics have been crafted for older cities the world over. Significant features can also be named either directly or by resemblance, and these can be included in nominal systems as well. And of course, the above can be combined in various ways. Head Southeast and turn left at Abe Lincoln or maybe turn left at the rock That looks like a dude with a stovepipe hat. Depending on local knowledge and context, both sets of directions are correct, but whether you get lost or not can depend upon how aware you are of the local lore and culture.

These three are the common ones, the common systems of direction. You often hear about them as number systems or when grouping in data science and the like. But there is another. We need to find a way to describe what we observed as we were driving in the introduction, and that’s how we get to procedural or a rhythmical.

This is rule-based directions like we described in the open. Always exit on the right unless pointed north on the first Tuesday of a month, but our computers aren’t necessarily great at handling all those exceptions are they? They occasionally lose it like a Fembot having to deal with Austin Powers.

However, this is where we are living and driving in a system designed for cars. And not for people. It’s a system that also has the logic of shipping, much like the trucks on the roadways in the Disney Magic Highway from 1958, but it doesn’t necessarily feel like it’s for us. The two approaches to this challenge seem to be either to one, to cede all control and let the machines take care of it, or two, give us more information, and this is where we’re starting to see some more progress.

Back in 2020 at an academic conference, I gave a talk about how AR technologies might actually be useful for both drivers and for pedestrians to provide more information about the high volume of traffic that’s on our roads. And as AR goggles become more widely available, this may be one of those killer apps.

While heads up displays and advanced optics have long been the purview of fighter pilots and those working at the highest speeds, they’ve rarely been applied to more domestic purposes. That’s starting to change. At a recent event, Amazon demoed how they’re going to begin rolling out AR goggles so that delivery drivers don’t need to look down at their devices to follow routes and scan packages ,stated as a bid to improve safety and efficiency, but how well that will work remains to be seen.

There are concerns about privacy as well due to the Always-on cameras on the glasses, but I think AR goggles is an implausibility we’ll have to get into at another time. Regardless of the method chosen cybernetic connection or AR enhanced vision, the way to deal with cars in this future seems to lead to more mapping of the surfaces and roadways into a digital map.

While one could see that having a smart vehicle that can recognize and adapt to situations may be the most ideal, like many tech stories of the 1980s, Knight Rider may have been more of an aspirational tale, and were unlikely to see a system as capable as KITT or even KARR anytime soon. So building a robust map of everything may be the most efficient way.

The question is, what do we do with all those virtual roads? The map might not be the territory after all, right? But one surely exists. What do you do when you have a one-to-one high resolution model of the world? Well, you could simulate anything.

Once again, thank you for joining us on the ImplausiPod. I’m your host, Dr. Implausible. You can reach me at Dr. implausible AT implausipod.com, and you can also find the show archives and transcripts of all our previous shows at implausipod.com as well. I’m responsible for all elements of the show, including research, writing, mixing, mastering, and music, and the show is licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 ShareAlike license.

You may have also noted that there was no advertising during the program and there’s no cost associated with the show. But it does grow from word of mouth of the community. So if you enjoy the show, please share it with a friend or two and pass it along. There’s also a buy me a coffee link on each show at implausipod.com, which will go to any hosting costs associated with the show.

You can follow along with us on the blog, that’s implausi dot blog, or consider signing up for a semi-regular newsletter. We hope to have a new episode out for you soon. Until then, take care and have fun.


AI Creativity

Can an AI be creative? Well, of course it can. Can the AI Tools and Generative tech like ChatGPT be creative? Maybe. They can assist in creativity, and have the opportunity to come up with novel solutions, so the potential is there.

We can see how via the following axioms:

One: there is a lot of stuff out there
Two: Creativity can come from bringing something new into the world (which is rare) or recombining existing stuff in novel ways.
Three: AI can recombine existing stuff that faster, in ways that we had never thought of before
Four: A lot of the combinations will still suck though

Part of the reason is that humans will engage in a curation process at multiple steps during the act of creation, and this can weed out some combinations that we may consider (prematurely?) non-viable. No one is going to bother with a Battle of the Planets / Balenciaga AI meme, until a lot of other options are exhausted. (Or until I figure out how to do it.)

It’s likely the meme trend will have moved on to the next big thing (and it already has between when I started this post and when it got pushed out of the drafts; the Balenciaga meme was from 2023, I think) before the design space of the first one is exhausted. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe it’ll re-emerge years down the road, or maybe it’ll disappear completely, or maybe it’ll show up someplace cheugy like Facebook does with Minion memes.

Regardless, that curation step, that culling of boring, cheugy memes, can happen at multiple points along the path. Stuff might not get worked on because there’s little or no benefit either. A creator that’s creating an AI image meme is more likely to work on something that’ll get a lot of likes, or “engagement”, or whatever provides them that frisson of a dopamine hit when they create something that keeps them doing what they do.

My “Balenciaga of the Planets” bit from above is unlike to provide that for most, f’rex, so it may go unmade. The “Capitalist Realism” that pervades everything in the attention economy is going to shift development along certain lines that (may be) more “economically” rewarding, at least in the near term.

So there are always some constraints on creativity.

By the axiom’s above, Is it Cake is on par with Succession in terms of creativity. (yes, really!) Both copy the formats of other existing media. One is the fictionalized retelling of a family much like the Murdoch’s, and the other involves guessing if something is cake. Now, Succession is one of the best produced shows of all time. But just because something is well done, well crafted, does not inherently make it creative. Don’t confuse quality with creativity.

Something can be completely new to the world, but fail in execution. Just because something is novel doesn’t inherently make it good. Moxley force-feeding a handful of tacks to Matt Jackson was a novel spot. Stupid as hell though. Wardlow’s swanton on the ladder spot was also novel. And dumb. So was the Submission Daisy Chain in the title match. Novel, kinda obvious, neat that they went for it. Kinda mid. “Sports entertaining” at least. (And granted, now I’m trying to figure out which PPV this was, because Moxley just tried to dunk Darby Allin in a fishtank last weekend, and the lesson here is post your thoughts in a timely manner and don’t leave stuff in drafts for years on end.)

But creativity doesn’t equal quality. A lot of new stuff sucks, and it can often take someone to pick it back up and do it in a new context, or refine the process to make it really come alive.

Except for Is it Cake? Clear winner right out of the gate. How could you improve on it. Peak civilization right there.

8|

So, can AI be creative? Absolutely. As established, it’s possible to put together things in new ways that we wouldn’t have thought of. AI can come up with a lot of stuff, relatively quickly.

But output on it’s own isn’t a marker of creativity either. You can put out a lot of EFP (Extruded Fantasy Product) and it might not be very creative at all. Brandon Sanderson might be a creative writer, or he might just excel at writing big books. I dunno. Science Fiction Author Patrick F. Johnson may be a more creative writer. I’ve never seen them in the same room. There needs to be some output, obviously, for it to be recognized as creative, but a torrent of sewage is simply what it is. “What an incredible smell you’ve discovered.” Novel? Likely. Creative? Perhaps not…

Which gets us to the last point: can an AI be creative? Well, when one exists, then surely the answer is yes.As of October 21st, 2025, there are no known or revealed sentient AIs. But can a generative algorithm or LLM tool like ChatGPT be creative? They can assist in it, but they lack the agency or intentionality that would use to attribute the creative act to them wholly. They are an aid in poiesis, not auto-poietic. This is a good thing. Much of the fears about AI floating in the zeitgeist are of the potential of an auto-poietic AI.

But whether something is creative or not will not be judged by the AI. The criteria for whether something is new or not, novel or not, creative or not, will be the humans. “Creativity must…be seen not as something happening with a person but in the relationships within a system” (Csikszentmihalyi, p.36).


And those systems are our cybernetic machines that we spoke about the other week. Much like an artist with a pencil, or a brush, or camera, or any other tool for working media, our creativity is not diminished with the advent of AI, but expanded, able to grow in new ways.

Some of those ways allow us to do things that we have done previously faster, quicker, more efficiently. It also allows us to iterate through potential options, curate the results, and work on refining those results so they match our vision that much quicker as well. It’s easier to chase down rabbit holes when you match the rabbits for speed.

But as artists get more proficient with the AI tools, and the systems that they are situated in, we will see how they can be used in more creative ways. The defining works of a cultural form of media rarely come from the first few attempts, ground breaking though they may be. Superhero comics existed for decades, but some of the defining works in the form didn’t come until the 1980s, with Watchmen, The Dark Knight, Days of Future Past, Maus, and others. So too with film, and rock music, and video games. And AI Art will follow the same trend.

Right now, no one knows what it’s going to look like. And that’s fantastic!

Can’t wait to see what’s next.


Notes: as hinted at above, this post sat in the drafts for a bit, being originally written on May 30th, 2023. Mostly based on the wrestling reference, which apparently took place at AEW’s Double or Nothing card on May 28th, 2023.

Also, Is It Cake? was very much a thing of the moment, which has since passed. Up next, Competitive German Slicing Videos. (Seriously).

Also, see: Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

Gaming Machines: Gaming as Allographic Art

(This post concludes the set of examples we began with the Cybernetic Machines and Science Machines over the last few weeks.)

We might call a gaming machine as something where a “game” is a set of instructions written by a “developer (or designer)”* fed into an assemblage (or cybernetic bio-technical machine) called a “studio” that outputs a “program”.

Hmm, that doesn’t quite work.

We need to spend a little more time with our construction here, to figure out what the roots are.

The generic version breaks down to: a Machine is a given Input (written) by a (Creator) fed into an assemblage called a (Mechanism) that produces an (Output).

If we were to extract those terms from the examples in our previous posts, we’d get this:

Machine, Input, Creator, Mechanism, Output
Science, Method, Scientist, Laboratory, Experiment
Game, Game, Developer, Studio, Program
Film, Script, Director, Production Company, Movie
Music, Composition, Composer, Orchestra, Symphony
Building, Blueprint, Architect, Construction Company, Building
AI, Context Model, Prompt Engineer, AI, Virtual World
AI2, Prompt, Prompt Engineer, AI, Experience

So now a gaming machine looks like this:

A “game” is a set of instructions written by a “developer (or designer)” fed into an assemblage (or cybernetic bio-technical machine) called a “studio” that outputs a “program”.

And we can talk about…

Gaming as an Allographic Art

Back when we started with Cybernetic Machines, we brought up the concept of an “allographic art”, from Nelson Goodman (1962). An allographic art is an art that is crafted by others based on a set of instructions. The artist in this case is the creator of the work that is replicated, like a composer or architect.

So by this definition, a game – either tabletop or electronic – would fit as an allographic art form.

Granted TTRPG rules rarely rise to the level of “art”, often seeming content to aim for “technical manual”, but things are improving. A lot of smaller indie games, have been focusing on the presentation and the while package – games like Root, Mork Borg, and others – to say nothing of the beautiful games released within the boardgaming space (Canvas, Sagrada, Azul, Hues and Cues, and a host of others).

But there are competing visions of “art” here, as art in game design may occur irrespective of the aesthetic appeal of the components, and a dry technical manual with pretty pictures may still not make for an engaging or artful design. However, there is no reason why a black and white typed zine might not contain artfully designed gaming systems either.

And while we previously also discussed how a scripted performance like a symphony or ballet would count as an allographic art, gaming as performance – again, either tabletop (e.g. Critical Role, Dimension 20) or electronic (e.g. Twitch, YouTube, etc.) is a different form of art.

To be clear: both design and performance can be art. Both count.

In the same way that Mozart of Composer and the London Symphony Orchestra as Performer are artists, in different ways, of the same work. And while this is commonly accepted in those art forms, in others it rarely occurs.

Take film for example: one of the very instances of this in film is Gus Van Sant’s 1998 shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). Here we have the same script, and much of the same direction, attempting to remake a film in much the same way that we would see with other allographic art forms. Psycho (1998) is a performance of Psycho (1960). Or rather, both Psycho (1960) and Psycho (1998) are performances (or interpretations) of the original script. I.e., allographic art.

But it is so rarely done in that medium. What would it look like if it happened more often?

This discussion of film brings us back to gaming, hopefully. Here we can have artistry in the play, of the code or rules created by others for the gamers to showcase their interpretation to the world, and we can have artistry in the design, in the instructions as they are created, with the elegance or aesthetic appeal of the rules and their presentation showcasing that form of art.

Which leads us to the implied question: is gaming art? Of course!

Though there have been many arguments that video games aren’t art (with some stating that they are incapable of becoming so), these arguments have been always been false. Gaming is art.

And gaming machines can make it.

Science Machines

A “method” is a set of instructions fed into a cybernetic bio-technical machine called a “laboratory” that outputs an “experiment”.

Or something to that effect.

And then the artistry is in how that experiment comes together, much like the orchestra playing a symphony.
And this artistry occurs in the context of science as well. Or in the social construction of science.

The cybernetic machines madlib above show one way this can be constructed; of course there’s more, or other variations on a theme. It follows from the field of Science Studies – that understanding that science is a social undertaking – and so would likely be familiar to anyone aware of that field.

But I wanted to bring it up as it helps illustrate what we mean by “cybernetic bio-technical machine”. Bruno Latour would call this an “assemblage”. So swapping that in to our madlibs would look like: A “method” is a set of instructions fed into an assemblage called a “laboratory” that outputs an “experiment”. Which is much shorter and to the point, but ends up obscuring the details I wanted to focus on. Which in this case is nature of that machine.

By cybernetic and bio-technical, I mean that the machine is a combination of humans working with technology, in highly specialized ways, and those humans working with each other, as each of the examples we’ve used so far are most often done by people in groups.

An orchestra consists of musicians (the bio) each deeply focused on their instruments (the tech) working together to produce a symphony. So too with a film crew, their cameras, lenses, lights, microphones, and all the myriad tools that go into editing and finishing a film. Architecture and science are the same way.

But perhaps we need to add another term into our madlib. Where does the scientist fit into the above equation? Or the composer? Or any of the other creators, in relation to their specific assemblages? (I realized I’m playing fast and loose with my metaphors here; I trust you can follow along).

For a science machine: A “method” is a set of instructions written by a scientist fed into an assemblage called a “laboratory” that outputs an “experiment”.

(We added other creators to the footnote of the original post).

Each of these assemblages comes together under the auspice of a creator who crafts the set of instructions. This is where human agency lies – these things don’t instantiate on their own.

And to follow it back to the previous post, this pattern holds true with AI art as well. An allographic art form that follows the familiar pattern that we’ve seen above. At the time of this writing, there is no sentient AI on planet earth.

There is no autonomous art.

All art, even AI art, is human created, even if there are layers of machines behind the surface.