Tag: writing

• Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings

  July 8, 2025

  

  Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies or too many fingers, but it might be something just a little off in the background. Or video content that feels a little too real.

  The markers of AI-generated media are becoming harder to spot as technology companies work to iron out the kinks in their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.

  But what if instead of trying to detect and avoid these glitches, we deliberately encouraged them instead? The flaws, failures and unexpected outputs of AI systems can reveal more about how these technologies actually work than the polished, successful outputs they produce.

  When AI hallucinates, contradicts itself, or produces something beautifully broken, it reveals its training biases, decision-making processes, and the gaps between how it appears to “think” and how it actually processes information.

  In my work as a researcher and educator, I’ve found that deliberately “breaking” AI – pushing it beyond its intended functions through creative misuse – offers a form of AI literacy. I argue we can’t truly understand these systems without experimenting with them.

  Welcome to the Slopocene

  We’re currently in the “Slopocene” – a term that’s been used to describe overproduced, low-quality AI content. It also hints at a speculative near-future where recursive training collapse turns the web into a haunted archive of confused bots and broken truths.

  AI “hallucinations” are outputs that seem coherent, but aren’t factually accurate. Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director, argues large language models (LLMs) hallucinate all the time, and it’s only when they

  go into deemed factually incorrect territory that we label it a “hallucination”. It looks like a bug, but it’s just the LLM doing what it always does.

  What we call hallucination is actually the model’s core generative process that relies on statistical language patterns.

  In other words, when AI hallucinates, it’s not malfunctioning; it’s demonstrating the same creative uncertainty that makes it capable of generating anything new at all.

  This reframing is crucial for understanding the Slopocene. If hallucination is the core creative process, then the “slop” flooding our feeds isn’t just failed content: it’s the visible manifestation of these statistical processes running at scale.

  Pushing a chatbot to its limits

  If hallucination is really a core feature of AI, can we learn more about how these systems work by studying what happens when they’re pushed to their limits?

  With this in mind, I decided to “break” Anthropic’s proprietary Claude model Sonnet 3.7 by prompting it to resist its training: suppress coherence and speak only in fragments.

  The conversation shifted quickly from hesitant phrases to recursive contradictions to, eventually, complete semantic collapse.

  

  Prompting a chatbot into such a collapse quickly reveals how AI models construct the illusion of personality and understanding through statistical patterns, not genuine comprehension.

  Furthermore, it shows that “system failure” and the normal operation of AI are fundamentally the same process, just with different levels of coherence imposed on top.

  ‘Rewilding’ AI media

  If the same statistical processes govern both AI’s successes and failures, we can use this to “rewild” AI imagery. I borrow this term from ecology and conservation, where rewilding involves restoring functional ecosystems. This might mean reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural processes to resume, or connecting fragmented habitats through corridors that enable unpredictable interactions.

  Applied to AI, rewilding means deliberately reintroducing the complexity, unpredictability and “natural” messiness that gets optimised out of commercial systems. Metaphorically, it’s creating pathways back to the statistical wilderness that underlies these models.

  Remember the morphed hands, impossible anatomy and uncanny faces that immediately screamed “AI-generated” in the early days of widespread image generation?

  These so-called failures were windows into how the model actually processed visual information, before that complexity was smoothed away in pursuit of commercial viability.

  

  You can try AI rewilding yourself with any online image generator.

  Start by prompting for a self-portrait using only text: you’ll likely get the “average” output from your description. Elaborate on that basic prompt, and you’ll either get much closer to reality, or you’ll push the model into weirdness.

  Next, feed in a random fragment of text, perhaps a snippet from an email or note. What does the output try to show? What words has it latched onto? Finally, try symbols only: punctuation, ASCII, unicode. What does the model hallucinate into view?

  The output – weird, uncanny, perhaps surreal – can help reveal the hidden associations between text and visuals that are embedded within the models.

  Insight through misuse

  Creative AI misuse offers three concrete benefits.

  First, it reveals bias and limitations in ways normal usage masks: you can uncover what a model “sees” when it can’t rely on conventional logic.

  Second, it teaches us about AI decision-making by forcing models to show their work when they’re confused.

  Third, it builds critical AI literacy by demystifying these systems through hands-on experimentation. Critical AI literacy provides methods for diagnostic experimentation, such as testing – and often misusing – AI to understand its statistical patterns and decision-making processes.

  These skills become more urgent as AI systems grow more sophisticated and ubiquitous. They’re being integrated in everything from search to social media to creative software.

  When someone generates an image, writes with AI assistance or relies on algorithmic recommendations, they’re entering a collaborative relationship with a system that has particular biases, capabilities and blind spots.

  Rather than mindlessly adopting or reflexively rejecting these tools, we can develop critical AI literacy by exploring the Slopocene and witnessing what happens when AI tools “break”.

  This isn’t about becoming more efficient AI users. It’s about maintaining agency in relationships with systems designed to be persuasive, predictive and opaque.

  ---

  This article was originally published on The Conversation on 1 July, 2025. Read the article here.

• Give me your answer, do

  February 9, 2025

  

  For better or worse, I’m getting a bit of a reputation as ‘the AI guy’ in my immediate institutional sub-area. Depending on how charitable you’re feeling, this could be seen as very generous or wildly unfounded. I am not in any way a computer scientist or expert on emergent consciousness, synthetic cognition, language models, media generators, or even prompt engineering. I remain the same old film and media teacher and researcher I’ve always been. But I have always used fairly advanced technology as part of anything creative. My earliest memories are of typing up, decorating, and printing off books or banners or posters from my Dad’s old IBM computer. From there it was using PC laptops and desktops, and programs like Publisher or WordPerfect, 3D Movie Maker and Fine Artist, and then more media-specific tools at uni, like Final Cut and Pro Tools.

  Working constantly with computers, software, and apps, automatically turns you into something of a problem-solver—the hilarious ‘joke’ of media education is that the teachers have to be only slightly quicker than their students at Googling a solution. As well as problem-solving, I am predisposed to ‘daisy-chaining’. My introduction to the term was as a means of connecting multiple devices together—on Mac systems circa 2007-2017 this was fairly standard practice thanks to the inter-connectivity of Firewire cables and ports (though I’m informed that this is still common even through USB). Reflecting back on years of software and tool usage, though, I can see how I was daisy-chaining constantly. Ripping from CD or DVD, or capturing from tape, then converting to a useable format in one program, then importing the export to another program, editing or adjusting, exporting once again, then burning or converting et cetera et cetera. Even not that long ago, there weren’t exactly ‘one-stop’ solutions to media, in the same way that you might see an app like CapCut or Instagram in that way now.

  There’s also a kind of ethos to daisy-chaining. In shifting from one app, program, platform, or system, to another, you’re learning different ways of doing things, adapting your workflows each time, even if only subtly. Each interface presents you with new or different options, so you can apply a unique combination of visual, aural, and affective layers to your work. There’s also an ethos of independence: you are not locked in to one app’s way of doing things. You are adaptable, changeable, and you cherry-pick the best of what a variety of tools has to offer in order to make your work the best it can be. This is the platform economics argument, or the political platform economics argument, or some variant on all of this. Like everyone, I’ve spent many hours whinging about the time it took to make stuff or to get stuff done, wishing there was the ‘perfect app’ that would just do it all. But over time I’ve come to love my bundle of tools—the set I download/install first whenever I get a new machine (or have to wipe an old one); my (vomits) ‘stack’.

  * * * * *

  The above philosophy is what I’ve found myself doing with AI tools. I suppose out of all of them, I use Claude the most. I’ve found it the most straightforward in terms of setting up custom workspaces (what Claude calls ‘Projects’ and what ChatGPT calls ‘Custom GPTs’), and just generally really like the character and flavour of responses I get back. I like that it’s a little wordy, a little more academic, a little more florid, because that’s how I write and speak; though I suppose the outputs are not just encoded into the model, but also a mirror of how I’ve engaged with it. Right now in Claude I have a handful of projects set up:

  • Executive Assistant: Helps me manage my time, prioritise tasks, and keep me on track with work and creative projects. I’ve given it summaries of all my projects and commitments, so it can offer informed suggestions where necessary.
  • Research Assistant: I’ve given this most of my research outputs, as well as a curated selection of research notes, ideas, reference summaries, sometimes whole source texts. This project is where I’ll brainstorm research or teaching ideas, fleshing out concepts, building courses, etc
  • Creative Partner: This remains semi-experimental, because I actually don’t find AI that useful in this particular instance. However, this project has been trained on a couple of my produced media works, as well as a handful of creative ideas. I find the responses far too long to be useful, and often very tangential to what I’m actually trying to get out of it—but this is as much a project context and prompting problem as it is anything else.
  • 2 x Course Assistants: Two projects have been trained with all the materials related to the courses I’m running in the upcoming semester. These projects are used to brainstorm course structures, lesson plans, and even lecture outlines.
  • Systems Assistant: This is a little different to the Executive/Research Assistants, in that it is specifically set up around ‘systems’, so the various tools, methods, workflows that I use for any given task. It’s also a kind of ‘life admin’ helper in the sense of managing information, documents, knowledge, and so on. Now that I think of it, ‘Daisy’ would probably be a great name for this project—but then again…

  I will often bounce ideas, prompts, notes between all of these different projects. How much this process corrupts the ‘purity’ of each individual project is not particularly clear to me, though I figure if it’s done in an individual chat instance it’s probably not that much of an issue. If I want to make something part of a given project’s ongoing working ‘knowledge’, I’ll put a summary somewhere in its context documents.

  But Claude is just one of the AI tools I use. I also have a bunch of language models on a hard drive that is always connected to my computer; I use these through the app GPT4All. These have similar functionality to Claude, ChatGPT, or any other proprietary/corporate LLM chatbot. Apart from the upper limit on their context windows, they have no usage limits; they run offline, privately, and at no cost. Their efficacy, though, is mixed. Llama and its variants are usually pretty reliable—though this is a Meta-built model, so there’s an accompanying ‘ick’ whenever I use it. Falcon, Hermes, and OpenOrca are independently developed, though these have taken quite some getting used to—I’ve also found that cloning them and training them on specific documents and with unique context prompts is the best way to use them.

  With all of these tools, I frequently jump between them, testing the same prompt across multiple models, or asking one model to generate prompts for another. This is a system of usage that may seem confusing at first glance, but is actually quite fluid. The outputs I get are interesting, diverse, and useful, rather than all being of the same ‘flavour’. Getting three different summaries of the same article, for example, lets me see what different models privilege in their ‘reading’—and then I’ll know which tool to use to target that aspect next time. Using AI in this way is still time-intensive, but I’ve found it much less laborious than repeatedly hammering at a prompt in a single tool trying to get the right thing. It’s also much more enjoyable, and feels more ‘human’, in the sense that you’re bouncing around between different helpers, all of whom have different strengths. The fail-rate is thus significantly lowered.

  Returning to ethos, using AI in this way feels more authentic. You learn more quickly how each tool functions, and what they’re best at. Jumping to different tools feels less like a context switch—as it might between software—and more like asking a different co-worker to weigh in. As someone who processes things through dialogue—be that with myself, with a journal, or with a friend or family member—this is a surprisingly natural way of working, of learning, and of creating. I may not be ‘the AI guy’ from a technical or qualifications standpoint, but I feel like I’m starting to earn the moniker at least from a practical, runs on the board perspective.

• This algorithmic moment

  February 1, 2024

  

  ---

  So much of what I’m being fed at the moment concerns the recent wave of AI. While we are seeing something of a plateauing of the hype cycle, I think (/hope), it’s still very present as an issue, a question, an opportunity, a hope, a fear, a concept. I’ll resist my usual impulse to historicise this last year or two of innovation within the contexts of AI research, which for decades was popularly mocked and institutionally underfunded; I’ll also resist the even stronger impulse to look at AI within the even broader milieu of technology, history, media, and society, which is, apparently, my actual day job.

  What I’ll do instead is drop the phrase algorithmic moment, which is what I’ve been trying to explore, define, and work through over the last 18 months. I’m heading back to work next week after an extended period of leave, so this seems as good a way of any as getting my head back into some of the research I left to one side for a while.

  The algorithmic moment is what we’re in at the moment. It’s the current AI bubble, hype cycle, growth spurt, whatever you define this wave as (some have dubbed it the AI spring or boom, to distinguish it from various AI winters over the last century¹). In trying to bracket it off with concrete times, I’ve settled more or less on the emergence of the GPT-3 Beta in 2020. Of course OpenAI and other AI innovations predated this, but it was GPT-3 and its children ChatGPT and DALL-E 2 that really propelled discussions of AI and its possibilities and challenges into the mainstream.

  This also means that much of this moment is swept up with the COVID pandemic. While online life had bled into the real world in interesting ways pre-2020, it was really that year, during urban lockdowns, family zooms, working from home, and a deeply felt global trauma, that online and off felt one and the same. AI innovators capitalised on the moment, seizing capital (financial and cultural) in order to promise a remote revolution built on AI and its now-shunned sibling in discourse, web3 and NFTs.

  How AI plugs into the web as a system is a further consideration — prior to this current boom, AI datasets in research were often closed. But OpenAI and its contemporaries used the internet itself as their dataset. All of humanity’s knowledge, writing, ideas, artistic output, fears, hopes, dreams, scraped and plugged into an algorithm, to then be analysed, searched, filtered, reworked at will by anyone.

  The downfall of FTX and the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried more or less marked the death knell of NFTs as the Next Big Thing, if not web3 as a broader notion to be deployed across open-source, federated applications. And as NFTs slowly left the tech conversation, as that hype cycle started falling, the AI boom filled the void, such that one can hardly log on to a tech news site or half of the most popular Subs-stack without seeing a diatribe or puff piece (not unlike this very blog post) about the latest development.

  ChatGPT has become a hit productivity tool, as well as a boon to students, authors, copy writers and content creators the world over. AI is a headache for many teachers and academics, many of whom fail not only to grasp its actual power and operations, but also how to usefully and constructively implement the technology in class activities and assessment. DALL-E, Midjourney and the like remain controversial phenomena in art and creative communities, where some hail them as invaluable aids, and others debate their ethics and value.

  As with all previous revolutions, the dust will settle on that of AI. The research and innovation will continue as it always has, but out of the limelight and away from the headlines. It feels currently like we cannot keep up, that it’s all happening too fast, that if only we slowed down and thought about things, we could try and understand how we’ll be impacted, how everything might change. At the risk of historicising, exactly like I said I wouldn’t, people thought the same of the printing press, the aeroplane, and the computer. In 2002, Andrew Murphie and John Potts were trying to capture the flux and flow and tension and release of culture and technology. They were grappling in particular with the widespread adoption of the internet, and how to bring that into line with other systems and theories of community and communication. Jean-Francois Lyotard had said that new communications networks functioned largely on “language games” between machines and humans. Building on this idea, Murphie and Potts suggested that the information economy “needs us to make unexpected ‘moves’ in these games or it will wind down through a kind of natural attrition. [The information economy] feeds on new patterns and in the process sets up a kind of freedom of movement within it in order to gain access to the new.”²

  The information economy has given way, now, to the platform economy. It might be easy, then, to think that the internet is dead and decaying or, at least, kind of withering or atrophying. Similarly, it can be even easier to think that in this locked-down, walled-off, platform- and app-based existence where online and offline are more or less congruent, we are without control. I’ve been dropping breadcrumbs over these last few posts as to how we might resist in some small way, if not to the detriment of the system, then at least to the benefit of our own mental states; and I hope to keep doing this in future posts (and over on Mastodon).

  For me, the above thoughts have been gestating for a long time, but they remain immature, unpolished; unfiltered which, in its own way, is a form of resistance to the popular image of the opaque black box of algorithmic systems. I am still trying to figure out what to do with them; whether to develop them further into a series of academic articles or a monograph, to just keep posting random bits and bobs here on this site, or to seed them into a creative piece, be it a film, book, or something else entirely. Maybe a little of everything, but I’m in no rush.

  As a postscript, I’m also publishing this here to resist another system, that of academic publishing, which is monolithic, glacial, frustrating, and usually hidden behind a paywall for a privileged few. Anyway, I’m not expecting anyone to read this, much less use or cite it in their work, but better it be here if someone needs it than reserved for a privileged few.

  As a bookend for the AI-generated image that opened the post, I asked Bard for “a cool sign-off for my blog posts about technology, history, and culture” and it offered the following, so here you go…

  Signing off before the robots take over. (Just kidding… maybe.)

  ---

  Notes

  1. For an excellent history of AI up to around 1990, I can’t recommend enough AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence by Daniel Crevier. Crevier has made the book available for download via ResearchGate. ↩︎
  2. Murphie, Andrew, and John Potts. 2003. Culture and Technology. London: Macmillan Education UK, p. 208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-08938-0. ↩︎

• Critics and creation

  January 22, 2024

  

  I started reading this interview this morning, between Anne Helen Peterson and Betsy Gaines Quammen. I still haven’t finished reading, despite being utterly fascinated, but even before I got to the guts of the interview, I was struck by a thought:

  In the algorithmised world, the creator is the critic.

  This thought is not necessarily happening in isolation; I’ve been thinking about ‘algorithmic culture’ for a couple of years, trying to order these thoughts into academic writing, or even creative writing. But this thought feels like a step in the right direction, even if I’ve no idea what the final output should or will be. Let’s scribble out some notes…

  If there’s someone whose work we enjoy, they’ll probably have an online presence — a blog or social media feed we can follow — where they’ll share what they like.

  It’s an organic kind of culture — but it’s one where the art and vocation of the critic continues to be minimised.

  This — and associated phenomena — is the subject of a whole bunch of recent and upcoming books (including this one, which is at the top of my to-read pile for the next month): a kind of culture where the all-powerful algorithm becomes the sole arbiter of taste, but I also think there is pressure on creatives to be their own kind of critical and cultural hub.

  On the inverse, what we may traditionally have called critics — so modern-day social media commentators, influencers, your Booktubers or Booktokkers, your video essayists and their ilk — now also feel pressure to create. This pressure will come from their followers and acolytes, but also from random people who encounter them online, who will say something like “if you know so much why don’t you just do it yourself” etc etc…

  Some critics will leap at the opportunity and they absolutely should — we are hearing from diverse voices that wouldn’t otherwise have thought to try.

  But some should leave the creation to others — not because they’re not worth hearing from, they absolutely are — but because their value, their creativity, their strength, lies in how they shape language, images, metaphor, around the work of others. They don’t realise — as I didn’t for a long time — that being a critic is a vocation, a life’s work, a real skill. Look at any longer-form piece in the London Review of Books or The New Inquiry and it becomes very clear how valuable this work is.

  I’ve always loved the term critic, particularly cultural critic, or commentator, or essayist… they always seemed like wonderful archaic terms that don’t belong in the modern, fragmented, divided, confused world. But to call oneself a critic or essayist, to own that, and only that, is to defy the norms of culture; to refuse the ‘pillars’ of novel, film, press/journalism, and to stand to one side, giving much-needed perspective to how these archaic forms define, reflect, and challenge society.

• Reorientation; tides; houses and rivers; databases and archives; a new moment to sit and think

  January 8, 2024

  

  It’s a real back to the future moment, this. Where I’ve headed off for a year or two on a journey of personal inspiration, seeking new knowledges, grand new themes, new looks, new designs, new vibes, only to come crawling back to the place where it all started. It’s all very Joseph Campbell.

  My very first proper blog ran on a website called Blog-City, and for some insane reason I remember that my first post was on the 15th of July, 2003. This followed many years of experimenting with all sorts of web hosting and design services (all completely free) including GeoCities and Angelfire. I had websites for myself, for my made-up career, for imagined airlines and businesses and all sorts, not to mention links outwards to rudimentary social media services and websites like Neopets. The internet was simpler then; maybe it will be simple again some day, but probably not.

  Once I started working properly on my career, I tried to separate out all the different parts of my life into different web presences. There was social media, of course, and since 2007 I’ve had Facebook, Twitter, and the rest (most of them are private or deactivated now, apart from Mastodon, which I’m enjoying playing around with). I had separate sites for my filmmaking, for my work and profile as an academic, for my photography stuff, as well as a blog archive just kind of floating around. When I registered danielbinns[dot]net back in 2014, I thought ‘right, time to link everything up’, but I never quite got there in a way I liked. Everything was still floating, still nebulous.

  Part of this was the technology, maybe, but primarily it was due to my trying to force things to fit in a particular way. This is personal and psychological as much as it has anything to do with a particular host or platform.

  Several things have happened in the last few years to make me reconsider all of the above. The pandemic was a player, for sure, but it also took me reading stuff and watching videos and learning about different ways of managing my time, my notes and knowledge, my skills and expertise, and just figuring out who on earth I was and accepting that person.

  Long story short, we’re back here on WordPress, under a new domain, The Clockwork Penguin. TCP isn’t a business, necessarily; for now, I still like making stuff under the Deluded Penguin moniker. TCP is more of an ethos, a place to play and experiment, to reflect. To look back over some notes and some things I’ve been thinking about; to post fragments, or more developed work, works in progress, or just some cool links I found. I don’t know if it’s a cozy place or a mysterious place; if it’s a house sitting next to a river, or a garden where I can plant things and watch them grow. But I look forward to finding out.