I have a complicated relationship with AI discourse, especially of the online variety. On one hand, it’s interesting to see where people stand. So I follow it. On the other, most of what circulates is what Lee Vinsel describes as hype and criti-hype: positions performed and rehearsed in what amounts to a pantomime that serves the status quo (2021).
I don’t think debates online constitute a public sphere. Social media platforms profit from the circulation of ideas. The more we argue, the more engagement they capture. Jodi Dean calls this “communicative capitalism” (2003). The endless circulation of opinions doesn’t challenge power. It feeds it.
Her deeper point has stuck with me. Online discourse substitutes for political action. We post, we argue, we refine our positions in public. It feels like we’re doing something. But this activity distracts from what actually builds power: organizing, developing member-based associations (Matthew et al., 2024), creating institutions capable of sustained collective action.
This means that someone who works on AI politics, as I do, probably shouldn’t spend much time performing positions on social media. There’s real work to be done, and it doesn’t happen in threads.1
So I try to keep a distance. Not out of principle. I’m not morally opposed to posting. It’s more practical than that. The discourse isn’t where change happens. It’s where the appearance of change circulates endlessly, while power stays put.
References
Dean, J. (2003). Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10/b4274w
Matthew, T., George, H., & Jonny, G.-F. (2024, June 24). Bodiless Bodies: The Rise of Para-Institutions. Damage, (2). https://damagemag.com/2024/06/24/bodiless-bodies-the-rise-of-para-institutions/
Vinsel, L. (2026, February 8). You’re Doing It Wrong: Notes on Criticism and Technology Hype. Peoples & Things. https://peoples-things.ghost.io/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype/
- There is a separate discussion to be had about scholarly work and activism. On the What’s Left of Philosophy episode on Bhaskar’s critical realism (Ep. 99), the hosts stake out a middle position between pretending to be neutral and turning scholarship into activism. Good explanations are valuable in themselves: they give people who are dominated the tools to free themselves, rather than telling them what to do. Our values shape what we study and why, but admitting that doesn’t mean scholarship has to double as activism. ↩︎
