564 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
564 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
[1]
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
|
||
[2]The Convivial Society
|
||
|
||
SubscribeSign in
|
||
|
||
Share this post
|
||
|
||
[8]
|
||
[https]
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
Re-sourcing the Mind
|
||
Copy link
|
||
Facebook
|
||
Email
|
||
Notes
|
||
More
|
||
|
||
Re-sourcing the Mind
|
||
|
||
The Convivial Society: Vol. 5, No. 9
|
||
|
||
[9]
|
||
L. M. Sacasas's avatar
|
||
[10]L. M. Sacasas
|
||
Aug 01, 2024
|
||
224
|
||
|
||
Share this post
|
||
|
||
[12]
|
||
[https]
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
Re-sourcing the Mind
|
||
Copy link
|
||
Facebook
|
||
Email
|
||
Notes
|
||
More
|
||
[13]
|
||
16
|
||
56
|
||
[14]
|
||
Share
|
||
|
||
Welcome to the Convivial Society, a newsletter exploring the relationship
|
||
between technology, culture, and the moral life. This post about LLMs, the
|
||
labor of articulation, and memory began as what I thought would be a brief
|
||
installment. As if to prove one of the core claims of the essay, that the labor
|
||
of articulation is itself generative, it grew in the writing. I hope you’ll
|
||
find some things of use in it.
|
||
|
||
Cheers,
|
||
|
||
Michael
|
||
|
||
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
||
|
||
The founding text of technology criticism is found in one of Plato’s
|
||
better-known dialogues, the Phaedrus.[15]1 During the course of Socrates’s
|
||
conversation about love and rhetoric, he recounts the legend of an Egyptian
|
||
king named Thamus and an inventor-god named Theuth. Theuth presents a number of
|
||
inventions to Thamus for his consideration, touting their benefits for the
|
||
Egyptian people. Among these was the gift of writing, but, surprisingly to
|
||
Theuth, Thamus was less than enthused about this particular invention.
|
||
|
||
Here’s how the relevant portion of the dialogue goes. It begins with Theuth
|
||
declaring,“Here is an accomplishment, my lord the King, which will improve both
|
||
the wisdom and the memory of the Egyptians. I have discovered a sure receipt
|
||
for memory and wisdom.”
|
||
|
||
And here is Thamus’s reply:
|
||
|
||
“Theuth, my paragon of inventors, the discoverer of an art is not the best
|
||
judge of the good or harm which will accrue to those who practice it. So it
|
||
is in this; you, who are the father of writing, have out of fondness for
|
||
your off-spring attributed to it quite the opposite of its real function.
|
||
Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory and become
|
||
forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance
|
||
by external signs instead of by their own internal resources. What you have
|
||
discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory. And as for
|
||
wisdom, your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality:
|
||
they will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and
|
||
in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most
|
||
part quite ignorant. And because they are filled with the conceit of wisdom
|
||
instead of real wisdom they will be a burden to society.”
|
||
|
||
There are two typical responses to the critique of writing Plato here expresses
|
||
through Socrates. The first is to see this as the prototypical “moral panic”
|
||
about a new technology. If one takes this view, the best use of this text is to
|
||
demonstrate how all contemporary tech criticism is similarly misguided and
|
||
short-sighted. Plato was wrong about writing, thus contemporary critics who
|
||
adopt the same pattern of analysis are likewise wrong about whatever novel
|
||
technology they happen to be complaining about.[16]2
|
||
|
||
The second typical response would be, “Yep, Plato was basically right.”
|
||
|
||
In this way the passage serves as a Rorschach test for fundamental attitudes
|
||
about technology.
|
||
|
||
But there is a third way, of course. Neil Postman, for example, began his
|
||
discussion of this story by explaining the error of Thamus[17]3:
|
||
|
||
“The error is not in his claim that writing will damage memory and create
|
||
false wisdom. It is demonstrable that writing has had such an effect.
|
||
Thamus’ error is in his believing that writing will be a burden to society
|
||
and nothing but a burden. For all his wisdom, he fails to imagine what
|
||
writing’s benefits might be, which, as we know, have been considerable.”
|
||
|
||
Postman refers to Thamus as a “one-eyed prophet,” seeing only the harms and
|
||
burdens that a new technology brings. In Postman’s view, however, “We are
|
||
currently surrounded by throngs of zealous Theuths, one-eyed prophets who see
|
||
only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will
|
||
undo.”
|
||
|
||
The point, Postman argued, was to see with both eyes. To recognize both the
|
||
gains and the losses, the benefits and the burdens. Only then would we be able
|
||
to judge soundly and wisely. This is, as it turns out, easier said than done.
|
||
Cycles of hype and criti-hype tend to obscure our collective vision, and we
|
||
seem to have a predilection for one-eyed prophets.[18]4
|
||
|
||
That said, my purpose in recalling Plato’s critique of writing is to set up a
|
||
brief consideration of the work that large language models (LLM) like Chat GPT
|
||
or Gemini promise to do for us, which I take to be, in short, the work of
|
||
helping us say what we need to say.
|
||
|
||
I’ve started with Plato because my thesis here is roughly this: the use of LLMs
|
||
is rendered plausible by the externalization and outsourcing of memory
|
||
initiated by writing.
|
||
|
||
Maybe that sounds like an inelegant way of stating something rather obvious,
|
||
but there are two claims in that thesis, the obvious one and another less
|
||
obvious, possibly more contentious claim.
|
||
|
||
First, the obvious one. LLMs work, in part, by mining massive datasets of the
|
||
written (and then digitized) word and drawing mathematical correlations among
|
||
the words in these massive datasets in order to make predictions about what
|
||
words should follow other words in a string. (There are other critical inputs,
|
||
but this is the relevant bit for now.) Frankly, it is hard not to be impressed
|
||
by what can be achieved through this method, which I have described
|
||
inadequately, to be sure. There can be errors of fact, or what are called
|
||
hallucinations, and the outputs are often soulless. Nonetheless, while
|
||
breathless agitation about super-intelligence and x-risk is, in my view,
|
||
misguided, it would be disingenuous to simply shrug a shoulder at the technical
|
||
achievement. But the key point here is that none of this would have been
|
||
possible had we not first received the gift of Theuth, the invention of
|
||
writing, which, as Plato correctly observed, amounts to the externalization of
|
||
memory.
|
||
|
||
So, then, in an obvious and uninteresting sense, externalized memory in the
|
||
form of writing can be understood as the technical precondition of LLMs. But
|
||
there’s a second, I think more interesting, way of framing externalized memory
|
||
as a plausibility structure for the use of LLMs.
|
||
|
||
I’m more interested in what renders the use of LLMs plausible than in what
|
||
makes them technically possible. The concept of a plausibility structure, drawn
|
||
from the sociology of religion, is meant to describe social contexts,
|
||
structures, or conditions that make it easier to hold certain beliefs.[19]5
|
||
Apart from such structures, a belief may become implausible or untenable.
|
||
Relatedly, I sometimes find it useful to ask, “What do I have to believe to
|
||
adopt this or that new technology?”[20]6 Or, to put it somewhat differently,
|
||
“What facts about my social world incline me to adopt a new technology?”
|
||
|
||
So, in the case of LLMs, we might say that the existing soulless and
|
||
bureaucratic context of much of our writing—the filling out of forms,
|
||
thoughtless school exercises, endless email—constitutes a plausibility
|
||
structure for LLMs. Under such conditions, of course, it becomes perfectly
|
||
reasonable to adopt a new technology that promised to relieve us of such tasks.
|
||
|
||
I’m less interested in these cases, however, than I am in the use of LLMs to
|
||
accomplish what, for the lack of a better word, we might call more personal
|
||
tasks. Consider, for instance, the anecdote recently shared by
|
||
[21]Matthew B. Crawford
|
||
in an [22]essay for the Hedgehog Review, which explores some of the same
|
||
terrain I’m traversing here. Crawford tells of a recent conversation with a
|
||
father who told him about how he had used Chat GPT to craft a toast for his
|
||
daughter’s wedding. It’s the use of LLMs for this kind of writing that might be
|
||
worth considering a bit more deeply, especially because it's abundantly clear
|
||
that tech companies want us to use their products in this way.[23]7
|
||
|
||
Here too, of course, a relatively straightforward consideration presents
|
||
itself—writing is hard. Many people find it intimidating, perhaps especially
|
||
when you’ll be expressing yourself in public as in the case of a wedding toast.
|
||
As Walter Ong, among others has noted, writing is not natural. While the use of
|
||
language is natural to the human animal, the emergence of writing was not,
|
||
strictly speaking, necessary. So if writing does not come easily, why not take
|
||
up a tool that promises to do it for us, particularly in cases that call for
|
||
something more personal than inconsequential boilerplate? Part of the response
|
||
to that question involves showing what might be at stake, which I attempt to do
|
||
in the next two or three paragraphs. But then I’ll also come back to why I
|
||
started with Plato and conclude by considering whether there is not also a case
|
||
of conditioned dependence stemming from our readiness to externalize our
|
||
memory.
|
||
|
||
So let’s start with the observation that in these cases LLMs are more than a
|
||
tool for writing, narrowly understood, because the act of writing is also the
|
||
more basic act of articulation.[24]8 When we turn to an LLM to write for us, we
|
||
are also inviting it to undertake the more fundamental task of articulation,
|
||
and this is no small thing. Indeed, given the centrality of language to the
|
||
human condition, we should wonder about the degree to which the outsourcing of
|
||
the labor of articulation is the outsourcing of a fundamentally human activity.
|
||
|
||
To see this more clearly, consider what is entailed in the labor of
|
||
articulation, and it often is, quite literally, a laborious activity. It is not
|
||
simply the case that articulating ourselves in language is a matter of matching
|
||
a set of words to a set of internal pre-existing feelings or inchoate
|
||
impressions, as if the work of articulation left untouched and unchanged what
|
||
it was we sought to articulate. Rather, the labor of articulation itself shapes
|
||
what we think and feel. Articulation is not dictation, articulation constitutes
|
||
our perception of the world.[25]9 To search for a word is not merely to search
|
||
for a label, the search is interwoven with the very capacity to perceive and
|
||
understand the thing, idea, or feeling. It is, in fact, generative of thought
|
||
and feeling, and, ultimately, of who we understand ourselves to be. To
|
||
articulate is also to interpret, thus it also constitutes the experience of
|
||
meaning. The labor of articulation binds us to our experience and in
|
||
relationship with others. The labor of articulation always presupposes the
|
||
other, and is thus an ethical act that relies on candor, honesty, and
|
||
attention. And while it is, in part, for the sake of the other that I set out
|
||
to articulate myself, it is in this way that I also come into focus for myself.
|
||
If I might be forgiven the analogy, it is through the labor of articulation
|
||
that the self is birthed.
|
||
|
||
In the essay I mentioned above, Crawford cited remarks from the philosopher
|
||
Talbot Brewer in an unpublished paper about what he termed “degenerative AI.”
|
||
As it happens, I’ve also had occasion to hear some unpublished remarks by
|
||
Brewer through a friend who attended a recent conference. One phrase in
|
||
particular caught my attention. As I understood it, Brewer argued that
|
||
dependence on LLMs took the self “out of play.” This is an evocative way of
|
||
getting at the matter. In the labor of articulation, we put ourselves in play,
|
||
with all the risks, rewards, burdens, challenges, and consolations that
|
||
entails. To outsource the labor of articulation is to sideline ourselves.
|
||
|
||
So much then for what is at stake in the outsourcing of the labor of
|
||
articulation. It was an important digression establishing the stakes, but now
|
||
let’s come back to the main point. When we externalized our memory in the form
|
||
of writing, we began building the databases upon which LLMs rely. But we also,
|
||
as Plato argued, began emptying ourselves of the resources upon which the labor
|
||
of articulation works. Plato was ultimately ahead of his time. It took a good
|
||
long while for writing to be widely adopted. The residue of oral culture,
|
||
including its valorization of memory, lingered for millennia. But digital
|
||
technologies brought us across a critical threshold. The scale and ubiquity of
|
||
digital databases, the vaunted access they provide to information, the promise
|
||
of having all human knowledge at our fingertips have made it increasingly
|
||
likely that people will “rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance
|
||
by external signs instead of by their own internal resources.”
|
||
|
||
My contention, then, is that when we are confronted with the opportunity to
|
||
outsource the labor of articulation, we will find that possibility more
|
||
tempting to the degree that we experience a sense of incompetency and
|
||
inadequacy, a sense which may have many sources, not least among which is the
|
||
failure to stock our mind, heart, and imagination. There was, after all, a
|
||
reason why memory was one of the five canons of classical rhetoric.[26]10 It
|
||
was not just a matter of committing to memory what you had planned to say. It
|
||
was also a matter of having internal resources to draw on in order to say
|
||
anything at all. Of course, very few of us have any reason to see ourselves as
|
||
rhetoricians, except that there may simply be something deeply humane and
|
||
satisfying about the ability to express oneself well.[27]11
|
||
|
||
And this is to say nothing of how we might distinguish knowledge from the mere
|
||
aggregation of disparate, readily accessible facts. Others may distinguish the
|
||
two differently, but I think of knowledge as something more personal, something
|
||
that emerges within us as we take in the world from our own unique perspective
|
||
but also as members of particular communities. In doing so, we construct
|
||
relationships among the things we come to know (and not merely know about),
|
||
these relationships are shaped by our history and our desires. And this
|
||
knowledge, carried within, shapes our ongoing encounters with the world,
|
||
building a cascading experience of “understanding in light of,” a form of
|
||
poetic knowledge. But this seems hardly possible if we too readily dismiss the
|
||
need to curate our memory as carefully as we might curate our feeds.
|
||
|
||
I am reminded, too, of something the avant-garde playwright Richard Foreman
|
||
observed many years ago[28]12:
|
||
|
||
I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal)
|
||
was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly
|
||
educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside
|
||
themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire
|
||
heritage of the West. But today, I see within us all (myself included) the
|
||
replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self-evolving under
|
||
the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly
|
||
available.” A new self that needs to contain less and less of an inner
|
||
repertory of dense cultural inheritance—as we all become “pancake
|
||
people”—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of
|
||
information accessed by the mere touch of a button.
|
||
|
||
My modest suggestion in conclusion is this: perhaps we do well to re-evaluate
|
||
how we think about memory and what I have called the labor of articulation.
|
||
|
||
New technologies challenge us. If we are up to the challenge, they give us the
|
||
opportunity to reconsider things we have taken for granted. They invite us to
|
||
rethink and recalibrate our assumptions about what it means to be human,
|
||
perhaps even to reclaim some goods we had lost sight of along the way. LLMs
|
||
confront us with just such a challenge, and in the vital realm of language no
|
||
less. If we have assented, in large measure, to the promise of outsourcing our
|
||
memory and now consequently find ourselves tempted to surrender the labor of
|
||
articulation. Perhaps the best way to respond to the challenge is to consider
|
||
how we might deliberately re-source our minds so that we might take up the
|
||
labor of articulation with confidence and enjoy its very human satisfactions
|
||
and consolations.
|
||
|
||
[29]Share
|
||
|
||
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
|
||
|
||
The Convivial Society is made possible by readers who value the work and have
|
||
the means to support it. If that is you, please consider becoming a paid
|
||
subscriber.
|
||
|
||
[40][ ]
|
||
Subscribe
|
||
[42]1
|
||
|
||
I say that somewhat facetiously. Some might take issue with the claim. Maybe
|
||
there’s another earlier text that better fits the bill.
|
||
|
||
[43]2
|
||
|
||
Even if one grants that Plato was wrong about writing, this is a non-sequitur.
|
||
|
||
[44]3
|
||
|
||
In Postman’s 1993 book, [45]Technopoly.
|
||
|
||
[46]4
|
||
|
||
“Criti-hype” is historian Lee Vinsel’s [47]term for criticism of technology
|
||
that takes the hype for granted and thus appears as an equally unhelpful
|
||
inversion of the tech boosterism.
|
||
|
||
[48]5
|
||
|
||
To the best of my knowledge, the term was coined by the late sociologist Peter
|
||
Berger.
|
||
|
||
[49]6
|
||
|
||
The relationship can be dialectical. I may adopt certain technologies and find
|
||
that their use becomes the plausibility structure for the formation of tacit
|
||
beliefs. In using the tool, I find that I come to believe something about the
|
||
world or about the self that I would not have otherwise. So it is not simply a
|
||
matter of what I had to believe to justify my use of a technology, it’s also a
|
||
question of what I come to believe because of my use of the technology (in
|
||
order to justify my use, for example).
|
||
|
||
[50]7
|
||
|
||
Consider the Google Gemini ad that has run during the Olympics. It features a
|
||
father using Gemini to help his daughter write a fan letter to an Olympic
|
||
athlete.
|
||
[51]Max Read
|
||
had a useful discussion of these ads in his latest [52]installment.
|
||
|
||
[53]8
|
||
|
||
I want to acknowledge that writing is a distinct use of language, one that is
|
||
already informed by a technology, the alphabet. Writing and articulation are
|
||
not necessarily co-terminous, and articulation in literate societies is already
|
||
influenced by writing.
|
||
|
||
[54]9
|
||
|
||
Some will rightly note echoes of Charles Taylor’s work here.
|
||
|
||
[55]10
|
||
|
||
Along with invention, arrangement, style, and delivery.
|
||
|
||
[56]11
|
||
|
||
St. Augustine, who was classically trained, wrote movingly of memory: “I come
|
||
to fields and vast palaces of memory, where are the treasures of innumerable
|
||
images of all kinds of objects brought in by sense-perception.”
|
||
|
||
[57]12
|
||
|
||
These lines were cited by cited by Nicholas Carr near the end of his 2008 [58]
|
||
essay on some of these very themes of this installment.
|
||
|
||
224
|
||
|
||
Share this post
|
||
|
||
[60]
|
||
[https]
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
The Convivial Society
|
||
Re-sourcing the Mind
|
||
Copy link
|
||
Facebook
|
||
Email
|
||
Notes
|
||
More
|
||
[61]
|
||
16
|
||
56
|
||
[62]
|
||
Share
|
||
PreviousNext
|
||
|
||
Discussion about this post
|
||
|
||
CommentsRestacks
|
||
User's avatar
|
||
[ ]
|
||
[ ]
|
||
[ ]
|
||
[ ]
|
||
[69]
|
||
Eric Dane Walker's avatar
|
||
[70]Eric Dane Walker
|
||
[71]Aug 1
|
||
Liked by L. M. Sacasas
|
||
|
||
I might have more to write later, but I thought I'd share a favorite quote of
|
||
mine that resonates with what you say here.
|
||
|
||
It's from Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 1945 book, Phenomenology of Perception. (I
|
||
pull the quote from p. 182 of the 1970 Colin Smith translation published by
|
||
Routledge and Kegan Paul.)
|
||
|
||
"Linguistic expression does not translate ready-made thought, but accomplishes
|
||
it."
|
||
|
||
Expand full comment
|
||
Reply
|
||
Share
|
||
[74]2 replies by L. M. Sacasas and others
|
||
[75]
|
||
Heather Blankenship's avatar
|
||
[76]Heather Blankenship
|
||
[77]Aug 1
|
||
|
||
It breaks my heart to think of a father utilizing Chat GPT to create a toast
|
||
for his daughter’s wedding. I can understand wanting to present yourself in a
|
||
“polished” way for such a public offering, but it does feel as if the entire
|
||
point of a father personally addressing his daughter (& loved ones in
|
||
attendance) is being missed. Your “taking self out of play” is spot on. I’m a
|
||
psychotherapist and was recently talking to my close friend and her husband
|
||
about challenges they’re having with their adult daughter and made some
|
||
suggestions as to ways they could begin a dialogue with her. The husband (who
|
||
is the biological dad) wanted me to write down what I had said so he could use
|
||
my wording in a letter to her. I declined, and instead wrote out general
|
||
suggestions on how to approach the situation. (For example: Let her know in no
|
||
uncertain terms your love for her and that you’re hoping to cultivate harmony
|
||
in the relationship. Ask her for any unresolved questions or concerns she has
|
||
from the past that she still harbors anger or confusion about. Be willing to
|
||
apologize and acknowledge your own shortcomings. Let her know her well being
|
||
was always the goal of decisions that were made, even when the results ended up
|
||
damaging the relationships. Etc.) I also strongly encouraged him to hand write
|
||
the letter and in cursive if possible. I know it’s easier and speedier for most
|
||
people to use a keyboard, but is ease and speed always preferable? I have
|
||
discovered in my own life (and working with clients throughout the years) that
|
||
handwritten letters/ journals/correspondence & maybe even wedding toasts) are
|
||
more meaningful for the creator and the recipient. When writing things out
|
||
(especially in cursive) the feeling you are hoping to convey is accessed easier
|
||
AND if you start to write words that don’t adequately reflect what you’re
|
||
attempting to articulate, you will be aware of it immediately. Additionally,
|
||
most recipients of handwritten letters recognize the time, care and perhaps
|
||
even struggles it took to create. I’m 60 years old, so probably “old school”
|
||
compared to many, but even my 12 & 10 year old niece and nephew tell me how
|
||
much they cherish the handwritten letters and cards I have given them over the
|
||
years. I know it’s a bit different from the father of the bride wanting to make
|
||
a good impression in a public setting, but I still believe things that come
|
||
from the head and heart without mediated by a machine, are priceless, even in
|
||
their “imperfections.” If the father had written out his toast himself, he
|
||
could present it to his daughter as a keepsake; something he’s unlikely to do
|
||
if he used Chat GPT. Thank you as always for your thought provoking sharings… I
|
||
think you and I agree that technologies can be very useful, but there is always
|
||
a gain AND a loss in adopting them… perhaps humans will develop wisdom and know
|
||
when the spoken word is best, when handwritten words are called for, when a
|
||
human and keyboard is ideal, and when Chat GPT is optimum. Blessings to you and
|
||
all your readers!
|
||
|
||
Expand full comment
|
||
Reply
|
||
Share
|
||
[79]14 more comments...
|
||
TopLatestDiscussions
|
||
|
||
No posts
|
||
|
||
Ready for more?
|
||
|
||
[95][ ]
|
||
Subscribe
|
||
© 2025 L. M. Sacasas
|
||
[97]Privacy ∙ [98]Terms ∙ [99]Collection notice
|
||
[100] Start writing[101]Get the app
|
||
[102]Substack is the home for great culture
|
||
|
||
Share
|
||
|
||
Copy link
|
||
Facebook
|
||
Email
|
||
Notes
|
||
More
|
||
This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please [104]turn on JavaScript
|
||
or unblock scripts
|
||
|
||
References:
|
||
|
||
[1] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/
|
||
[2] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/
|
||
[8] https://substack.com/home/post/p-146032272?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
|
||
[9] https://substack.com/@theconvivialsociety
|
||
[10] https://substack.com/@theconvivialsociety
|
||
[12] https://substack.com/home/post/p-146032272?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
|
||
[13] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comments
|
||
[14] javascript:void(0)
|
||
[15] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-1-146032272
|
||
[16] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-2-146032272
|
||
[17] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-3-146032272
|
||
[18] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-4-146032272
|
||
[19] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-5-146032272
|
||
[20] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-6-146032272
|
||
[21] https://open.substack.com/users/21075857-matthew-b-crawford?utm_source=mentions
|
||
[22] https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/ai-as-self-erasure
|
||
[23] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-7-146032272
|
||
[24] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-8-146032272
|
||
[25] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-9-146032272
|
||
[26] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-10-146032272
|
||
[27] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-11-146032272
|
||
[28] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-12-146032272
|
||
[29] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share
|
||
[42] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-1-146032272
|
||
[43] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-2-146032272
|
||
[44] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-3-146032272
|
||
[45] https://bookshop.org/p/books/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology-neil-postman/6718677?aid=101333&ean=9780679745402&listref=media-ecology&
|
||
[46] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-4-146032272
|
||
[47] https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5
|
||
[48] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-5-146032272
|
||
[49] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-6-146032272
|
||
[50] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-7-146032272
|
||
[51] https://open.substack.com/users/238208-max-read?utm_source=mentions
|
||
[52] https://maxread.substack.com/p/why-is-bitcoin-even-a-campaign-issue?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=392873&post_id=147164386&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=12sxx&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
|
||
[53] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-8-146032272
|
||
[54] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-9-146032272
|
||
[55] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-10-146032272
|
||
[56] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-11-146032272
|
||
[57] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind#footnote-anchor-12-146032272
|
||
[58] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/
|
||
[60] https://substack.com/home/post/p-146032272?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
|
||
[61] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comments
|
||
[62] javascript:void(0)
|
||
[69] https://substack.com/profile/15601225-eric-dane-walker?utm_source=comment
|
||
[70] https://substack.com/profile/15601225-eric-dane-walker?utm_source=substack-feed-item
|
||
[71] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comment/64062732
|
||
[74] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comment/64062732
|
||
[75] https://substack.com/profile/68433168-heather-blankenship?utm_source=comment
|
||
[76] https://substack.com/profile/68433168-heather-blankenship?utm_source=substack-feed-item
|
||
[77] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comment/64081856
|
||
[79] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/re-sourcing-the-mind/comments
|
||
[97] https://substack.com/privacy
|
||
[98] https://substack.com/tos
|
||
[99] https://substack.com/ccpa#personal-data-collected
|
||
[100] https://substack.com/signup?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_content=footer
|
||
[101] https://substack.com/app/app-store-redirect?utm_campaign=app-marketing&utm_content=web-footer-button
|
||
[102] https://substack.com/
|
||
[104] https://enable-javascript.com/
|