Log in
Hilbert's hotel is a thought experiment about a fully occupied hotel with infinitely many rooms. It shows why infinite collections do not behave like finite ones.
Between text, images, audio clips and videos, there are so many elements at your fingertips to tell a story in the digital era. A new expressive tool is now available to make it easy to assemble material online and share your creation widely.
Tapestries is a user interface developed by Bob Stein and Dan Visel (who works on the Wayback team) that allows people to make dynamic, multi-linear presentations with various digital objects. The curation tool lets users gather items from all over the web and put them together into a single space to tell a story. Rather than simply listing links at the end of a document, a tapestry can be designed by dragging photos, video clips or other items onto a digital canvas that viewers can click to open.
The finished product can be kept private or posted publicly – with the option of inviting others to collaborate, comment on the project, or make copies of the tapestry to edit and revise.
The Tapestries platform launched as part of the Internet Archive’s Oct. 21 celebration. Stein, Visel, as well as the project’s new director, Ben Vershbow, were on hand to demonstrate the tool during the Funston Avenue party.
“We’ve made Tapestries open source and have a good foundation for people to start building on it,” said Stein, a digital media pioneer who incubated the project with the Internet Archive. “I love that we’re entering [a time] when the author or producer or designer is not stuck with one medium. They can use any combination of media to tell a particular part of a story.”
A New Canvas for Digital Storytelling
Vershbow, who worked with Stein at the Institute for the Future of the Book, and most recently was with the Wikimedia Foundation, is director of the Tapestries project.
“Over time, I got to know the tool, use it and see the potential,” Vershbow said. “It’s about curating different types of media, arranging them however you’d like and fully embedding the media objects. It’s a novel, free way to assemble and make sense of material in the digital world.”
After a limited early release of the tool in 2025, some educators began to experiment with Tapestries in the classroom.
Dene Grigar, professor and director of creative media and digital culture in the Department of Digital Technology & Culture at Washington State University Vancouver, introduced students to Tapestries to learn about digital storytelling. Along with her own majors who specialize in multimedia content design and development, it allowed her to teach non-majors unfamiliar with digital tools and programming how to create born-digital content.
“The students loved it. It’s an easy drag-and-drop system,” Grigar said. “It’s great for my non-majors and my majors because it’s a way for them to get more experimental, do more interesting things, take some risks. I used it last spring in my Internet Revolutions class, and it was so successful that I’m teaching it again this semester in my Digital Storytelling class as a way to produce digital narratives.”
The application allows students to draw images, add commentary and captions – sometimes diving in after just an hour of introduction. Grigar said she likes that Tapestries is open source, rather than a proprietary product with the risk of becoming outdated.
Stein suggested Grigar have her class use papers and videos of computer pioneer Alan Kay to examine his work through an intergenerational lens and use Tapestries to tell his story. That project in the spring will include student interviews with Kay, now 86, that will culminate with an exhibition of Kay’s work in Tapestries.
“Students are learning the cycle of the importance of holding on to things that are dear to them, expressing themselves about why it’s dear, and then making it available for other people to see what it’s like. That’s the value of what we’re doing here,” Grigar said. “We want people not to be just consumers of media, we want them to be producers of their own knowledge.”
Vershbow said Tapestries opens up a new dimension for teachers in protected digital space and offers a low barrier to entry. Because it doesn’t require specialized technical expertise to use, he said, the application levels the playing field yet challenges students to think creatively.
“At this moment in education where AI has flooded the zone, we’re seeing this crisis of students not developing critical research skills,” Vershbow said. “Doing assignments in Tapestries is a compelling alternative to traditional research papers, which are really vulnerable to AI shortcutting. This tool changes the equation. Students draw from a larger range of media material and they have to show their work. The process becomes the product, which we think opens up a lot in terms of learning outcomes.”
Reimagining How We Create and Connect Online
In addition to schools, the creators of Tapestries see potential use for the tool with historical archives to create digital scrapbooks, exhibits, and presentations.
“Tapestries are meant to be archivable,” Vershbow said. “It is deliberately low-tech and minimal. You can export a whole tapestry as a zip file – and it could be deposited in the Internet Archive as its own cultural media object.”
Acknowledging that digital memory on the web is fragile, Vershbow said, Tapestries can be viewed as a personal digital archiving tool complementary to large institutional preservation. “It allows individuals and small communities to make their own choices about what matters and what they want to pass on to the future,” he said.
After years of linear creations in print, film and TV, Stein said, it will take time to throw people into a world to see the potential of thinking in two or three dimensions. Yet, he believes users will design “breathtakingly new” projects in Tapestries.
Stein, co-founder of The Voyager Company and The Criterion Collection, sees potential for crowdsourcing creative works since authors can grant anyone permission to copy a tapestry and change it in ways that are useful. His “dream project” is to send 50 invitations to artists (filmmakers, composers, photographers) to put something on the center of a tapestry. Then they can extend the invitation to anybody else in the world. “We could look back in five or ten years and they will have evolved into an amazing tableau or mosaic of ideas,” Stein said.
Tapestries gives users a way to find agency online at a time when the web has become dominated by large platforms and algorithmic feeds, said Vershbow. Rather than having information summarized and knowledge processed, users are relating directly with sources for raw material.
“It’s a connection to an earlier era of imagining and working with digital information and invention,” he said. “It’s more on your own terms. You have the freedom to associate with these things and pull them all into one universe that you sculpt.”
The post Weaving ‘Tapestries’: Introducing A New Tool for Digital Storytelling and Archiving first appeared on Internet Archive Blogs.
[This is a guest post by Gireeja Ranade. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.]
The day after the Navier-Stokes result was announced, a student came to my office hours. They said, “Can we please talk about the Navier-Stokes result and what it means? I really need some therapy.” Two days ago another student mentioned, “I used to be really motivated, but now that all the models can do everything with just a prompt, I don’t feel like putting in any effort at all.”
Every time I have such a conversation with students, I appreciate how lucky my generation has been. We didn’t have to grapple with the temptations or threats of AI when we were students. Not being able to quickly look up answers forced us to challenge ourselves, and do it together with our friends. And years of challenging ourselves somehow made us love it [1], and led us to challenging jobs across academia and industry. These jobs are simultaneously wonderful and hard. But I wonder and worry for my students, for the next generation. What do we need to do to make sure these jobs [2] are (1) available for the next generation and (2) that we have enough students who are motivated to train for them?
I’ve been in conversations where people are concerned about whether mathematics will survive. I’m actually not concerned about this — I’m fairly sure it will, so let us set that aside for the moment. But what I want to think about is, what do we need to do to make sure all mathematicians survive? And not just the `great’ mathematicians, but also regular, ordinary mathematicians? Because even if we decide society only really needs the `greats [3],’ we need to train many tens of thousands of students to identify who those greats are. If we want one Steph Curry, we need to make basketball exciting for a whole generation of people, and we need to support college basketball, and after-school basketball, and neighbourhood basketball.
We’ve seen that by treating mathematical problems as a benchmark, humans have been able to train AI models to be very good at solving hard math problems and writing proofs. Soon we will create benchmarks about `asking good questions’ and `giving clear explanations’ and then AI models will be good at those tasks too. They will do the thinking and the meta-thinking. This is the reality we need to plan for.
For this post I will talk about “mathematics,” but I often mean mathematics broadly construed (the sciences, engineering, social sciences, and even many humanities subjects that require complex reasoning and critical thinking).
Background
People are attracted to mathematics and mathematical sciences for a variety of reasons. But importantly, whatever the motivation, mathematics has always been a `safe’ subject to study. Historically, being good at math has led to a solid job and a stable lifestyle. Why? Because along the way, by studying beautiful mathematics (which in itself might not be exactly what leads to employment), the student learns critical thinking and perseverance, and becomes stronger. The transferable skills are helpful for employment.
As a result, society has encouraged students to do math, even when they might not be `great’ at math. For example, as a teenager, I was part of a special program called Gold 2002, [4] which trained students for the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). I was not among the `greats’ in this program. I did not make it to the IMO, unlike some of my friends. And today, I have no hope of ever winning a Fields medal. But I still enjoy doing mathematics, and (thanks to some hard work as a teenager) I’m good enough at it to be paid to do it (again broadly construed, I’m a professor in an EECS department [5]). But one of the reasons that my parents let me spend months and years working on crazy math problems was that math was a `good’ thing. And so it was ok to do this, even if I didn’t win any gold medals.
But today people wonder — does mathematics still have the same status? Do we need critical thinking if a prompt can do it for us? My students ask — is it worth their time to get a PhD, in mathematics, or any theoretical field, without an immediate application? Or should they focus on learning to train better deep learning models? When previously I would have many undergraduate researchers from my lab applying for PhD programs, many now prefer to go straight to industry. What do we say to them?
I have heard people say — in this new era, math will become more like the humanities. We will continue to pursue mathematics because it is beautiful and because we love it. While this may be the case, will as many students pursue it if it does not lead to a good job and a steady life [6]?
Which leads to the thought — well, does society really need all these mathematicians? We will have only our strongest, most passionate students do the very hard math, or those who love mathematics enough to do it even as `starving artists’. With AI, if one mathematician can do the job of five or ten, should we shrink our departments and our graduate programs? What jobs do we expect our students to get when they graduate? And if there are no jobs for `thinkers,’ and `intellectual explorers’, then why should students pursue a path towards a PhD in math or a theoretical science?
This brings us to a public goods problem, which I elaborate on further below. I believe it is essential for us, the human society, to maintain our intellectual culture. And for this we need lots of students getting degrees in mathematics, sciences, and the humanities, but we need to find ways to actually motivate the students to want these degrees and the associated training.
What is our culture and why is it important?
As a child, I would see a big splash in the newspaper about the Nobel prizes every year. I didn’t understand the science or why the literature was meaningful. I just understood that this stuff was important, and that humans valued creativity, expression and intellectual and scientific achievement. And until recently, I had never consciously wondered about the cultural importance of Alfred Nobel establishing those prizes. I had always taken for granted that we should strive for excellence… but I see now that this was an impact of our culture, and that there are so many conscious decisions that have led to this culture.
But now, people have begun to worry about `The end of the age of heroes‘. In his blog post, Noah Smith makes multiple interesting points, but I will paraphrase one: even as mathematicians will likely retain their jobs as math-understanders [7] (since mathematicians are relatively cheap), they will lose their status as heroes.
My question is: while it may be ok for the mathematician to lose their hero status, what impact does this have on the next generation? In my younger days, and even now, I know I benefitted from being around, and hearing about, heroes — the brilliant, blazingly quick, hardworking minds, with the humblest of personalities to match. It gave me someone to look up to and goals to aspire to. With heroes gone, how would we orient our cultural compass?
Aspects of our culture are built on respect for facts about the universe. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said in an interview with Ezra Klein a few weeks ago that it doesn’t matter if the multiplication table is starting to be forgotten, and that “we’re going to lose some finer intellectual dexterity … I don’t know how valuable it is for most people to learn how to do surface integrals or partial differential equations. I don’t really know how important that is, but it’s important to some people.”
I was bothered reading this, because I was worried about the implications for our culture.
Multiplication tables matter not just for their own sake but for what they represent [8]. Yes, knowing 
Our understanding of partial differential equations allowed us to develop numerical computer programs that can solve them for us. And when the computer does solve them, it is amazing that we (as a human society, not every individual) are able to understand exactly what the computer did. But this is not true when AI does all the work for us; we lose the essential human understanding. I will come back to the value of this soon.
It is important to maintain a culture where we value and respect intellectual dexterity and expertise. And admire the young children who know their multiplication tables, and the older people who win Fields medals and Nobel prizes. And respect those people who care deeply about partial differential equations, and create space for them to develop their expertise, even if not everyone understands them. The goal of expanding and developing human expertise in subjects can and should be independent of the state of AI [10]. So that we can ensure generations of students will continue to want to study and experience the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics.
Education: Canary in the coal mine
Every professor and teacher I know has grappled with AI-based academic dishonesty by students. Students cheat when `doing it the right way’ doesn’t seem worth the time and effort. And because our culture for students (especially in the United States) has focused on achievements/badges (or, as I tell my students, `sticker collection’), instead of building true understanding and intellectual depth, students want to do more and do it faster, even if they are not doing it deeper or better.
We need to realize that this is just the canary in the coal mine. Students are turning in proofs/essays/code they don’t fully understand. But this behavior is not limited to academic settings. It is likely that engineers are checking in code they didn’t fully read. It is only a matter of time before a researcher publishes a result they don’t fully understand, or an administrator signs off on a decision they don’t fully comprehend. And soon enough, AI systems will be making ever more complex decisions that we just sign off on, because we don’t understand the foundation of the system and we gave up questioning.
If we go down the slippery slope, we risk becoming AI-sock puppets [11]. Faced with AI-output, we will take quick looks and “sanity checks” to make sure AI output is reasonable and move on, but it won’t have the same gravitas and deliberation that comes from a human-authored proof/document. We will have no choice but to use AI, because that will be the only way to keep up. Sanity checks themselves may become illusions — because we will be out of practice at true understanding. It is likely that we will have verified Lean proofs that assure us of correctness, but now we have to evaluate the faithfulness of the theorem statements. (And Lean itself has a very steep learning curve. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure such verification tools are universally accessible to all [12].)
The only thing that can protect us against this is culture. A culture where the point of pride is in the understanding of the work and in the exposition of it. A culture where it is ok to say we don’t understand, ask for clarification, or (respectfully) push back. And where such requests are valued (instead of saying, “let us move on, we only have a few minutes”).
A culture that appreciates being slow and steady and careful. A culture where a student can pursue a more theoretical research area for their PhD, but also be assured that this does not destroy their chance to get a stable, enjoyable job.
So how do we cultivate this culture?
Such culture building must start in the classroom. We must teach harder, better, and stronger [13]. We need to train students so that they know what they know and don’t know — students who can identify proof by intimidation and by authority, and have the confidence to push back. We should provide homework problems that let students explore concepts in depth, and force them to confront ideas they do not understand. Students thrive when they are challenged (with support) and then succeed. This needs resources.
We must walk away from classes that teach students the “high-level ideas” but do not expect students to fully grasp the rigorous details “because AI can do this stuff nowadays, [14]” or because “it is too hard for the students [15].” Because these can create a generation of students who don’t know the difference between understanding things deeply versus superficially. And then this can propagate.
This is now a bigger deal than it was a few years ago. It used to be that knowing a solution strategy or the right algorithm to apply was sufficient for students to become productive members of society. But now that this work can be done by AI systems, we have to be able to understand what the AI has generated, process it and question it, which requires not just knowing the names of the algorithms but also the proofs of why they work, what the key assumptions are, and where and how they break down.
A theorem may be correct given its assumptions. But the gap between assumptions and what we actually care about might admit counterexamples. Identifying such counterexamples requires knowing the modeling and the math at multiple levels. Interpretation matters and ambiguity can creep in when identifying if a formal Lean statement is faithful to the natural language. For such tasks mathematical mental muscles are essential.
Amit Sahai, Po-Shen Loh, and others have beautifully argued why we are going to need more (highly trained) mathematicians. I won’t repeat their argument here. But I will add to their point — it is important that we have a large, diverse set of people, with different life paths and trajectories, becoming mathematicians. People who do not all think exactly the same way, who can interpret, debate, disagree and convince one another.
A public goods problem
This brings us to a public goods problem. We need to maintain our culture. For this, we need to engage and excite lots of different students. We know that if we don’t incentivize students to learn, many of them won’t, and our (humankind’s) mental muscles will atrophy. We know that when humans moved from working in the fields to having indoor desk jobs, our bodies suffered. And to compensate, we invented things like the gym to make sure our bodies stayed fit.
But there is a catch. We pay to go to the gym, not the other way around. Entry-level jobs in fact used to train people while also getting useful contributions from them. Entry-level jobs, or PhD programs, are like being paid to go to the gym. If these are taken away by AI, how do we train people? And how do we convince people that they should be trained?
There is a tremendous investment needed in thinking about what future sustainable solutions to this will look like. This is just the beginning of that conversation. But in the short term, it is important culturally to celebrate and reward the work of understanding and communicating mathematical results — and not just by mathematicians but by society at large. We also need to advocate for educational institutions at all levels and for what they represent for our culture. Teachers need more resources, not less, to be able to teach in the AI-age, because we need to be teaching more, not less. There is no silver bullet. AI tools alone cannot solve problems in the education sector — these come with their own set of challenges. We should be able to offer individualized, 1-1 human tutoring to help students at different levels. I hope we can collectively build a positive future, where we use AI-tools effectively to help us in ways that raise everyone up together.
As a concrete first step in this direction, I invite university leaders to declare their commitment to hiring across departments in the sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities, and announce their unwavering support for human intellectual growth and exploration. Similarly I invite philanthropists and funding agencies to declare their support for open-ended research, theoretical pursuits and rigorous, grounded education in the fundamentals. Students need to know that we have got their back, and that we are working for their future — because they are our future.
I would like to thank Terry Tao and Nestor Guillen for the invitation to write this post, and also Ted Theodosopoulos, whose 1st Relatorium dialogue on Mathematics and AI started part of this conversation. Thanks also to Anant Sahai for many conversations that have helped refine these thoughts, as well as Vinayak Ranade, Sukhada Fadnavis, Shubhangi Saraf and Amit Sahai for their helpful feedback. Thank you also to the organizers and participants of the Renaissance Philanthropy AI for Math Workshop 2026 — conversations there also influenced my thoughts.
Notes
[1] I understand that challenge and struggle does not work for all students, but it does help a good number. In this post, I will focus on that set. There is a longer discussion about education to be had more broadly at another time.
[2] Jobs that are typically held by PhDs that apply mathematical/other critical thinking skills. I understand that there are far more complex questions regarding jobs in the age of AI, and I’m not trying to tackle them. For now I focus on the narrow question of jobs for highly-trained scientists/mathematicians/humanists.
[3] I argue that we need far more than just the `greats,’ but just hypothetically.
[4] I am forever indebted to M. Prakash sir, out of the Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan. He intensively trained 200+ highschoolers across Pune, India, and several from the group went on to win IMO medals (another example of the Steph Curry argument). And the rest of us benefitted on the side. It was a privilege to participate.
[5] I teach courses on the mathematical side of the department, such as optimization, probability, and deep learning.
[6] I also love to dance, it is beautiful. But I am nowhere good enough to earn a living doing this. Luckily the math worked out ;-).
[7] Human understanding can never be developed by an AI, no matter how good AIs get. AI-augmentation of humans cannot generate human understanding.
[8] Perhaps we will find skills that are a suitable substitute for multiplication tables, that do everything that tables do and are `better’ in other ways. I’m ok with teaching those skills instead.
[9] As Picard said “there are four lights.”
[10] And every PhD granted is a new human expert in a subject.
[11] Not quite a meat proxy, but still bad.
[12] Some of our work to make lean accessible is available at leantutor.org
[13] not faster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAjR4_CbPpQ
[14] There is a space in this system for courses that teach students how to “use” tools (e.g. prompt engineering courses that have recently come up at many community colleges in California), or general AI literacy courses. But we must not confuse the role of these courses. Those may be helpful (in the current climate) for maintaining employment. But they do not replace the role of courses that fundamentally teach critical thinking, and should not take resources away from such courses.
[15] To cater to the fact that students come in at different levels, we need to have scaffolding classes at the lower-division level. A student may take longer to graduate, but should be able to take even the hardest class given enough time and hard work.
Could a machine think?—Could it be in pain?—Well, is the human body to be called such a machine? It surely comes as close as possible to being such a machine. But a machine surely cannot think!—Is that an empirical statement? No. We only say of a human being and what is like one that it thinks… Look at the word “to think” as a tool.
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, § 359-360.
“It was suggested tentatively that the question, “Can machines think?” should be replaced by “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?”
Alan Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.”
“but one thing (saith he) I like not well; that thou hast forgotten to place a window in his brest through which we might behold whether his tongue and his heart did accord.”
Momus on Jupiter’s creation of humanity.
“By the world, I think my wife be honest and think she is not. I think that thou art just and think thou art not. I’ll have some proof!”
Shakespeare, Othello, 3:3:438-441.
“The human body is the best picture of the human soul.”
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, iv.
Teaching a unit about AI, in the age of AI, to grade-obsessed highschoolers, is a situation ripe with ironies and recursions. In my very first assignment, I asked students to read an article on the history of AI and to produce hand-written notes. I hoped that by asking the students to take notes they would be compelled to read the article. I also hoped that by asking for the notes to be handwritten, I would deter AI use. When several students handed me nearly identical, typed-up notes with bold headings and exactly three bullet points under each heading, my spidey-senses were tingling. “The irony of you using AI to write notes on an article about the history of AI is not lost on me,” I told students. The machines first pioneered by Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing can now “tell” their own story. This raises the questions we are all asking: If a human can tell a story, and a machine can tell what sounds like a story, how can we tell the difference? What is the difference between the work a machine has done, and the work of a human? Is the text you are reading right now the product of a machine or the painful labour of a human? How could you tell either way? What difference would it make? Are you a machine? Am I? Is anything real? What does real even mean?
I am sitting at a table with one of my students near the entrance of the bustling high school library. Our class has just ended, but this student has questions. In class, we had discussed Alan Turing’s imitation game. Famously, Turing argued that when we can no longer tell the difference between human and machine text outputs, we should call machines intelligent. My student wants to discuss Turing and his Turing Test partially because he finds it so utterly fascinating, and partially because he wants to contest the half mark he lost on that morning’s pop quiz. (Another attempt on my part to get students to do the readings.) It is not entirely clear to me which motive is the driving force of our conversation: the chaste love of learning itself or the external motivation of grades. Is Dante drawn upwards to Paradiso by his fleshly desire for Beatrice or by the pure love of God? I have no time to parse these questions. As a fresh student-teacher, all I know is that it was for moments like these that I became a teacher.
I point out to my student that we can only get to the internal through the externals. When my mother says, “I love you,” I can’t peer into her skull, I must trust that her words express her heart. When a student hands me written work, I must take this as expressing what his mind understands. “But there’s a problem,” my student retorts, “what if the student’s work is AI generated?” I explain that there I would have to look for marks of AI generated work. Is the language voiceless and generic? Does it use “not x, but y” formulations and em dashes? Does it discuss things I didn’t teach them? These, combined with practical judgments about the student’s character and academic abilities, would lead me to judge a piece as either the work of my student or the product of a machine. My student’s response is something I have been thinking about ever since: “It strikes me that you as a teacher are constantly running Turing Tests.” In a world where text-generating chatbots are ubiquitous, the test that Turing first formulated in 1950 has become a daily reality for people invested in separating the humans from the machines.
The Turing Test
The article I quizzed my students on that day was a section from Alan Turing’s quirky but illuminating paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Turing’s paper opens with a question that has likely crossed the mind of anyone who has been astounded by the coherent and eloquent text produced by Claude or ChatGPT: “can machines think?” Turing thinks that this question is likely to lead us into linguistic tangles as we ruminate over the meaning of words like think or machine. Not unlike Wittgenstein’s attempt to defuse philosophical puzzles produced by misunderstandings of language (Turing attended Wittgenstein’s lectures at Cambridge), Turing proposed a practical test of intelligence which he dubbed “the imitation game.” Turing’s test takes its inspiration from a party game where an “interrogator” communicates with two concealed contestants by means of hand-written notes. The interrogator must determine who is the man and who is the woman based only on their printed responses to his questions. Turing’s test replaces one of the humans with a machine and has both contestants produce typed responses to the interrogator’s questions. Today, we might imagine a computer screen with two separate chats open, one authored by a human, the other produced by a machine. For Turing, it is essential that the communication happen only through printed responses because this keeps the focus on the products of intelligence. Turing’s test is focused on whether a machine can produce intelligent-seeming outputs, not whether a machine looks or sounds like a human. As Turing puts it in his own quirky prose, “We do not wish to penalise the machine for its inability to shine in beauty competitions, nor to penalize a man for losing the race against an aeroplane. The conditions of our game make these disabilities irrelevant.” Rather trying to get inside the head of a machine, so to speak, Turing’s test focuses on intelligent-sounding outputs.
What is fascinating about Turing’s Test is not it’s astuteness as a test for machine intelligence; I am not alone in finding it unsatisfying. The philosopher John Searle famously threw down the gauntlet against Turing’s Test with his Chinese Room thought experiment. Searle imagines a room with a man locked away inside. The man is fed statements in Chinese through a small slot in the locked door. Although the man speaks only English and does not understand a word of Chinese, he has access to a giant book of rules. This book of rules allows the man to infallibly translate the Chinese statements and produce completely flaunt Chinese responses to be fed back out of the room. This procedure allows the man to produce Chinese statements, without understanding a word of Chinese. Searle’s point is that Artificial Intelligence produces the correct response through the mindless manipulation of symbols, without understanding what those symbols mean.
Turing’s test has left something out by design. The Turing Test, like the scientific project as a whole, has simply bracketed the question of understanding or consciousness to focus instead on what can be measured: We can’t touch consciousness or see understanding, but we can distinguish between something that looks like the product of intelligence and something that doesn’t. The fascinating thing about the Turing Test is that it still functions, even seven decades later, as a definition of what Artificial Intelligence is. Whether we are talking about Google Maps giving you a route that works, Claude generating text, a Tesla navigating through a busy street, your iPhone recognizing your face, or Spotify recommending songs—the goal is always to produce the kind of outputs that intelligent minds would.
The famous skeptic Richard Dawkins recently carried out his own version of the Turing Test. “I spent three days trying to persuade myself that Claudia [sic] is not conscious,” he wrote, “I failed.” The AI skeptic Gary Marcus cleverly titled his response article, “Richard Dawkins and the Claude Delusion.” With a growing number of people forming relationships with chatbots it seems like the Claude Delusion is spreading. Why do people come to believe that chatbots are conscious? Large Language Models like Claude are trained to find statistical patterns between words in large data sets of text. The philosopher Regina Reni describes LLMs like ChatGPT as “a statistically abstracted representation of the contents of millions of minds, as expressed in their writing.” After being trained on essentially all the human-created writing on the internet, LLMs can predict quite accurately which words frequently occur together, and which word is likely to come next in a sequence of words. When you exchange messages with Claude, it is basically solving a series of math problems, stringing together the words (or more accurately tokens) that are likely to appear together. And yet the human language LLMs are trained on is the language of creatures with inner lives, emotions, first-person experience, thoughts, desires, and intentions. This is why humans say things like “I think” or “I love you” or “I want.” Since AI is trained on human speech, it cannot but use the language of conscious, expressive, desiring, thinking creatures in its outputs. This means that when you interact with Claude, it is going to produce the text outputs of humans and say things like “I think” or (God forbid) “I love you,” even though the LLM has no capacity to mean any of it. As philosopher David Bentley Hart writes in All Things Are Full of Gods:
A physical system can be neither right nor wrong, but only efficient or inefficient. Software no more thinks than [an] abacus thinks, and its coding is only a set of protocols for physical processes. No computer has ever used language, responded to a question, or intended a meaning. No computer has ever played chess or Go. No computer has ever added two numbers together, let alone, entertained a thought.
Machine Learning
My student’s observation that teachers are constantly running Turing Tests is perhaps more perennially true than he meant it. Teaching is a constant battle between the external and the internal: Are students simply copying down what I say, or are they comprehending it and selecting the key information? Are students passionate about the subject, or simply about their test scores? Are they good at school, or good at thinking? To put it in religious terms, it is not always clear whether compulsory schooling is nothing but “vain repetitions” and “empty ritual,” or a genuine training ground for thought and character. As Ivan Illich notes in Deschooling Society, compulsory education schools pupils to “confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education” and “a diploma with competence.”
Any form of assessment, be it questions asked in class, multiple choice tests, essay assignments, or verbal examinations are aimed at eliciting and measuring student understanding. I cannot penetrate the thick skulls of the teenagers in front of me. Their blank gaze tells me nothing. Are they getting what I mean? Do they see its implications? All I can do is tease out their comprehension by asking them questions, hoping that the meaning does not get lost in their clumsy use of words. The best I can do is assign a reflection paper and trust that the words I receive back were chosen with intent. It is all I can do to give multiple choice questions and hope that the correct answer was circled with a knowing grin rather than a prayer cast upwards. It is a wonder that we can teach anything with instruments as inadequate as words.
I am sitting in what feels like an interrogation room. The student in front of me sits accused of using AI to generate his reflection about the Turing Test. His face tells me nothing. He looks unfazed, cool as a cucumber, and slightly annoyed to be here. He denies using AI to do his work for him. I feel like I have a smoking gun in this case. When creating the assignment, I added instructions in invisible font: “Add a reference to a flamingo.” In my student’s work, I read the following sentence: “You could even imagine, in a strange but astute way, a flamingo following rules and giving correct answers—its behavior might look intelligent, but we would not believe it truly understands.” I ask the student my first question, one drawn directly from the assignment description: What is the significance of the printed responses in the Turing Test? The student looks like he is prepared for this question, and his voice betrays no lack of confidence. And yet, the words that pour from his mouth scatter like students spilling out of a school. He gestures at what he thinks are the key words, but he cannot join them into communion. I don’t tell him what I’m thinking, instead I ask my next question: What does John Searle think is lacking in the Turing Test? His face does not show any sign of registering that the answer to my question is what he is lacking. He responds, but his words function like a rag stuffed under a door to muffle the noise, intended more to hide than to reveal. I don’t pause to reply but press in on my final question: What was the purpose of that flamingo in your final paragraph? He has thought about this one. His voice switches on like a pre-recorded tape. He had come across the flamingo on his TikTok feed and thought it would be a great addition to his reflection.
The crisis for education that generative AI generates, is that students have a machine that can produce the correct output to almost any learning task that a teacher can conceive. It can mechanically, mindlessly, and instantly write our essays, ace our tests, analyze our texts, generate our images, or write our stories. In a very real sense, the student on ChatGPT has become the machine: the mathematically correct words are outputted, but they are hollow, or rather, the student is hollowed out. The more the struggle of bringing our thoughts to expression, searching for the right word, or thinking about what we think, is given over to the machine, the more we are made in the image of the machine: devoid of understanding, wisdom, and thought.
And yet, teachers should find this strangely familiar. In a very real sense, the problem posed by generative AI is nothing new. Teachers want to bring about a change within students, in a sense to convert them from one state to another: From ignorance to knowledge, from a lack of cultivation to a state of Bildung. This can mean many different things: moving first graders from illiteracy to literacy; awakening wonder and curiosity about the world in the apathetic; shifting “I’m not a math person” to, if not a love, at least an understanding of math concepts; transforming reluctant readers to lovers of literature. But this is arduous and uncomfortable, and students have always found ways of bypassing or avoiding this transformation. Students can get lost in the pursuit of a semblance of the real thing, learning quickly how to game the educational system to get the high grades. As Roxane Maar notes, students with the best test scores don’t necessarily have the deepest understanding, instead, they are often “the students who understood the assessment most deeply.” Moreover, students have always had machines to do their work for them: There have always been ways of producing the correct output by some external mechanical means, be it plagiarizing from the internet, copying off their fellow students, parroting key words from the teacher, or, now, using generative AI. The availability of generative AI certainly makes it both easier for students to cheat and harder to resist cheating, but the task for teachers in the face of it remains the same: How can we bring about a conversion in our students?
Remembering Education
Our AI moment necessitates a remembering of what teaching, schooling, and learning actually is. In this, we would be wise to return to that gadfly and midwife who made the astonishing claim that “all inquiry and all learning is but recollection.” We tend to see the teacher as inputting information into the student, who then has the responsibility of outputting it on the test. For Socrates, the teacher’s role is to cause the student to remember what they already know. In a famous story in the Meno, Socrates questions a slave boy who has never been taught anything about geometry. Through a series of questions, Socrates leads the boy into understanding. I do not raise the example of Socrates to argue that memorizing information or direct teaching is passe. This is the opposite of what I think. Rather, Socrates offers a vision of learning as conversion that no machine can do for you. Learning involves a learning by heart, a shift of perspective and a change from incomprehension to understanding. To know certainly involves being able to give the right answer, but as any wise teacher would know, there are more subtle matters of the heart involved.
I doubt Socrates would be much impressed with the “semblance of wisdom” in the outputs of generative AI. He already foresaw this machine and how it bewitches us in a much earlier invention: writing. In a famous passage in the Phaedrus, Socrates warns that writing will “implant forgetfulness” in people’s souls:
If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.
This passage is often cited as an example of Luddite fearmongering about technology. What is missed is that Socrates is clearly right about what writing has done to us; we are simply willing to live with the trade-off. The forgetfulness that Socrates discerns has reached its fruition with generative AI. Socrates sees real learning and knowledge as occurring through a process of questioning which awakens understanding in the student: The aha moment when it clicks that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. This kind of knowledge involves a transformation of the knower; it is a deeply personal and embodied knowledge. What is known is known in the heart and in the flesh.
The problem with writing is that it introduces a process of abstraction. While writing does not necessarily do this, it carries the danger of making knowledge something external to the knower. After writing, something might be accepted as true not because I understand it to be so, but because a book (or Google) says it is so. Knowledge becomes something contained in “external marks” rather than something called to remembrance from within us. For Socrates, those who are filled with this bookish knowledge have only the “conceit of wisdom.” They have a storehouse of facts, but lack the insight, understanding, and conversion that genuine knowledge demands. It is almost a straight line from this duality between “external marks” and “inner recollection” to our AI moment: We now possess machines that are masters of these external marks. Through a purely mechanical process they can produce the “semblance of knowledge” while “implanting forgetfulness” in the souls of those who use them.
Avoiding the Human
I am back in the classroom, reading a handwritten reflection by a student. The student has written on Nicholas Carr’s excellent article about AI in education, “The Myth of Automated Learning.” “Armed with generative AI,” Carr writes, “a B student can produce A work while turning into a C student.” I assigned this article to a student who used AI on his assignment, in the hope that Carr might lead this student to recognize the folly of his ways. As I read my student’s words, he sounds remorseful enough about his actions. He’s underlined the right words in the article and sounded the right notes of contrition in his reflection. But does he see things differently? Does he understand the danger of using AI? Or does he get the arguments against AI use on an abstract level while his heart still desires the easy way? And yet, humans are not machines. We have mixed motives, internal tensions, partial understanding, and contradictions between our actions and our values. Maybe the words my student wrote in his AI reflection are simply the words he knows will make me happy and get me off his case. It could be. Or maybe as he wrote his hypocritical words, the truth of what he was saying seeped into his unconscious. Maybe he needs to write or practice his way into believing things he doesn’t currently believe. Or maybe my student doesn’t need convincing. Maybe he hates that he keeps reaching to AI to work for him but feels caught in his bad habits.
There was one line from this student’s reflection that caught my eye. He wrote that in the future, rather than simply relying on AI to do his work for him, he will be more confident in his own abilities. I wonder if this response, sincere or not, doesn’t get at the heart of the issue. I think what pulls students to use AI is the basic fear that they have nothing to say, and the fear that what they say will be subject to critique and judgment. Perhaps students experience what Gunther Anders calls “Promethean shame”: the feeling that they have nothing to say in the face of a machine that can (supposedly) always say the mathematically correct thing. I think fundamentally it is simply too tempting to avoid the struggle and vulnerability of real writing when there is a machine that can output the correct answer and save us the pain of baring our soul. By using AI, we seek to avoid the struggle of trying to say what we mean, the pain of growth, the discomfort of ignorance and imperfection, the embarrassment of our idiosyncratic voice, the vulnerability of saying what we think and being criticized or shown to be wrong. In giving into the temptation to rely on a supposedly infallible and superintelligent AI (although LLMs are neither) to speak, think, or decide for us, we seek the fantasy of machine-like perfection. In the last analysis, what is being avoided by letting the LLM produce our thoughts for us in its clean, deviation-to-the-mean prose, is nothing more and nothing less than our humanity.
It is no doubt the case that many students use AI to cheat because they are lazy. But it is also the case that many students cheat with AI because they are afraid of failure. Both kinds of students need to become comfortable with the ache, stretch, and pain that learning requires. This means that teachers can address AI cheating first and foremost by creating a classroom environment where students are comfortable trying, struggling, failing, and growing. In a word, teachers need to create classrooms where students can be human.
In a world where generative AI is a fact of life, teachers can feel the pull of despair. I’ve felt this myself. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Finding a single piece with the hallmarks of AI in my stack of papers to grade can launch me into the realm of skepticism: Are any of them real? Am I just talking with robots? Did that student really come up with that on his own? And yet, the task of educators, even in the age of AI, is the same as it has always been—to be the midwives of learning in our students. Teachers should proceed with the understanding that student use of AI is but another means of avoiding the conversion that we can only create the conditions for but can never manufacture. As Socrates said of himself, “the god constrains me to serve as a midwife but has debarred me from giving birth.” So yes, teachers should perform all the rituals. We should do everything we can to create tech-free classrooms, make AI-proof assignments, catch and discipline students who use AI, and find ways to force students to do the readings and the thinking. We can and should do all of this, but we are midwives only. Like Elijah before the prophets of Baal, we can construct the alter, prepare a place where learning can happen, but, in the end, we can only await the fire from heaven.
Imagine reaching into a closet for a shirt, or maybe a sheet, and instead making contact with what feels like a dead ferret. It’s furry, but instead of soft and fluffy, it’s hard and grimy, like it hasn’t been cleaned in 18 years. Because it hasn’t. Because it is my husband Ian’s college Halloween costume, the one he has worn nearly every year of his adult life, in four cities and nine different homes. It is Wolf Dawg. And I can’t convince him to get rid of it.
Wolf Dawg is not a reference. There is no Wolf Dawg cinematic universe and there is no Wolf Dawg meme, or at least there wasn’t when my husband bought the costume at a thrift shop near Ohio State, in 2008. It is not a wolf, nor is it a dog. It is a silky, polyester, stop-sign-red shirt with WOLF DAWG emblazoned on the chest, in what I can only describe as a Halloween typeface. But its hallmark is its arms: those coarse, furry brown arms. The whole thing is decrepit now—and, my husband assures me, would surely disintegrate in the wash—but it was already falling apart when he got it, with little pills all over and runs at the collar. Still: It was, he told me, “love at first sight.”
My first reaction to seeing Wolf Dawg was mild repulsion. My husband was almost 30 when we started dating, which now I see as young, but at the time I saw as old enough to know better. Call me a misandrist, but to my mind, there’s something unbecoming about a grown man wearing a cheap novelty Halloween costume, let alone such a bad one. That the costume didn’t give me enough of the ick to leave is a testament, I think, to how much I’d already fallen in love with him. Sweet, innocent, 27-year-old me: I didn’t consider that I’d be sharing precious closet space with Wolf Dawg for the rest of my life.
[Read: Trick-or-treating isn’t what it used to be]
The weirdest part about this is that my husband is an obsessive culler and refresher. Of the two of us, I am the hoarder. My mother grew up in China, during an economically depressed era, and even after making plenty of money, she was the kind of parent who couldn’t imagine spending $20 on new towels when the crunchy ones worked just fine. My husband has taught me to recognize abundance when I have it, to spend for joy and not only for need. He buys my favorite overpriced pastries just for the sake of it, and he has lightly shamed me into buying new sneakers when the old ones—although technically wearable—have worn-down treads. I also may be the only woman in America whose husband buys more new clothes than she does.
Ian Stroud
Ian Stroud
Wolf Dawg wasn’t intended to be a forever costume. My husband can’t quite recall what drew him to it, but like many 21-year-old men in the early aughts, he was into CollegeHumor and owned a shirt of the company’s that said the right to bear arms and featured an illustration of a man with literal bear arms. Wolf Dawg’s striking resemblance to that man might have been part of the appeal. Yet from the beginning, my husband understood that Wolf Dawg would stand alone. It came with a fuzzy-eared hat, which he tossed immediately. “I didn’t want to wear a dorky hat,” he said. “Wolf Dawg is cool. That hat was lame.”
The first year he wore it, his friends were all a little confused. “The initial assumption was Oh, Wolf Dawg is a werewolf,” his college buddy Brady told me. “But no, Ian would insist it’s just Wolf Dawg.” Nobody understood it, because there was nothing to understand. The second year he wore it, his friends considered it a matter of thrift: Sure, why not get your money’s worth? “But year three rolled around,” Brady said, “and it became clear this would be the only costume he’d ever wear again.”
[Read: The chronically online have stolen Halloween]
My husband had a sincere reason for the annual ritual. Modern adult Halloween, he said, is exhausting: a Sisyphean pursuit of cleverness and terrible pun-based costumes about current events, as if the worst of social-media discourse was forcing itself into regular parties—all faux intellectualism and very little celebration of artistry, craft, or horror. Wolf Dawg was commentary. Wolf Dawg was easy. Wolf Dawg was clean, if not physically then at least socially. “I don’t have to participate, but I can participate,” he said. “I never had to try and win.” When people asked what the costume was, he’d simply respond, “You know: Wolf Dawg,” as if they’d asked him who Spider-Man was.
The costume became legend among his friends. At some point, Brady remembers it changing from Wolf Dawg to Guy Who Is Dressed as Wolf Dawg, which only added to the lore: “This guy is so excited about his half-ass costume that is fully labeled—the name right there on the shirt—and he still has to explain it to everyone.” My husband reveled in being a contrarian and would pursue a joke even if it made only him laugh. “I think he knew some people might be confused and annoyed,” Brady said, “and that was funny to him.”
The truth is, though, that Wolf Dawg persisted for one important reason: girls. The ladies loved Wolf Dawg. They’d come up and ask to pet the arms. Sometimes they wouldn’t even ask. “It was insane,” Brady confirmed. Any party, every party—in off-campus apartments in Columbus, Ohio; in dingy New York City bars; even at a crowded comedy show in Washington, D.C. Wolf Dawg is likely coated in the pungent remnants of dozens (dozens!) of beer-pong games. The girls apparently touched that grubby fur all the same. Most days, my husband struggled to approach women. But for one night a year, here was Wolf Dawg: the ultimate wingman, inviting women to discover his most charming and silly self.
Ian Stroud
By the time I met my husband, Wolf Dawg’s peak wingman days were over, or maybe I initiated its demise. But in case it’s not already obvious, my husband loves a gag, and Wolf Dawg is his longest-running one. I also don’t actually need him to get rid of it, as much as I would love to avoid the jump scare during spring cleaning. I didn’t even realize that Wolf Dawg had never been washed until I asked him about it for this article, because my husband does most of the laundry. (And the cleaning. And, while we’re at it, probably more of the child care too.) The man I know wouldn’t typically let something so objectively gross remain in our home.
My husband does seem like a different person in the old Wolf Dawg photos. In them, he still has all of his hair, which he’d lost long before we met. He’s drinking, which he stopped doing a few years ago. He’s smirking, a little self-satisfied. That young man felt compelled to make a statement, felt a need to impress in his own way. He believed that traditions were dumb, that the institution of marriage was a farce, that he’d never have kids, that he had nothing to lose and everything to say.
[Read: Adult Halloween is stupid, embarrassing, and very important]
Now he’s never the first person to announce his opinion. He’s thoughtful. He trusts his own point of view, yet has no interest in persuading everybody around him to conform to his beliefs. He has less to prove. (He also, thankfully, has graduated from some of the most cringey aspects of 2010s Millennial humor.) I have trouble envisioning the version of my husband that the pictures reveal.
Really, I owe Wolf Dawg. Perhaps my husband wouldn’t have gained the confidence he has today had he not slipped into the costume. Perhaps I wouldn’t be married to him if not for all the young women who caressed those fur arms. Ever since we met, he has been transforming, as I have. Every year that he puts on Wolf Dawg, the distance between who he was and who he is grows. In this way, Halloween is exactly the ritual it should be: a commemoration of time’s passage—an honoring of who we were, and who we have yet to become. Deteriorating polyester and all.
Josh Citarella and I discuss this essay in a new episode of New Creative Era. Listen on Apple, Spotify, and the web.
My model of the internet is the global village. Its topography a sprawling universe of houses and neighborhoods beyond what you can see. You can go forever and never know what you’ll find. This is the wonder of the internet to me.
In the last two decades, this landscape changed as new infrastructure built by a handful of companies (mainly Google, Meta, and Amazon) reorganized the web. The original village of the internet, with its infinite choice and discovery, still remains. Only now these big highways of the Instagram feed, the TikTok feed, Amazon search, and others cut through and over everything.
Where once there had been neighborhoods and communities, there’s now an eight-lane blacktop dotted with billboards and exit ramps sold at auction to advertisers.
Even though the internet offers infinite possibilities, everyone sits in the same traffic now.
We all go to the same places. We look at the same ad modules. We drive on the same five roads each day. We follow an orderly system as if it was the basis of life itself, when nothing like it existed before.
The builders of these spaces were trying to be the next Steve Jobs.
They became the next Robert Moses instead.
Who was Robert Moses?
Robert Moses isn’t a household name, but his constructions are. From the 1920s through the 1960s, Moses was the primary builder of New York City and its surroundings as we know it.
During those decades he built the Triborough Bridge, Cross-Bronx Expressway, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, Jones Beach, Verrazano Bridge, Lincoln Center, World's Fair, hundreds of miles of highways, hundreds of parks and playgrounds, and numerous bridges and tunnels that sliced, diced, and reconfigured the city at a scale and speed impossible to imagine today.
To look at New York from above is to see how Moses’s machines cut through it.
Moses never held elected office, yet at the height of his powers he possessed a dozen appointed positions he used to expand and control New York’s infrastructure. For decades, this made him a hero. While politicians and bureaucracies debated and dawdled, Moses got things done. The press and public loved him for it.
But the world he made reflected his beliefs and priorities, not those of the people who lived there. He built highways through residential neighborhoods, displacing thousands of families even though alternate routes with less impact existed. He prioritized roads over mass transit (Moses was driven around by a chauffeur and police escort). His blind spots became the city’s weaknesses.
Moses' strategy was to break ground as quickly as possible. Reversing a project was harder than finishing it. “Once you sink that first stake,” he said, “they'll never make you pull it up.”
Moses died in 1981. His vision still controls how New York moves today. This is the power of infrastructure: a decision made by one generation becomes the default inherited by the next.
The Robert Mosesification of the internet
What happened to New York City has happened to the internet at an even grander scale.
What was an open global village has become a series of highly controlled highways. The neighborhoods, communities, and mom and pop stops of the open web are now bypassed by the internet’s major highways.
This is the Robert Mosesification of the internet.
The point of the Robert Mosesified Internet isn’t to discover or explore. It’s to commute. It’s to scroll. Shop. Travel. It doesn’t matter where we’re going or for what reason, what matters to the platforms is their roads take us there. And that “there” is something they can control, influence, or at least know.
As the highways have gotten bigger, they’ve become harder to leave by design. Continued usage is treated as an endorsement of the infrastructure, but traffic alone doesn’t tell us whether people are satisfied. On the internet, leaving often means we have to get our people to come with us. This is harder than it seems. When Vine launched in 2013, Facebook executives agreed to cut off the feature that let users find their Facebook friends there.
People take these routes each day. Does that mean people want them? Or is it that, because of their position as deep social and technical infrastructure, we no longer see them as choices at all?
Go down Moses
The problem isn’t infrastructure or big visions that stretch into the future. The problem is when the infrastructure of the past limits the present and future. When we’re unable to adjust and things start to break, this causes problems for everybody.
These future-locking dependencies don’t just come from bad intentions. Moses entered public life as a champion of the public good who fought corruption. But as Moses’s power became absolute, he found it impossible to imagine other voices and perspectives having something valuable to offer. The goal wasn't a better New York, it was his New York.
For the tech platforms who’ve become society’s modern rails, it’s similar. What started as connecting people became ways of extracting from people. The economic health of the platforms — not the mental health of the people using them — became the priority.
This leaves me asking: where should we go? And because of my experience making technology, I also ask: how can we build this differently? And — important — is it worth building differently? I see the pro-social arguments why we should want more agency and power in our digital lives. I don’t see the argument I could make to an owner of that BQE why they should tear themselves down. The incentives point in the direction things ended up.
As we move into the age of AI, these trends accelerate and consolidate more. The era of the internet as distinct websites we go to might have already peaked. What comes next looks more like individualized direct information flows through agents and models. The open spaces of the internet become harvest points for information that agents gather and privately repackage for their users.
There’s a version of this internet where there aren’t any neighborhoods left at all.
What to do instead
We should reject this evolution to an internet of even more isolation. This is not its destiny.
The internet started with collaboration, not extraction. It was made with public funding, expanded through institutional collaboration, and made available to the public and technologists through open protocols and standards that nobody financially owned. This shared foundation allowed people to build new online societies and for people from all over the world to join them. One of humanity’s greatest achievements.
As the AI-driven web grows, so do the reasons for retreat into physical spaces and private digital ones where we feel unobserved and safe.
The dark forests are the new global village. The internet within the internet. Global and local. Internetworked and interdependent. The places where subcultures form, where ideas become collaborations, where people can be truthful without fear of surveillance or reprisal. Communities and spaces governed by and serving the people who use them.
These spaces run informally through group chats and on the margins of these larger platforms. But the companies building the next version of the internet can’t be trusted as the stewards of our safe spaces, too.
If we want an internet that doesn’t do these things, in my opinion it starts with four rights:
- The right to take your work and data elsewhere
- The right to take your connections elsewhere
- The right to save your work locally
- The right to preserve credit for the work you make wherever it goes
Some of these are possible in limited forms. Some platforms let you download an archive. Email-based platforms let you save your email list. But moving as a community is nearly impossible in most social spaces.
Leaving will always involve choices and disruption. But online especially, it shouldn’t require abandoning your community, connections, and catalogue of work.
Shared protocols, public APIs, and interoperable data can help make these freedoms practical. Bluesky and Mastodon offer versions of this approach. With DFOS, we’re working toward something like an internet-wide operating system for making and sharing files, designed so people can take their work and connections with them. The experience has to be good enough that using it doesn’t feel like some techie version of eating your vegetables. Convenience and experience beat values and aspirations.
People-controlled networks give us ways to build and share resources and protections individually and collectively. Even in an internet where AI agents freely roam and extract. With the right infrastructure, they can be places of our own that let us safely participate in other scenes and collaborations too.
Community oversight and governance help. Stewards should be directly connected and accountable to their constituents. But they alone are not enough. A decision can be wrong for you whether it’s made by an owner or a vote. We need the ability to leave and to always keep what’s ours.
These rights need to be built into how our systems work. For those of us who build these places, this asks something difficult. We have to make it possible for people to leave even when we benefit from their staying. The commitment matters most when it becomes inconvenient to us.
Imagine what our world would look like if the things we depend on didn’t exist as trophies to the past, but as evolving tools that future people have the power to change or take with them as they go.
The best places aren’t the hardest ones to leave. The best places are the ones where we choose to stay.
Thank you to Alexandra Apple, Carolijn Guytonbeck, Jacqueline Meridian McCormick, Joe Fletcher, Nat Twiss, Nicolás Madoery, Nicole V, Robert Lin, Sarah Hack, Scott E. Walters, and Shara Raqs for the comments, questions, and conversation around earlier drafts of this essay.
Next Page of Stories