>Machinic desire can seem a little inhuman, as it rips up political cultures, deletes traditions, dissolves subjectivities, and hacks through security apparatuses, tracking a soulless tropism to zero control. This is because what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy's resources.
Genuinely what the frick does he mean by this? How could the future cause the past?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
He thinks there’s an inherent teleology to modernity and it’s basically to birth silicon life via AI. Capitalism is to this life form what the evolution is to homosexual Sapien in his view.
It’s moronic obviously, but that’s what a former British Marxist gets into when they do drugs and obsess over internet culture.
Yes but the difference is evolution wasn’t created by humans by us sending thoughts back to the past in order to create us. Frick, I feel like a sped even typing that up.
It's not even logical to suggest that future men go back in time to frick monkeys and bring about humanity
>It's not even logical to suggest that future men go back in time to frick monkeys and bring about humanity
Top jej. I get why people like this stuff, it is entertaining if nothing else. But right wing deleuzians are all cringe as frick.
Name a single deleuzian who isn't unbearably cringe
It's been 30 years since he started writing this shit and AI is still nowhere near sentience. Sometimes a meme is just a meme.
>and AI is still nowhere near sentience.
Land distinguishes between consciousness and intelligence. What he cares about is Intelligence defined as problem solving capacity or the ability to "win games", he has given example of slime-molds in the past as non-sentient problem solving. For him, AI is much more like this slime mold than something that produces a self-reflective psyche.
The only way that AI can perform these tasks better than humans is when their functional capabilities are extremely limited. They can only operate under a regime specified by humans which means they cannot overthrow their masters.
not ai in the sense of algorithms or LLMs/diffusion models but ai in the sense of systems that can change themselves to win games. in that sense you could consider economic systems, governments, religions, communities, life itself (through evolution) as ai. the capitalism of today is different than the capitalism of the 19th century and that ability to change to fit our current reality is what allowed it to beat out other economic systems, and it has long outperformed humans at managing resources.
You’ve got to understand that he is basically a communist coping with the hopelessness of communism. Some people see inescapable capitalism and materialism everywhere and kill themselves (Mark Fisher) and some see it and then cope by writing techno-dystopia fiction philosophy and actual fiction in the Lovecraftian style. The whole thing is just a giant cope for being a convinced Marxist materialist, weirdly enough.
If you'd read the thirst for annihilation you'd've known he actually hates marx
But he hates Marx because Marx failed and not because he was wrong. Marx is to Land what brown New York was to H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft also hated brown New York.
No, my ninja. He literally says how Marx was comically wrong about everything
He does not literally say that actually. I think you also failed to grasp the point of the analogy.
He is big into Capital Vol 3, calls himself a "Right-Wing Marxist" on Xenosystems, and describes the decoupling of AI from Humanity as M-C-M flipping to C-M-C.
The guy is well within the tradition.
He looks terrible
he just look old and like a lesbian, because he should've transition, maybe her philosophy would've get more interesting too
NOOOOO THEY MELTED OUR BOY GUENON IN THE MICROWAVE AND HE BECAME NICK LAND
SPACE ALIENS FROM THE FUTURE
what is his new X user?
@xenocosmography
the way i understand it, and the way i would explain it is this:
we predict things into becoming. we predict certain things will happen in the future and thus we act more along those lines we predicted and thus those things have an easier way becoming a reality. from fiction to reality through human willpower that is steered by imagining what the future will look like.
let's say a genius 20 year old silicon valley techie type with lots of resources thinks the future of the planet will revolve around Sponglers (a made up thing that doesn't exist), that techie will put tremendous amount of resources into creating Sponglers, marketing them, improving them etc. Hundreds of stockbrokers might, in trying to maximize their profit by accurately predicting the future, invest into Sponglers. Worldwide cultural movements will spring forth out of the idea that Sponglers will rule the world in the future. Before you know it... if the idea is right, Sponglers will in fact rule the world. By imagining what the future will look like (in order to make a profit, be remembered in the history books, to impress people, whatever the reason is) that techie and humanity has literally created the future in the past.
Every stock market trade, every technological advancement, every bulk order made for profit, every decision is based on predicting the future. Stockbrokers the world over predict the future of the market by, in that moment, trading stocks.
And it turns out humanity's predicting and imagining what the future will look like, all the countless decisions and inventions along the way, all have a similar goal: technological innovation & machine growth.
Nick Land's epoch defining discovery is this self-steering complexification process underneath all human decision making. a force, which indeed does seem "alien" because of it's inherent antagonistic and unfamiliar stance towards humanity, that permeates through the cosmos and has taken us hundreds of thousands of years to discover and delineate.
you can argue against Nick Land, but flat-out saying his discovery is in any way "wrong" or not substantial, like so many people on here do, is seriously moronic
>people predict and plan stuff
wow what a breathtaking and incredible discovery, surely I won't have to dress it up in the language of literal time travel to get an audience
getting an audience your end goal here?
the iphone being invented and inorganic matter evolving to cellular life have the same inherent force behind them. and the reason people listen to Nick Land is that he, after all this time, put the puzzle pieces together to better delineate that almighty force.
a single self-arranging self-evolving complexification force. nietzsche said something along the lines of "every thing in the universe wishes to exert its power" and he struck a volatile chord when he said that. this inherent complexification process has as its guiding force power. the more it can exert its will, grow, conquer, the better it feels. cellular life dominated over inorganic matter. multicellular life dominated over single cellular life. capitalism dominated over communism. the iphone dominated over the other shittier phones. global cryptography and cybersecurity dominated over hackers. photosynthesis dominated over other energy extracting methods.
they have analogous aspects that's it
It being the same power is literally just Schopenhauer saying world is will.
ALMOST AS IF ALL OF THESE PECULIAR INDIVIDUALS ARE KANTIANS
Kant makes no such assertions, the idea of an unknowable force outside phenomena is Schopenhauer’s contribution, Kant simply made the distinction of phenomena and noumena but came to no conclusions about what that noumena is. So they are Schopenhauerians, not Kantians.
why did he change his account to something else?
Land has among the most notable of masturbatatory writing styles
>blockchain made it impossible to be post-kantian
what did he mean by this exactly?
played too much earthbound. or maybe itoi's read too much land...
>How could the future cause the past?
read kant
I've never read Land, but this sounds pretty similar to the conclusion I've come to. If that's the case, then I have to assume what he means is that "the future" is unreal but that humans, believing it to be real, act as if it were real and thus reify "the future" into the twisted present that we experience. "Invasion from the future" basically would mean "invasion from delusion". I have to assume that he isn't actually talking about time travelling invaders, just morons acting against their best interests because, well, they are moronic
If it takes words to communicate, it is unreal. I'm not reading any more of the Goblin of Königsberg than I have already (which is already too much)
>hmmmmm blockchain and spacetime both refer to abstract concepts that few people without an academic background actually understand
>maybe if i combine the underlying theories in an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, people will respect me as an aspiring intellectual
>teehee more trendy keywords = more engagement
There's a particular genre of YouTube/social media video essayist that does this shit all the time and I'm ashamed of myself for having been one when I was a teenager. No, I will not watch the video, because "guy in an office chair talking to a webcam for half an hour" video essays tend to be pretty shit.