Forty years ago, in 1985, the world was a different place. People used phone booths and land lines instead of mobile devices and Facetime. In cities, they called for taxis instead of Ubers, paid for delivery instead of UberEats, and if they owned cars, drove themselves around instead of letting an onboard computer do it for them. More relevantly, they communicated with each other using words they drew from the recesses of their own intellects; now, increasingly, they consult machines before hitting a ‘send’ button.

A lot has changed since then, and yet, the warnings issued by our cultural critics seem to have stayed the same. Perhaps as the generations change over, new advice is best conveyed using the words of old advisors, and in the case of the current monumental shift in technology and social interaction—AI—there’s value to be found in considering the critics of yesteryear’s technology. A generation ago, older voices feared that the children of the eighties and nineties, the Millennial generation, would amuse themselves to death in much the same manner that their parents would: rotting away in front of the analog screens of their televisions or underneath the headphones of their CD players.

So that’s where we’ll begin.

The Generation that Amused Themselves to Death

Not-coincidentally, forty years ago also marked the publication of Neil Postman’s prescient Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book concerned about the entertainification of American life, primarily by the means of television. In his own words, it is “a lamentation” about “the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television,” a change that “irreversibly shifted the content and meaning of public discourse.”¹ In this, Postman both directly references and follows in the tradition of Marshal McLuhan’s work on media theory: in so many words, ‘the media is the message.’

Postman’s book considers the affect that television had on American life and, in his time, anticipated the affect it would have into the future. As such, his thesis concerned television’s affects on communication specifically, not merely its general affects on attention spans or the quality of programming available. His work is not a screed against pop-junk; rather, his argument lay specifically in how the new medium

changes the structure of discourse; it does so by encouraging certain uses of the intellect, by favoring certain definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding a certain kind of content—in a phrase, by creating new forms of truth-telling.²

This is important to note because television is both a technology and a medium, which was Postman’s point. As a technology, one can argue that it has various uses and that some of these uses are better than others—an argument heard frequently with reference to the internet in more contemporary times. But being a technology that was designed to broadcast its medium, Postman points out that any use of it according to its intended purpose results in the sublimation of content to entertainment. “Entertainment,” he argues, “is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television,”³ regardless of whether one is referring to sitcoms and dramas or, where his point is more relevant, to news, journalism, or documentaries.

Sound and image unified toward the end of airwave transmission will bend toward mass appeal, and indeed, it has to, given the foundational architecture of television in terms of its institution. Television was and remains a technology only made possible by an enormous and expensive infrastructure: airwaves must be maintained and operated, in other words, by networks of broadcasters, both highly corporatized at the national or international levels, as well as, in days past, independent teams operating out of local commercial districts. Not only do these require money to maintain and staff, there has always been a great demand to use the medium to put more eyes on more products and services, and there has never been a shortage of corporate interests looking to make a few extra dollars making that happen. It’s only natural to expect advertising to form the backbone of television, and, therefore, to appeal directly to its audiences by taking full advantage of what the medium offers:

The average length of a shot on network television is only 3.5 seconds, so that the eye never rests, always has something new to see. Moreover, television offers viewers a variety of subject matter, requires minimal skills to comprehend it, and is largely aimed at emotional gratification. Even commercials, which some regard as an annoyance, are exquisitely crafted, always pleasing to the eye and accompanied by exciting music. There is no question but that the best photography in the world is presently seen on television commercials. American television, in other words, is devoted entirely to supplying its audience with entertainment.⁴

It’s difficult finding any meaningful issue with Postman’s account, especially as it applied to the television and advertising of the time. The point of advertising, then, was to sell a product and to some lesser extent, sell a narrative. Over time, selling the narrative eventually came to supplant the purpose of selling the product, but advertising remains a vehicle for selling something for financial gain.

Although Postman’s book pertained specifically to television, most of what he discusses with regard to entertainment is better applied to advertising more broadly. The revolution in entertainment media twenty years ago has resulted in television losing its status as a monolithic social programmer, supplanted by streaming services, social services, and the ever-ambiguous notion of “content.” Although the notion of an ad break seems increasingly a relic of a distant and less fortunate past, these platforms still run ads for the same reasons television stations did. How ads are implemented may have changed, but their presence hasn’t.

Amusement, the Will and Technology

Neil Postman passed away in 2003, a few years before the next revolution in technology resulted in the birth of social media and file sharing. In 2003, however, the internet had been readily available to the average consumer for almost a decade, and although still in the springtime of its youth, commentators could easily attempt right-minded predictions as to what direction that new medium was headed. Science fiction works such as William Gibson’s Neuromancer and Shirow Masamune’s Ghost in the Shell had already predicted a digital, virtual world’s superimposition upon real life, developed enough to the point that a user may totally opt out of one in favor of the other. As Postman explicitly references, albeit not quite framed in such a manner, this bifurcation of social interaction can be seen too even earlier in Aldous Huxley’s famous Brave New World.

Unfortunately, this future did come about, but not with the razor sharp aesthetics of neon lights, bar code tattoos, virtual helmets and a Blade Runner styled urban dystopia. Instead, it came in the form of designed-by-committee round-edged friendly white and blue flat design icons, sidebars, posts, and infographics. It came in the form of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn. It came in the form of a social network that one plugs into and experiences as a mixture of text and image, sound and motion, but all on a screen of increasingly limited size, as more and more users plug in by mobile device rather than desktop computer.

In 2012, author George Dyson, son of famed physicist and speculative futurist Freeman Dyson, published Turing’s Cathedral, a patchwork narrative of nonfiction concerning the accomplishments of physics over the last century. Later that decade, directly inspired by that volume as well as others by Dyson, author Benjamin Labatut would write The Maniac, a fictionalized take on the same subjects but with a slightly different focus.

This deserves mention here as the advent of the modern computer is precisely the result of the efforts described in both books. And more importantly, not only the computer, but within years of the first analogue computers turning on, with their miles of cables and warehouses of tubes, their air conditioning units, their dedicated floors in the basements of labs and technical institutes, the first theories behind ‘machine learning’ were being penned. Machine learning, as a field recognizable to the average computer science undergrad today, would more fully take shape in the 1980s, but its core remains built upon the work of the scientists in the 1950s and 1960s.

Some of this work included John von Neumann’s invention of modern computer architecture, and some of it included Alan Turing’s consideration of a hypothetical ‘learning machine’ that could eventually reach, according to him, some sort of artificial intelligence. The invention of digital computational power, on one hand, happened concurrently with the speculative idea of digital intelligence. Although there were demonstrations of these theories back then, it would take decades for the hardware to catch up to the theories.

The ability to program machines by digital means presented the idea to computer scientists that a new digital world had opened up for exploration: a world contained wholly within the machine and accessible, at that time, only by manipulation of vacuum tubes and diode placements for inputs and the sheets of paper these monsters printed for outputs. This would be simplified by the implementation of front panels by the sixties, and before two decades had passed, the familiar staples personal computers like computer monitors, keyboards, mouses and speakers. This leap to a visual display only compounded this notion of a digital space that is in some form separate from our own, and as the technology disseminated out from behind the closed doors of labs and the hands of specialists into the commercially available public sphere, this idea quickly entrenched itself into popular consciousness.

Before the invention of the computer monitor, Nils Aall Barricelli already considered computer science according to such terms: the formulation of digital universes in which digital life could be seeded and thrive. His interest being primarily in understanding evolution and genetic mutation, Barricelli had the idea that “using strings of code able to reproduce, undergo mutations, and associate symbiotically within the 40,960-bit memory of the new machine,” he’d be able to “find analogies or, possibly, essential discrepancies between bionumerical and biological phenomena.”⁵ Dyson quotes Simon Gaure, an assistant who worked for Barricelli on research, that “Barricelli ‘balanced on a thin line between being truly original and being a crank.’”⁶

It is likely that Barricelli was indeed a crank. But it is also likely that all those who attribute to the digital realm a second reality, not merely by analogy, are also cranks. These cranks are just more socially astute and following the trends set by other cranks who, over the years, have come to presume things from technology by way of projection. Much the same can be said about the progenitors of artificial intelligence which, although Barricelli seemed intent on discovering within the diodes and vacuum tubes at Princeton, developed into a field of R&D that almost totally ignored his attempts at discovering ‘bionumerical’ lifeforms. Analogizing machines with universes and algorithms with intelligent thought, however, remained and remains quite alive and well.

Outsourcing One’s Daily Experiences

Users demanding Twitter’s in-built AI Grok ‘fact check’ claims under viral posts now dominate the comments of blue-checkmarked accounts. “Grok, is this true?” “Grok, confirm?” “Grok, is this real?” A certain class of user has abandoned any interest in checking for himself, using a quick search engine, or as is often the case, just pausing to reflect for a moment in cases where obvious trickery should be self-evident.

The search engines now, too, default to AI generated responses at the top of their results page, and not infrequently are these results just wrong enough to be mistaken as legitimate, even when the first few actual web results, which one must scroll to find, contradict the AI. And yet, the AI is pushed on the users, anyway.

But these machines aren’t just used for fact checking. They’re used to do homework—even, apparently, at the graduate level. A few months ago, Vidhay Reddy (note the name) made national news after publicizing his transcript with Google’s Gemini. The back and forth ended when Gemini eventually responded with

This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe.

Please die.

Please.

While the LLM’s response is certainly noteworthy, what’s more relevant here is that Reddy had spent the previous hour using the machine to do his homework. Not to assist him in research, or to guide him to appropriate sources, either, but to quite literally answer the questions for him. And this man was, at the time, a twenty-nine year old going for a degree related to care for the elderly, based on this transcript alone.

This should make anyone pause. LLM abuse, wherein students rely on the machines to give them answers to questions without any reflection, further research, or introspection, is not only common place, and not only restricted to fields whose only consequence might be some academic fraud, but to fields in which lives are on the line. Doctors and medical professionals, for instance. For now, most of the doctors who use AI keep its use limited to administrative tasks that can and probably should be automated, like the transcription of notes from patient visits, filling out discharge paperwork, or drawing up medical charts. But that said, twelve percent of those surveyed in 2024 acknowledged using AI for ‘assistive diagnosis,’ which doesn’t bode well.

A recent study by brainonllm.com indicates this cause for trepidation, if the research is anything to go on. Researchers split participants into three groups and tested them according to essay writing. One group was allowed to use LLMs, one only search engines, and the last was prohibited from using computers altogether. Predictably, the LLM group’s neural connectivity patterns differed significantly from the other two groups, and this found itself expressed in “low reported ownership” of their essays, in addition to falling “behind in their ability to quote from essays they wrote just minutes prior.”

This study has yet to finish undergoing the peer review process and, as its operators admit, the research remains ongoing as they look to expand the sample size and become more rigorous in their approach. But their results certainly come across as affirming what everyone familiar with LLMs has already intuited: they’re powerful tools that, when left in the hands of those not really prepared for them, will quickly atrophy the mind the way motorized scooters atrophy the legs. Those that overuse them will gradually, or in the case of this study, not-so-gradually, come to lean on them until they forget how to think altogether.

Outsourced Entertainment

All of the above seems something of a natural consequence of the revolutionary new technology. As if this trend wasn’t troubling enough, however, AI’s encroachment into entertainment has brought a less intuitive dimension into the framework.

With some cynicism, it is not difficult to imagine a future class of citizenry that outsources not just the creation of its entertainment to AI machines, but its consumption of it as well: a blank-eyed teenager whose attention span is so fried that he orders ChatGPT to summarize the contents of a TikTok short and then vocalize this summary because it takes him too long to read it on a screen. Some element of this already exists now: while some may only joke about using LLMs to summarize the books on their reading list, others, even at academic levels, actually do it. In the future, you won’t have to read books because you can get your opinions from Claude, nor will you have to actually listen to any music. Films will have various levels of generated content only to be filtered again through different machines so their summaries can be played back to audiences in lieu of actually watching them.

This is not some example of isolated occurrences, either. In a CNBC article from earlier this month, Henry Ajder of both Latant Space Advisory and Meta was quoted: “The age of slop is inevitable.” The article concerns the rise of AI generated V-Tuber and streamer accounts that exist purely to generate online content. One such user, although he remained pseudonymous, was interviewed and described in some moderate depth:

“My goal is to scale up to 50 channels, though it’s getting harder because of how YouTube handles new channels and trust scores,” said a Spain-based creator who goes by the name GoldenHand and who declined to disclose his real name.

Working with a small team, GoldenHand publishes up to 80 videos per day across his network of channels, he said. Some maintain a steady few thousand views per video while others might suddenly go viral and rack up millions of views, mostly to an audience of those over the age of 65.

GoldenHand said his content is audio-driven storytelling. He described his YouTube videos as audiobooks that are paired with AI-generated images and subtitles. Everything after the initial idea is created entirely by AI, he said.

He recently launched a new platform, TubeChef, which gives creators access to his system to automatically generate faceless AI videos starting at $18 a month.

For a riveting example of what this platform is capable of, consider this, a video—though the term is used loosely here—of a narrated story, all of which was generated by machines. Feel free to pass your own judgment.

These people aren’t creating content out of any particular love for the game, so to speak. If they were, they wouldn’t be relying on machines to generate the full totality of their work. This isn’t the work of a storyteller or an artist but a bean counter looking to make more beans, although in this case, they aren’t even real beans. So if there’s no expression of an individual’s soul on display, no act of communication taking place between an artist and his audience, and no effort to replicate the transcendent by means of the created, what’s the point of this seemingly endless proliferation of AI slop? It’s consumer media, a term discussed at some length in a previous piece back in January.

This goes far beyond simply playing around with an LLM as an apparently harmless hobby. The user detailed above claimed to “come up with 60 to 80 viral video ideas a day,” and, as stated above, are viewed primarily by senior citizens, most likely on platforms like YouTube and Facebook. There’s only one reason to do this, given that the slop is easily identifiable, easily avoidable, and easily dismissed as irrelevant garbage: ad revenue. He churns out sixty to eighty of these things a day, pollutes the internet with them, gets more channels on YouTube monetized with them, and calls it a day.

In television’s heyday, however, the ads served as a way to ensure the infrastructure remained soluble; you’d put up with advertising because it meant the shows you wanted to see would still get financed, albeit the connection between the two was a little indirect. The point, however, remained the content. For AI slopfarmers, however, the content is no longer the point at all. They know they’re producing empty content, but they do not care.

This isn’t work. It’s not labor. Nothing is being created that adds to any thing whatsoever. It’s just a huge scamming operation. And there are thousands of these accounts.

Which brings us back to the beginning, though not in the completion of a circle so much as a spiral. Forty years ago, Neil Postman feared that we were amusing ourselves to death with television and the industries and institutions that supported it. He was afraid that the American identity would be forever altered by an addiction to aesthetically magnified, highly packaged consumable imagery and entertainment, and that this alteration was radically detrimental to the populace. Catastrophically so, in fact. And, as the 1980s turned into the 1990s, which then bled into the 2000s, his suspicions seemed to be confirmed.

Conclusion

Where our parents were warned of the dangers of being amused to death, that warning seemingly went unheeded. One might argue that the death occurred even while it left the body’s organs fully functional: a death of the mind. Within Catholic teaching, we understand that sin darkens the intellect, makes it dumber, harder to see, more difficult for someone to discern not only right from wrong but also truth from falsehood and beauty from ugliness.

The tidal wave of amusement that swept America left in its wake a population with fried endocrine receptors, attention deficit disorders, and social neuroses, all of which were only compounded by the increasing alienation of society by, among other causes, the proliferation of the internet and rise of social media. If one sin were to be named as the driving force of this trend, it would be sloth. It’s tempting to consider entertainment as something used to fill a void, but the industrial scale of the entertainment apparatus that Postman describes with reference to television is one that aids in creating that void just so it can be filled. Television was not invented because there was a desperate need for its programming: its cathode ray instead introduced the world to something it had no need of before, and like a drug, could no longer imagine living without.

But, like a drug, amusement was not enough. More amusement wouldn’t cut it anymore, and as the generations changed over and technology changed over, as amusement could become more personalized, preying not just on sloth but on more obviously self-directed sins like pride, the more the modern soul came to find that entertainment was not something one could cast into the void in an effort to fill it, but rather, it was the void, and the soul had to abandon itself in order to embrace it. The more modern man attempts this, the more he tries to flee from himself, the greater his frustration: the soul is after all the only thing that cannot be abandoned. It cannot be cast aside or lost; it is with him all the way through his Final Judgment. And, indeed, it is with him even afterward.

The expression of this psychosis is exactly the desire explored above, in which the modern man seeks an automated machine to live his life for him. One may argue that these are isolated instances or that some—such as the student using Google Gemini to cheat on his homework—have other reasons that are not so obviously dire. Nonetheless, even cases such as these are relevant to the point. The underlying ethos behind the push toward generational machines is to take as much of the human element out of the picture as possible, and as AI becomes more readily accessible by the general public, more inculcated into daily life, more present in everyday appliances and institutions, that ethos naturally extends to the public social sphere. And as if this impulse was not troubling enough, it is exacerbated by the trends in advertising, which have turned from tedious exercises in aesthetic overload to a nearly inescapable element of digital experience.

It is not the intention here to paint with too broad a stroke. Other social problems have contributed to this slant toward personal nihility: the disintegration of communities, loss of social homogeneity, over-inflation of land values and the destruction of the dollar’s value, to speak quite generally, each have played substantial roles in the attack against the soul of the modern man. Still, this push toward nihility is nowhere better expressed than in the modern world’s relationship with and reaction to technology.

Toward the end of his book, Neil Postman mentioned that “television favors moods of conciliation and is at its best when substance of any kind is muted.”⁷ Present trends in where social media and artificial intelligence converge present an even bleaker picture: substanceless content made solely for ad farming. The fact it seems lucrative enough to be a viable path toward monetization means that somebody really is just watching the slop.

---

1Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, (New York, Penguin: 1985, 2006), 8.

2Ibid, 27.

3Ibid, 87.

4Ibid, 86-87.

5George Dyson, Turing’s Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2012), 228.

6Ibid, 226.

7Postman, 116.

---

Self Promotional Blurbs:

Want to support our work? Consider buying us a few beers or, better yet, becoming a monthly subscriber at Ko-Fi. $5 or $10 a month grants access to exclusive content.