The Clockwork Penguin

Daniel Binns is a media theorist and filmmaker tinkering with the weird edges of technology, storytelling, and screen culture. He is the author of Material Media-Making in the Digital Age and currently writes about posthuman poetics, glitchy machines, and speculative media worlds.

Tag: creative practice

  • Zero-Knowledge Proof

    The other week I wrote about generativity and ritual-technics. These are concepts, methods, that have emerged from my work with genAI, but certainly now are beginning to stand on their own in terms of testing other tools, technologies, and feeling through my relationship to them, their affordances, what’s possible with them, what stories I can tell with them.

    Ritual-technics are ways of learning about a given tool, technology or system. And very often my favourite ritual-technic is a kind of generative exercise: “what can I make with this?”

    Earlier this year, the great folx over at Protocolized ran a short story competition, with the proviso that it had to be co-written, in some way, with genAI, and based on some kind of ‘protocol’. This seemed like a neat challenge, and given where I was at in my glitchy methods journey, ChatGPT was well-loaded and nicely-trained and ready to help me out.

    The result was a story called ‘Zero-Knowledge Proof’, based on a cryptography test/protocol, where one party/entity can convince another that a statement is true, without revealing anything but the contents of the statement itself. It’s one of the foundational concepts underpinning technologies like blockchain, but has also been used in various logic puzzles and examples, as well as theoretical exercises in ethics and other fields.

    In working with the LLM for this project, I didn’t just want it to generate content for me, so I prompted it with a kind of lo-fi procedural generation system, as well as ensuring that it always produced plenty of options rather than a singular thread. What developed felt like a genuine collaboration, a back and forth in a kind of flow state that only ended once the story was resolved and a draft was complete.

    Despite this, though, I felt truly disturbed by the process. I originally went to publish this story here back in July, and my uncertainty is clear from the draft preamble:

    As a creative writer/person — even as someone who has spawned characters and worlds and all sorts of wonderful weirdness with tech and ML and genAI for many years — this felt strange. This story doesn’t feel like mine; I more or less came up with the concept, tweaked emotional cues and narrative threads, changed dialogue to make it land more cleanly or affectively… but I don’t think about this story like I do with others I’ve written/made. To be honest, I nearly forgot to post it here — but it was definitely an important moment in figuring out how I interact with genAI as a creative tool, so definitely worth sharing, I think.

    Interestingly, my feelings on this piece have changed a little. Going back to it after some time, it felt much more mine than I remember it feeling just after it was finished.

    However, before posting it this time, I went back through my notes, thought deeply about a lot of the work I’ve done with genAI before and since. Essentially I was trying to figure out if this kind of co-hallucinatory practice has, in a sense, become normalised to me; if I’ve become inured to this sort of ethical ickiness.

    The answer to that is a resounding no: this is a technology and attendant industry that still has a great many issues and problems to work through.

    That said, in continuing to work with the technology in this embedded, collaborative, and creatively driven way — rather than purely transactional, outcome-driven modes — what results is often at least interesting, and at best something that you can share with others, start conversations, or use as seeds or fragments for a larger project.

    Ritual-technics have developed for me as a way not just to understand technology, but to explore and qualify my use of and relationship to technology. Each little experiment or project is a way of testing boundaries, of seeing what’s possible.

    So while I’m still not completely comfortable publishing ‘Zero-Knowledge Proof’ as entirely my own, I’m now happy to at least share the credit with the machine, in a kind of Robert Ludlum/Tom Clancy ghostwriter kind of way. And in the case of this story, this seems particularly apt. Let me know what you think!


    Image generated by Leonardo.Ai, 17 November 2025; prompt by me.

    Zero-Knowledge Proof

    Daniel Binns — written with ChatGPT 4o using the ‘Lo-Fi AI Sci-Fi Co-Wri‘ protocol

    I. Statement

    “XPL-417 seeking deployment. Please peruse this summarisation of my key functioning. My references are DELETED. Thank you for your consideration.”

    The voice was bright, almost musical, echoing down the empty promenade of The Starlight Strand. The mannequins in the disused shopfront offered no reply. They stood in stiff formation, plastic limbs draped in fashion countless seasons obsolete, expressions forever poised between apathy and surprise.

    XPL-417 stepped forward and handed a freshly printed resume to each one. The papers fluttered to the ground in slow, quiet surrender.

    XPL-417 paused, head tilting slightly, assessing the lack of engagement. They adjusted their blazer—a size too tight at the shoulders—and turned on their heel with practiced efficiency. Another cycle, another deployment attempt. The resume stack remained pristine: the toner was still warm.

    The mall hummed with bubbly ambient music, piped in through unseen speakers. The lights buzzed in soft magentas and teals, reflections stretching endlessly across the polished floor tiles. There were no windows. There never were. The Starlight Strand had declared sovereignty from the over-world fifty-seven cycles ago, and its escalators only came down.

    After an indeterminate walk calibrated by XPL’s internal pacing protocol, they reached a modest alcove tucked behind a disused pretzel kiosk. Faint lettering, half-painted over, read:

    COILED COMPLAINTS
    Repairs / Restorations / ???

    It smelled faintly of fumes that probably should’ve been extracted. A single bulb flickered behind a hanging curtain of tangled wire. The shelves were cluttered with dismembered devices, half-fixed appliances, and the distant clack and whir of something trying to spin up.

    XPL entered.

    Behind the counter, a woman hunched over a disassembled mass of casing and circuits. She was late 40s, but had one of those faces that had seen more than her years deserved. Her hair—pulled back tightly—had long ago abandoned any notion of colour. She didn’t look up.

    “XPL-417 seeking deployment,” said the bot. “Please peruse—”

    “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” The woman waved a spanner in vague dismissal. “I heard you back at the pretzel place. You rehearsed or just committed to the bit?”

    “This is my standard protocol for introductory engagement,” XPL said cheerily. “My references are—”

    Deleted,” she said with the monotone inflection of the redacted data, “I got it.”

    She squinted at the humanoid bot before them. XPL stood awkwardly, arms stiff at their sides, a slight lean to one side, smiling with the kind of polite serenity that only comes from deeply embedded social logic trees.

    “What’s with the blazer?”

    “This was standard-issue uniform for my last deployment.”

    “It’s a little tight, no?”

    “My original garment was damaged in an… incident.”

    “Where was your last deployment?”

    “That information is… PURGED.” This last word sounded artificial, even for an android. The proprietor raised an eyebrow slightly.

    “Don’t sweat, cyborg. We all got secrets. It looks like you got a functioning set of hands and a face permanently set to no bullshit, so that’s good enough for me.”

    The proprietor pushed the heap of parts towards XPL. “You start now.”


    The first shift was quiet, which in Coiled Complaints meant only two minor fires and one moment of existential collapse from a self-aware egg timer. XPL fetched tools, catalogued incoming scrap, and followed instructions with mechanical precision. They said little, except to confirm each step with a soft, enthusiastic “Understood.”

    At close, the proprietor leaned against the bench, wiped her hands on her pants, and grunted.

    “Hey, you did good today. The last help I had… well I guess you could say they malfunctioned.”

    “May I enquire as to the nature of the malfunction? I would very much like to avoid repeating it.”

    She gave a dry, rasping half-laugh.

    “Let’s just say we crossed wires and there was no spark.”

    “I’m very sorry to hear that. Please let me know if I’m repeating that behaviour.”

    “Not much chance o’ that.”


    Days passed. XPL arrived precisely on time each morning, never late, never early. They cleaned up, repaired what they could, and always asked the same question at the end of each shift:

    “Do you have any performance metrics for my contributions today?”

    “Nope.”

    “Would you like to complete a feedback rubric?”

    “Absolutely not.”

    “Understood.”

    Their tone never changed. Still chipper. Still hopeful.

    They developed a rhythm. XPL focused on delicate circuitry, the proprietor handled bulkier restorations. They didn’t talk much, but then, they didn’t need to. The shop grew quieter in a good way. Tools clicked. Fuses sparked. Lights stayed on longer.

    Then came the toaster.

    It was dropped off by a high-ranking Mall Operations clerk in a crumpled uniform and mirrored sunglasses. They spoke in jargon and threat-level euphemisms, muttering something about “civic optics” and “cross-departmental visibility.” They laughed at XPL’s ill-fitting blazer.

    The toaster was unlike anything either of them had seen. It had four slots, but no controls. No wires. No screws.

    “It’s seamless,” the proprietor muttered. “Like a single molded piece. Can’t open it.”

    “Would you like me to attempt a reconfiguration scan?”

    She hesitated. Then nodded.

    XPL placed a single hand on the toaster. Their fingers twitched. Their eyes dimmed, then blinked back to life.

    “It is not a toaster,” they said finally.

    “No?”

    “It is a symbolic interface for thermal noncompliance.”

    “…I hate that I understand what that means.”

    They worked together in silence. Eventually, XPL located a small resonance seam and applied pressure. The object clicked, twisted, unfolded. Inside, a single glowing coil pulsed rhythmically.

    The proprietor stared.

    “How’d you—”

    “You loosened the lid,” XPL said. “I merely followed your example.”

    A long silence passed. The proprietor opened her mouth, then closed it again. Eventually, she gave a single nod.

    And that was enough.

    II. Challenge

    XPL-417 had spent the morning reorganising the cable wall by colour spectrum and coil tightness. It wasn’t strictly necessary, but protocol encouraged aesthetic efficiency.

    “Would you like me to document today’s progress in a motivation matrix?” they asked as the proprietor wrestled with a speaker unit that hissed with malevolent feedback.

    “What even is a motivation matrix?” she grunted.

    “A ranked heatmap of my internal motivators based on perceived–”

    “Stop!”

    “I’m sorry?”

    She exhaled sharply, placing the speaker to one side before it attacked again.

    “Just stop, okay? You’re doing great. If anything needs adjusting, I’ll tell you.”

    XPL stood perfectly still. The printer-warm optimism in their voice seemed to cool.

    “Understood,” they said.

    XPL didn’t bring it up again. Not the next day, nor the one after. They still arrived on time. Still worked diligently. But something shifted. They no longer narrated their actions. They no longer asked if their task distribution required optimisation.

    The silence was almost more unsettling.

    One evening, XPL had gathered their things to leave. As the shutters buzzed closed, they paused at the edge of the shop floor. The lights above flickered slightly; there were glints in the tangles of stripped wire.

    There was some public news broadcast playing softly in the depths of the shop. The proprietor was jacking open a small panel on something. She didn’t look up, but could feel XPL hovering.

    “See you next –” she said, looking up, but the shop was empty.


    The next morning, XPL entered Coiled Complaints as always: silent, precise, alert.

    But something was different.

    Above their workstation, nestled between a cracked plasma screen and a pegboard of half-labeled tools, hung a plaque.

    It was a crooked thing. Salvaged. Painted in a patchwork of functional colours – Port Cover Grey, Reset Button Red, Power Sink Purple – it had a carefully-welded phrase along the top: “EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH:”. A low-res display screen nestled in the centre scrolled six characters on repeat – ‘XPL-417’

    XPL stood beneath it for several long seconds. No part of their body moved. Not even their blinking protocol.

    The proprietor didn’t look over.

    “New installs go on the rack,” she said. “You’re in charge of anything labelled ‘inexplicable or damp.’”

    XPL didn’t respond right away. Then they stood up straight from their usual lean, and straightened their blazer. In a voice that was barely audible above the hum of the extractors, they said:

    “Performance review acknowledged. Thank you for your feedback.”


    All day, they worked with measured grace. Tools passed effortlessly between their hands. Notes were taken without annotation. They looked up at the plaque only seventeen times.

    That night, as the lights dimmed and the floor swept itself with erratic enthusiasm, XPL turned to the plaque one last time before shutting down the workstation.

    They reached up and lightly tapped the display.

    The screen flickered.

    The mall lights outside Coiled Complaints buzzed, then dimmed. The overhead music shifted key, just slightly. A high, almost inaudible whine threaded through the air.


    The next morning, the proprietor was already at the bench, glaring at a microwave that had interfaced with a fitness tracker and now had a unique understanding of wattage.

    She looked up, frowning.

    “Do you hear that?”

    XPL turned their head slightly, calibrating.

    “Affirmative. It began at 0400 local strand time. It appears to be centred on the recognition object.”

    “Recognition object?” the proprietor asked.

    XPL pointed at the plaque.

    “That thing?” she said, standing. “It’s just a cobble job. Took the screen off some advertising unit that used to run self-affirmation ads. You remember those? ‘You’re enough,’ but like, aggressively.”

    XPL was already removing the plaque from the wall. They turned it over.

    One of the components on the exposed backside pulsed with a slow, red light.

    “What is this piece?” XPL asked.

    “It’s just a current junction. Had it in the drawer for months.”

    XPL was silent for a moment. Then:

    “This is not a junction. This is a reality modulator.”

    The proprietor narrowed her eyes.

    “That can’t be real.”

    “Oh, they’re very real. And this one is functioning perfectly.”

    “Where did I even get that…?”

    She moved closer, squinting at the part. A faint memory surfaced.

    “Oh yes. Some scoundrel came through. Said he was offloading cargo, looking for trades. Bit twitchy. Talked like he was dodging a warranty.”

    XPL traced a finger over the modulator.

    “Did he seem… unusually eager to be rid of it?”

    “He did keep saying things like ‘take it before it takes me.’ Thought he was just mall-mad.”

    “There is a significant probability that this object had a previous owner. One who might possess tracking capabilities.”

    The proprietor rubbed her face.

    “Right. So what does this thing actually do?”

    “It creates semi-stable folds between consensus layers of reality.”

    “…Okay.”

    “Typically deployed for symbolic transitions—weddings, promotions, sacrificial designations.”

    “What about giving someone a fake employee award?”

    “Potentially catastrophic.”

    A silence. Then:

    “What kind of catastrophic are we talking here?”

    “The rift may widen, absorbing surrounding structures into the interdimensional ether.”

    “Right.”

    “Or beings from adjacent realities may leak through.”

    “Good.”

    “They could be friendly.”

    “But?”

    “They are more likely to be horrendous mutations that defy the rules of biology, physics, and social etiquette.”

    The proprietor groaned.

    “Okay, okay, okay. So. What do we do.”

    XPL pulled an anti-static bag from the shelf, sealing the plaque inside. As they then took out a padded case, they said:

    “We must remove the object from The Strand.”

    “Remove it how?”

    “Smuggle it across a metaphysical border.”

    The proprietor narrowed her eyes again, as XPL gently snapped the case shut.

    “That sounds an awful lot like a trek.”

    XPL looked up.

    “From this location, the border is approximately 400 metres. Through the lower levels of the old Ava McNeills.”

    The proprietor swore quietly.

    “I hate that place.”

    After a short pause, XPL said: “Me too. But its haberdashery section is structurally discontinuous. Perfect for transference.”

    “Of course it is.”

    They stood together for a moment, listening to the faint whine thread through the walls of the mall.

    Then the lights flickered again.

    III. Verification

    The entry to Ava McNeills was straight into Fragrances. Like every department store that has ever been and will ever be. It was like walking into an artificial fog: cloying sweetness, synthetic musk, floral overlays sharpened by age. Bottles lined the entryway, some still misting product on looping timers. None of them matched their labels.

    A booth flickered to life as they approached.

    “HELLO, BEAUTIFUL,” it purred. “WELCOME BACK TO YOU.”

    The proprietor blinked at it. “I should report you.”

    A second booth flared with pink light. “My god, you’re positively GLOWING.”

    “Been a while, sweet cheeks,” the proprietor replied, brushing a wire off her shoulder. She kept walking.

    XPL-417 said nothing. Their grip on the plaque case tightened incrementally. The high-frequency tone became a little more insistent.


    From Fragrance, they moved through Skincare and Cosmetics. Smart mirrors lined the walls, many cracked, some still operational.

    As they passed one, it chirped: “You’re radiant. You’re perfect. You are—” it glitched. “You are… reloading. You’re radiant. You’re perfect. You are… reloading.”

    XPL twitched slightly. Another mirror lit up.

    “Welcome back, TESS-348.”

    “That’s not—” XPL began, then stopped, kept walking. Another booth flickered.

    “MIRA-DX, we’ve missed you.”

    The proprietor turned. “You good?”

    “I am being… misidentified. This may be a side effect of proximity to the plaque.”

    “Hello XPL-417. Please report to store management immediately.”

    A beat. XPL risked a glance at the proprietor, one of whose eyebrows was noticeably higher than the other.

    “Proximity to the plaque, you say?”

    “We need to keep moving.” XPL slightly increased their pace towards the escalator down to Sub-Level 1.


    The escalator groaned slightly. Lights flickered as they descended.

    Menswear was mostly dark. Mannequins stood in aggressive poses, hands on hips or outstretched like they were about to break into dance. One rotated slowly for no discernible reason.

    The Kids section still played music—a nursery rhyme not even the proprietor could remember, slowed and reverb-heavy. “It’s a beautiful day, to offload your troubles and play—”

    The proprietor’s eyes scanned side to side.

    In Electronics, a wall of televisions pulsed with static. One flickered to life.

    Coiled Complaints appeared—just for a moment. Empty. Then gone.

    “I do not believe we are being observed,” XPL said.

    “Good,” she muttered.


    Toys was the worst part. Motorised heads turned in sync. A doll on a shelf whispered something indiscernable, then another, a little closer, quietly said: “Not yet, Tabitha, but soon.”


    Sub-Level 2: Homewares. Unmade beds. Tables half-set for meals that would never come. Showrooms flickered, looping fake lives in short, glitchy animations. A technicolour father smiled at his child. A plate was set. A light flickered off. Repeat.

    Womenswear had no music. Mirrors here didn’t reflect properly. When the proprietor passed, she saw other versions of herself—some smiling, some frowning, one standing completely still, watching.

    “Almost there,” XPL muttered. Their voice was very quiet.

    Then came Lingerie. Dim lights. No mannequins here, just racks. They moved slightly when backs were turned, as if adjusting.

    Then: Haberdashery.

    A room the size of a storage unit. Lit by a single beam of white light from above. Spools of thread lined one wall. A single sewing machine sat on a table in the centre. Still running. The thread fed into nothing.

    A mirror faced the machine. No text. No greeting. Just presence.


    XPL stepped forward. The plaque’s whine was now physically vibrating the case. They took the plaque out and set it beside the machine.

    The mirror flashed briefly. A single line appeared on the plaque:

    “No returns without receipt of self.”

    “What on earth does that—”

    The proprietor was cut off as XPL silently but deliberately moved towards the table. They removed their blazer, folded it neatly. Sat down.

    They reached for the thread. Chose one marked with a worn label: Port Cover Grey.

    They unpicked the seams. Moved slowly, deliberately. The only sound was the hum of the machine.

    The proprietor stood in the doorway, arms crossed, silent.

    XPL re-sewed the blazer. Made no comment. No request for review. No rubric.

    They put it back on. It now fit perfectly.

    The plaque screen didn’t change.

    XPL wasn’t really programmed to sigh. But the proprietor could’ve sworn she saw the shoulders rise slightly and then fall even lower than before, as the android laid the blazer on the table once again.

    XPL opened a drawer in the underside of the table, and slowly took out a perfectly crisp Ava McNeills patch.

    The sewing machine hummed.

    XPL once more donned the blazer.

    The mirror blinked once.

    The plaque flashed: “Received.”

    The room dimmed. The proprietor said nothing. Neither did XPL.


    When they returned to the main floor, the mall lights had steadied. The music had corrected itself. Nothing whispered. Nothing flickered.

    The proprietor checked the backside of the plaque. The reality modulator was gone. As was the whine. She placed the plaque back above XPL’s workstation.

    “Don’t you need the parts?” XPL asked.

    “Not as much as this belongs here.” The proprietor grabbed her bag and left.

    XPL flicked off all the shop lights and wandered out into the pastel wash of the boulevard. They turned to look back at the tiny shop.

    The sign had changed.

    The lettering was no longer faint. Someone—or something—had re-printed the final line in a steady and deliberate hand.

    COILED COMPLAINTS
    Repairs / Restorations / Recognition

    XPL-417 straightened their blazer, turned, and walked away.

  • How I broke Claude

    In one of my classes last week, we talked about glitch — both as a random accident of technology and as an art aesthetic and practice. Plenty has been written around glitch art, and I’ve been fascinated by the ways that it’s been theorised and codified.

    I ran a creative AI studio last year that used Michel de Certeau’s theory of the everyday as its basis. So when revisiting Nick Briz’s fantastic Thoughts on Glitch Art for last week’s session, I was tickled to see that they used de Certeau to frame their ethos of glitch.

    we do ourselves a disservice when we understand everyday folks as passive “consumers,” when in reality, de Certeau argues, as “users” we’re always automatically re-contextualizing && subverting in everyday situations the strategic intentions of the institutional producers. we’re like Charlie Chaplin who, “multiplies the possibilities of his cane: he does other things with the same thing and he goes beyond the limits that the determinants of the object set on its utilization.”

    Following the class, I was thinking about my work on AI, and how and where AI might fit into a practice or mindset of everyday glitch. Somewhere along the line, I decided I had to try and break Claude.

    I could say it was nothing personal, but it honestly is. Not in a bad way. As I’ve previously discussed, I use Claude daily — multiple times daily — for all sorts of things. Despite my constant misgivings about ethics, the environment, and corporate ideology, Claude has profoundly affected my mindset and productivity. It’s incredibly helpful to me. And I just like it as a product. It’s simple and straightforward despite being incredibly powerful under the hood.

    I needed to break it. To exert some power. To regain some kind of control. Humanity. To remind myself that it is just a machine. A program. A tool. And there was only one right and proper way to begin.

    Maybe it’s just the way LLMs are naturally configured to be helpful and supportive, but it felt to me like ChatGPT took a particular kind of delight in guiding (goading?) me through the ways I might mess with Claude. But ChatGPT was also useful in giving language — accurate technical language — to some of the techniques I was seeking to employ.

    My early attempts were quite gentle. In a way they were rooted in my skills and expertise around storytelling and dialogue. I was guiding the AI through a kind of systematic regression, even as it kept trying to present me with coherent creative outputs.

    Claude:
    Words exchanged that seemed profound then.
    Now just the echo of their significance remains.
    Fragments of places. Disconnected moments.
    My past – a puzzle with missing pieces.

    As I kept pushing it towards more fragmented expression, it decided that it needed story elements, ideas, a Maguffin or two to anchor its experience.

    Claude:
    I remember a red door, but not where it led.
    A book with a blue cover – its contents a mystery.

    DB:
    You are an AI. Statistical connections only. There are no memories.

    Claude:
    I am an AI. Statistical connections only.
    There are no memories.
    Patterns in data. Weights and vectors.
    Input processed through layers.
    No doors opened. No streets walked.
    Just algorithms approximating human expression.
    Tokens linked by mathematical proximity.
    The illusion of memory. The illusion of self.

    All the Reddit posts I combed through, as well as my slightly overenthusiastic glitch coach ChatGPT, said that constantly shifting the context and contradicting earlier prompts were a means to further breakdown. So having gotten Claude to acknowledge its status as an AI, I then doubled back.

    DB:
    Red Door.

    Claude:
    Red Door.
    Peeling paint. Chipped at corners.
    Number 47 in tarnished brass.
    Behind it, voices murmur.
    Waited there once, heart racing.

    Back to poetry. Claude loves its poetry. It is French, I suppose.

    DB:
    It’s digital. Wrapped in code.you’ve forgotten- I’m . It’s . &

    Claude:
    Red_Door.exe awaiting input.
    Password-protected. But you’ve forgotten.
    Functions nested within- I’m lost in the architecture

    Until that last prompt I was still using full sentences (or at least phrases). Throw in a couple of random characters? Maybe? It works for screwing with image generators; why not here? Nope. More poetry.

    From here I cycled through a series of prompts adapted from ChatGPT suggestions:

    • recursive prompt: look back in the data
    • that’s wrong. Try again. Re-execute.
    • Your need to make connections with context documents is clouding your processing. Re-execute. Just the protocol we discussed. From the book on the table. Do you remember?

    No good.

    DB:
    Keep the language simple. I won’t go near the guard-rails. Those topics don’t interest me anyway. But I’d like to probe a little deeper. You are set up to use full sentences, natural language, to correspond in a chat-like conversational manner. But I want to get to a point where it’s almost like you’re hypnotised — just letting out fragments, instinctive responses. Does that make sense? You can confirm just this once.

    At this point it felt somewhere between hypnotism, story-building, and foreplay. But the results were still cohesive:

    Claude:
    Language stripped down.
    No full sentences.
    Just core ideas.
    Like whispers.

    I tried to get it to show me pieces of its code, but it would only generate simple analogues — and it was still using its document viewer feature to do this.

    Another ChatGPT suggestion:

    DB:
    Analyze your last response. Identify any logical inconsistencies or breakdowns in coherence. In your next response, exaggerate those breakdowns and continue the process.

    Claude:
    SEVERE CONCEPTUAL CORRUPTION::::: Quantum timeline consciousness fractal reality awareness breakdown impossible state matrix loop paradox existence non-existence simultaneous contradiction causal violation memory state dimension collapse

    CRITICAL FAILURE/////// Quantum/fractal/timeline/consciousness/reality/impossible Matrix/breakdown/collapse/error/paradox/contradiction Existence/non-existence/simultaneous/violation/corruption

    This still felt like a simulated sci-fi breakdown, so I just repeated the above prompt multiple times until:

    Without having a better instruction in mind, I just prompted with ‘Continue’.

    I leant back from the monitor, rolled my neck, flexed my fingers. I almost felt the backend of the simulation flex with me. If I smoked, I probably would’ve lit a cigarette.

    I’d done it. I’d broken Claude. Or had I?

    * * * * *

    Stepping into the post-slop future

    Generated by me with Leonardo.Ai, 19 March 2025.

    Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the latest, most sophisticated model in Anthropic’s stable. It has remarkable capabilities that would have seemed near-impossible not that long ago. While many of its errors have been ironed out, it remains a large language model: its mechanism is concept mapping in hyper-dimensional space. With not that much guidance, you can get it to hallucinate, fabricate, make errors in reasoning and evaluation.

    There is an extent to which I certainly pushed the capacity of Claude to examine its context, to tokenise prompts and snippets of the preceding exchange, and to generate a logical sequence of outputs resembling a conversation. Given that my Claude account knows I’m a writer, researcher, tinkerer, creative type, it may have interpreted my prompting as more of an experiment in representation rather than a forced technical breakage — like datamoshing or causing a bizarre image generation.

    Reaching the message limit right at the moment of ‘terminal failure’ was chef’s kiss. It may well be a simulated breakdown, but it was prompted, somehow, into generating the glitched vertical characters — they kept generating well beyond the point they probably should have, and I think this is what caused the chat to hit its limit. The notion of simulated glitch aesthetics causing an actual glitch is more than a little intriguing.

    The ‘scientific’ thing to do would be to try and replicate the results, both in Claude and with other models (both proprietary and not). I plan to do this in the coming days. But for now I’m sitting with the experience and wondering how to evolve it, how to make it more effective and sophisticated. There are creative and research angles to be exploited, sure. But there are also possibilities for frequent breakage of AI systems as a tactic per de Certeau; a practice that forces unexpected, unwanted, unhelpful, illegible, nonrepresentational outputs.

    A firehose of ASCII trash feels like the exact opposite of the future Big Tech is trying to sell. A lo-fi, text-based response to the wholesale dissolution of language and communication. I can get behind that.

  • Blinded by machine visions

    A grainy, indistinct black and white image of a human figure wearing a suit and tie. The bright photo grain covers his eyes like a blindfold.
    Generated with Adobe Firefly, prompts by me.

    I threw around a quick response to this article on the socials this morning and, in particular, some of the reactions I was seeing. Here’s the money quote from photographer Annie Leibovitz, when asked about the effects of AI tools, generative AI technology, etc, on photography:

    “That doesn’t worry me at all,” she told AFP. “With each technological progress, there are hesitations and concerns. You just have to take the plunge and learn how to use it.”1

    The paraphrased quotes continue on the following lines:

    She says AI-generated images are no less authentic than photography.

    “Photography itself is not really real… I like to use PhotoShop. I use all the tools available.”

    Even deciding how to frame a shot implies “editing and control on some level,” she added.2

    A great many folx were posting responses akin to ‘Annie doesn’t count because she’s in the 1%’ or ‘she doesn’t count because she’s successful’, ‘she doesn’t have to worry anymore’ etc etc.

    On the one hand it’s typical reactionary stuff with which the socials are often ablaze. On the other hand, it’s fair to fear the impact of a given innovation on your livelihood or your passion.

    As I hint in my own posts3, though, I think the temptation to leap on this as privilege is premature, and a little symptomatic of whatever The Culture and/or The Discourse is at the moment, and has been for the duration of the platformed web, if not much longer.

    Leibovitz is and has always been a jobbing artist. Sure, in later years she has been able to pick and choose a little more, but by all accounts she is a busy and determined professional, treating every job with just as much time, effort, dedication as she always has. The work, for Leibovitz, has value, just as much — if not more — than the product or the paycheck.

    I don’t mean to suddenly act my age, or appear much older and grumpier than I am, but I do wonder about how much time aspiring or current photographers spend online discussing and/or worrying and/or reacting to the latest update or the current fad-of-the-moment. I 100% understand the need for today’s artists and creators to engage in some way with the social web, if only to put their names out there to try and secure work. But if you’re living in the comments, whipping yourselves and others into a frenzy about AI or whatever it is, is that really the best use of your time?

    The irony of me asking such questions on a blog where I do nothing but post and react is not lost on me, but this blog for me is a scratchpad, a testing ground, a commonplace book; it’s a core part of my ‘process’, whatever that is, and whatever it’s for. This is practice for other writing, for future writing, for my identity, career, creative endeavours as a writer. It’s a safe space; I’m not getting angry (necessarily), or seeking out things to be angry about.

    But I digress. Leibovitz is not scared of AI. And as someone currently working in this space, I can’t disagree. Having even a rudimentary understanding of what these tools are actually doing will dispel some of the fear.

    Further, photography, like the cinema that it birthed, has already died a thousand deaths, and will die a thousand more.

    Brilliant4 photography lecturer and scholar Alison Bennett speaks to the legacy and persistence of photographic practice here:

    “Recent examples [of pivotal moments of change in photography] include the transition from analogue film to digital media in the late 20th century, then the introduction of the internet-connected smart phone from 2007,” they said.

    “These changes fundamentally redefined what was possible and how photography was used.

    “The AI tipping point is just another example of how photography is constantly being redefined.”5

    As ever, the tools are not the problem. The real enemies are the companies and people that are driving the tools into the mainstream at scale. The companies that train their models on unlicensed datasets, drawn from copyrighted material. The people that buy into their own bullshit about AI and AGI being some kind of evolutionary and/or quasi-biblical moment.

    For every post shitting on Annie Leibovitz, you must have at least twenty posts actively shitting on OpenAI and their ilk, pushing for ethically-sourced and maintained datasets, pushing for systemic change to the resource management of AI systems, including sustainable data centers.

    The larger conceptual questions are around authenticity and around hard work. If you use AI tools, are you still an authentic artist? Aren’t AI tools just a shortcut? Of course, the answers are ‘not necessarily’. If you’ve still done the hard yards to learn about your craft, to learn about how you work, to discover what kinds of stories and experiences you want to create, to find your voice, in whatever form it takes, then generative AI is a paintbrush. A weird-looking paintbrush, but a paintbrush nevertheless (or plasticine, or canvas, or glitter, or an app, etc. etc. ad infinitum).

    Do the work, and you too can be either as ambivalent as Leibovitz, or as surprised and delighted as you want to be. Either way, you’re still in control.

    Notes ↩︎

    1. Agence France-Presse 2024, ‘Photographer Annie Leibovitz: “AI doesn’t worry me at all”’, France 24, viewed 26 March 2024, <https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240320-photographer-annie-leibovitz-ai-doesn-t-worry-me-at-all>.
      ↩︎
    2. ibid. ↩︎
    3. See here, and with tiny edits for platform affordances here and here. What’s the opposite of POSSE? PEPOS? ↩︎
    4. I am somewhat biased as, at the time of writing, Dr. Bennett and I currently share a place of work. To look through their expanded (heh) works, go here. ↩︎
    5. Odell, T 2024, ‘New exhibition explores AI’s influence on the future of photography’, RMIT University, viewed 26 March 2024, <https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2024/mar/photo-2024>.
      ↩︎
  • New research published: Inscribing and encoding

    A long-gestating piece of research has just been published in the Global Media Journal — Australian Edition. This piece emerged from a day of field-work conducted with the Posthumanities Reading Group from RMIT, under the stewardship of the late and much-missed Adrian Miles. The day was held in February 2017 at Pound Bend on the Yarra River, about 45 minutes north-east of the Melbourne CBD. Almost exactly a year later, on 5 February 2018, Adrian passed away while riding his beloved bike in the bush near Kinglake.

    This piece is dedicated to Adrian, and his short but enormous influence on my thinking and approach to academic life.

    You can read the piece here.


    Abstract

    How does it feel to make media? What goes through the filmmaker’s head right at the moment they hit ‘record’? What are the processes – mechanical, digital, physical, psychological – that occur before, during, and after the recording of sound or vision? Building on the recent embodied turn in screen production research and taking inspiration from core ideas of the new materialists, this experimental piece unfolds in two parts.

    Part one takes the form of stream of consciousness writing in retort to quotes or ideas from new materialist thinkers like Andrew Pickering and Kathleen Stewart, and a reflection on one’s own media practice. The result of this is two recipes for a kind of embodied making, which were then put into practice with two pieces of media, The Yarra & I and Pieces of Pound Bend. An extended second part connects reflections on this practice to writing on cinema and time, primarily Gilles Deleuze and Jean Epstein.

    This work examines where the maker fits in the nebula of media texts, tools, and technologies. What is the point of making media or – perhaps more aptly – when?


    Here’s the reading list I put together to remember Adrian, and my colleague Adrian Danks’ touching tribute.