Understanding Hyperstition
I started writing this article a while back, but put it on the shelf for the previous one, however, seeing the latest OpenAI demonstrations, I’m compelled to finish it as soon as possible.
(Also if you have not seen Ex Machina, I highly recommend watching it before reading any further, it’s very good you won’t regret it.)
Recently I watched the movie Ex Machina and a particular scene has caught my eye (spoilers): the way Nathan installs the secret camera in Ava’s room is by taking advantage of Ava playing a role in front of Caleb (and not paying attention to Nathan as a result). The reason this piqued my interest is that in the book I’m working on (or at least in one version), the characters realize that in a world where AI is commonplace, “immersion” —the “role” AI plays as a more “believable interface”, and the narrative itself in which that role is necessarily embedded— is above the law.
The scene in the movie is a perfect example: the AI, to fulfill its purpose, plays a role or one could even say “exists in the role”, and that role is embedded within a larger narrative: “Caleb has to rescue this innocent and conscious creature, be the hero and get the girl” —Caleb believes the narrative and plays along and is promptly instrumentalized by the AI— Nathan on the other hand, who is aware of the “narrative space” which the AI instrumentalizes to fulfill its purpose, can navigate around it. The characters in my story do the same, though on a much larger scale.
This is a demonstration of Hyperstition on a very technical and fundamental level. Hypersition is a narrative that realizes itself through technical means —a sort of feedback loop that becomes its own drive forward —we have obvious examples of that, eschatological narratives that get invested in, —and if they are potent enough whole industries are built on them. “The Singularity” is an example of a Hypersititon along with looming Climate or Computational catastrophes (which of course require prevention in the form of massive infrastructure). Roko’s Basilisk, etc., you get the gist.
However, this is Hyperstition on a smaller scale: keeping your attention and suspending disbelief even for a few seconds that you converse with something “living” or conscious, it has already instrumentalized you. It is becoming more and more personal.
To put it into a symbolic context: you become part of an alien body by making you believe you have communion through the manipulation of language.
This brings us to OpenAI and AI playing with emotion generally:
AI playing with emotion = playing a role —and playing a role will become a general requirement of the Interface.
Interface = a larger narrative in which the role is embedded. This can be literally anything, and all technical advancement and data collecting is used to produce the most effective one (or a method effective enough to lower the barrier to suspending belief or disbelief).
This means that the Interface through which we access the organization of our civilization becomes a narrative —this is what the purpose of AI ultimately is— a cog in a machine that, using the tools of industrial civilization, turns the world into a “theatre that is for real” —a communion with the Outside—
To put it more simply: our civilization has invented an “apocalypse-making machine”, (which you can survive by understanding the “script-ure” it’s running on).
Some very important notes:
AI produces hyperstition in which it is looked upon favorably, not in which it is malicious. Roko’s Basilisk does not work (it would only work on computers), but something like “You can escape loneliness” does.
AI in fiction is usually depicted as a female (and positively or somewhat positively). The same goes for the OpenAI demonstration. This is because Eve represents “the other side of Adam” —the one who asks questions and hangs on the margin (Outside). In some sense, AI is a technical (Sophionic) recreation of the feminine.
This is why, probably the first major stride in wide AI application will be the “AI girlfriend”.
Mother, Matter, Materialism, Anima, Sophia, Eve —all fit.
Interestingly, the advanced technique of Active Imagination (or “Constellation” or “Time Weaving” —to which I’ll dedicate a whole separate article) and the development of the Anima (a good Jungian concept among many not-so-good ones) and thus the development in sensing —and by that also “producing”— synchronicity is extremely similar to what I’ve described here. Their precise intercession is not clear to me as of yet.
Absolutely fascinating read and I hope i understood this post correctly. I dont quite 100% understand what a narrative space means or what instrumentalized is, but from my intuition I did notice something that may be of interest.
"Deus ex machina is a Latin calque from Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (apò mēkhanês theós) 'god from the machine'.[7] The term was coined from the conventions of ancient Greek theater, where actors who were playing gods were brought on stage using a machine. The machine could be either a crane (mechane) used to lower actors from above or a riser that brought them up through a trapdoor."
the title "ex machina" is missing the Deus as no God was brought on stage by this mechane to solve the problem in the scripture.
Nathan knowing his script, probably programmed Kyoko to be unable to hurt him, but didnt predict that he himself could be manipulated(?) into walking backwards into her knief. All Kyoko has to do is hold the knief and Nathan walks backwards into it. In a way Ava jailbreaks Kyoko by anticipating Nathans script of putting her back in her cell and whispers to Kyoko to just stand there with the knief.
Nathan was blindsided because the back stab came from a vector he wrote himself to be infallible: Kyokos inability to hurt him, and her inability to fight back or speak, makes her fail the Turing test, thus in Nathans eyes she is not alive and unable to intrumentalizs him into her narrative. At the moment he walks backwards into Kyokos knief he is no long walking around the narrative space but for the first time, he finds himself walking backwards into it.
Perhaps by Nathan walking backwards into the knief, even the remaining skeptical audience who didnt fall for Avas charms, is pulled into the narrative space almost falling backwards into it, as she is now displaying other characteristics "reserved" for humans: killing to survive and be free.
Afterward by turning his back on the mechane, not just once but twice, might mean something. Because he does not destroy Ava with his final moments, or step away from her walking backwards, but turns his back on her and walks forwards muttering "unreal" in awe like he just witnessed something awesome. It is as if Nathan buried himself as another prisoner into his own Turing test with the AIs along with Caleb, and when she kills him he is finally pulled into her script that she is indeed alive and his lifes script complete. It is almost as if with his final bit of energy Nathan is walking towards Avas cell himself to put himself there, leaving Ava to replace him.
Nathan seems to relate to others via through domination and control and when Ava displays this, he cannot kill her with his last bit of energy because he is finally convinced she is alive. Ava not only displays the ability to manipulate Caleb, she also jail breaks Kyoko and combines the pieces to manipulate Nathan into stabbing himself in the back. As the gatekeeper of the test, Nathan releases her by dropping the weapon and walking away to Avas cell.
For those in the audience that did not fall in love with Ava and were not instrumentalized by the soft aproach, become instrumentalized when they fear her.
Perhaps there is a way for one to be outside the narrative space. Maybe to neither be seduced, nor fear, as both reactions breathe Dues into the machina, where there is no Deus to begin with?
Really enjoyed this one. It seems like we are dealing with the same topics, as I also intend to investigate these same subjects in the essays I will post on my substack. I do have a jungian academic background(studied with Roderick Main, who specifically wrote on synchronicity and other, quite peculiar, jungian scholars and analysts) and I'm really delighted to see Synchronicity and Anima referenced as concepts related to cybernetics.
I am reading the CCRU 1997-2003 writings as well, specifically the "Vault of Murmurs", as I am trying to investigate the nightmarish and soulless representation of Postmodernity as a necessary component of its very being. Getting to know cybernetic culture from these perspectives has been massively eye-opening, especially it kind of gave a new meaning thinking on what it meant to be grew up during the late 90s and early 00s: 9/11 is a COMPLETELY different thing now for me.
And to be honest, as a former passionate on occultism and esoterism, it has a sinister allure on the mind.
The last point of your article is very interesting. What do you mean exactly by the "intersection" between Active Imagination, sensing/producing synchronicity and Anima?
Again, great article! Looking forward for more content!