michael-dean-k/

You don’t have a phone problem, you are just poisoning yourself. I'm tired of people lamenting over phones, smartphones, screens—it's not the glass! I want to make a case why smartphones are essential for flourishing in our modern life. The real problem is with “inbound feeds,” and that’s not just social media, but email inboxes and task lists. By installing software with infinite refresh, the possibility of novelty consumes you. I say this all out loud to my wife, as the guy next to me is absorbed in a sloptunnel on TikTok, and it’s 50/50 if he heard me.

On X there is a photo there is about Molly, a reporter, talking to Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir. The comments are debating if either of their outfits are appropriate, before someone says, “Grok, interpret this,” and now there’s a video of them embracing and making out. More videos show up in the comments: them playing Twister, them dancing, them Kung Fu fighting, Molly turning into a rocket and busting through the ceiling. There’s one of Alex Karp wielding a rare Japanese sword; that one was real though. There aren’t watermarks, so you can’t tell. We are basically already in the age where anything can be remixed with AI without effort.

Even if a SM feed is filled with all of your favorite ideas, friends, and thinkers, it would still be poison from the sheer volume of randomness. Even the act of seeing two things in feed, forces you to shift from one context to another, forcing you to shift frames, destabilizing and disembodying you.

Alternatively, if you had a feed of a hundred things, but they all revolve around the same content, all spawned from a singular intention, I think it would be less dizzying; it’s more enables depth into your present, embodied frame. There is less of a “slot machine” effect. 

It’s not that feeds or algorithms are bad; they only became bad when they strip context. The logic of most feeds, however, do not care if you feel oriented. They have a simple reward function, show you as many different things as they can, to see which ones drive behavior. They are running a real-time self-adaptive experiment on your preferences, in the hope to discover which patterns might nudge you into their desired behavior (whether it’s towards an ad or towards an on-platform paid subscription by a beloved writer, they are effectively the same—it’s an algorithm that is not being real with you, and not respecting your attention).

I feel like a broken record in prescribing a solution, but it’s basically Plexus (RIP): show nothing until you post, and then from what you post, share a feed of semantically related posts. Substack, as a writing network, is a unique position to build this. It has a lot of long form content: not just notes, but essays, podcasts, and videos. It should be looking at the granular units, semantically embedding paragraphs, and then those become atomic objects that help populate the “semantic feed” generated after every Note.

So Alex Dobrenko started a new personal website (I will not link to it because it’s secret), but he sent it to me, so I spent some time on it and wrote him some notes, and then he wrote a reply post to me, and now I’m making a reply log to that (and upon re-reading, I realize it’s now a whole essay). It’s something like a semi-public letter exchange. 

Letters, emails, same thing. 

Similar to how the 20th century has books like “Virginia Woolf: The Letters,” I wonder if the 21st century will have “Alex Dobrenko: The Emails,” where his children posthumously assemble and publish all their dad’s best emails. ((Also, now that my cholesterol is borderline, and my daughter is on the way, I’m having new thoughts about preparing for my death, like “THIS IS DAD FROM THE PAST AND HERE ARE ALL THE PASSWORDS.”) Something about losing all my writing forever feels worse than dying. We eventually have to die, but you only lose your writing forever if you’re careless and lazy. Rant over.)

What I like about letters/emails over essays is that there isn’t a mass-market context, and so you’re writing for just one person. That’s good essay advice too (“write for one person”—we literally taught this in Write of Passage), but deep down, it’s hard to forget that you’re writing for all people of all times, especially if you are.

Recently I mentioned that I’ve spent 2 years nerding out on essay patterns (the objective stuff on the page), but I want to start thinking more about the process: how do I show up to write?

One idea is to start essays as letters to specific people. Eventually, that can evolve into something for the main list, but I don’t want to start with them in mind. I want to start with a specific problem in my life, and then, with a small group of people who relate to that problem. Any idea I have comes with a clear person in mind, someone who would probably be most excited to read it, and has all the context needed so I can avoid the bush beating.

If I want to write about Alternate Internet Communities and weird websites, I’ll write to Alex. If I want to write about the insanity of the Dark Enlightenment, I’ll write to Andrew. Theology to Taylor, Emerson to Will, Hope to Isabel, Fatherhood to Dan, Greeks to Chris, Dreams to Garrett, AGI to Davey, Architecture to Liz, etc. It’s also special to say, “I wrote this for you, and we should talk and get to the bottom of this,” and that could really change the nature of the essay because someone else is co-shaping it with you.

Alex brings up a good question: why doesn’t Substack feel like this? I have to think more on this, but I think the stage effect is still at play. If you have a 10k audience, it still feels like a megaphone, and when you’re on Notes, you participate in American Idol, again with new skin. It’s still the best town in town, and there are tricks (ie: set up an opt-in Section for experiments so you can have a “shadow audience” that’s 1% the size of your main one), but there’s friction in tricks like that. It’s not the main way the platform is intended to be used. It’s meant for loud, marketing-style updates, that confidently funnel readers into a paid subscription tier (I got 15 paid subs from my last one, and so I realize the value in learning to play that game, but it’s just that, a game, yet a game that determines my financial security, but it’s not the full “culture” in “culture engine” that Substack can possibly build; it’s a reward function that could make this place like LinkedIn in <3 years).

So, how do you build a “culture engine,” for real? What is it beyond a tagline or positioning? To start, I think it goes beyond revenue. Of course, Substack needs to pay bills (separate point, but once we reach the vibe code singularity, the bills might be so low that SM networks won’t have to ruthlessly optimize). I think Substack could 1) diversify their business model, so that they don’t have a single attractor that incentives every thought to be monetized, and 2) make decisions from a cultural perspective—even if there’s no explicit revenue tie-in, by creating a good culture, you retain the people and prevent a Writer’s Exodus.

But to get even more specific, a “culture engine,” sounds like the kind of place that would trigger long letters back and forth between writers, kind of like this. I used to see some of that happening, but it seemed like a performance too: “And now, here is email 6 of 7 about how to start a public email debate” or something. The core difference is that, when there’s two people writing back and forth, there’s permission to perform less and less until you’re eventually just very real with each other. This is what I love about Neal Cassady’s letters to Jack Kerouac (troubled guys, who are a topic for another time). 

Why aren’t Substack comments like this? For one, they’re truncated. But two, I don’t know, sometimes comments even feel performative too? I feel it, on both the giving and receiving end. After I post, it feels like a chore to respond, even though I often love what people write and want to respond. I think it’s because, since it’s in public, and everyone can read, it feels like an obligation to respond. I wish there was an option to have “private comments,” and even “private replies to comments.” Like, other readers could see, “Michael Dean replied to this, privately” so they know I’m not a dick.

Okay, last thing, maybe: I think the real problem is that the discovery mechanics are all wrong. Like, I don’t want to blast this letter to everyone I know. But yet also, I don’t mind if everyone I know happens to stumble across it. There is a huge difference. I’ll put this in my logs, but realistically, no one is going to find it. I guess I could put it on Notes? But that feels too vulnerable too. Ideally, the right people will find it as they write about similar issues. So if some Substacker is also writing about private comments, to themselves, or to a friend, they will suddenly find a thread between Alex and Michael talking about a similar thing, and then suddenly we all have visibility into each other’s notes, letters, essays about those things. Forks merged.

The social media network I want to park in (or plug my personal website into) is one where everything is semi-public, but you only discover things through your own writing. I don’t know the right metaphor: it’s like each notes or essay is a flashlight that you use to move around this massive information cavern and you make friends along the way. It has nothing to do with engagement or revenue, but semantic similarity. This feels closer to the original vision of the Internet, to connect people based on ideas.

Sublime has some features that are adjacent to this, and Plexus was very close to this too, but I do think there’s something to owning your place. Is there some protocol where you can fuse the autonomy of your website with the connectivity of a network? I feel like AI is going to simultaneously bring us to (a) slop town, and (b) a golden age in social media experimentation; as sloptown gets neck high, people will want to move.

PS1: To clarify: I love having an audience, I just don’t love the way my writing is distributed to them, and also don’t love the way conversation is facilitated. Comments are okay, but the Chat feature feels pretty off. I wish I could write 30 essays per month, like this, and each one would get the 3 that are most relevant.

PS2: It took Alex 9 days to reply to my original notes, which is still ~2x faster than the letter cadence back in the day. That’s fast! I wonder if AIM culture poisoned letter culture. I haven’t responded to my Substack comments from 5 days ago, and I feel bad.

Thought experiment: how could a social network be designed so that 100% of users create? Obviously it would be hard and limited in scale, but this is the metric to take seriously if we want a corner of the Internet to exist outside the television attractor.

Basic example: you open an app and there’s no feed. You have to post something first. Then, and only then, does it unlock a feed of things related to your post. So it’s not a popularity feed, but a semantic feed. It feels a lot less like American Idol (the stage, the voting, the ads, etc.).

Maybe it’s not feasible to build something like this today: if you’re building/maintaining a million/billion person network, the costs are real enough that you have no other option but to turn into reality TV and fund it all through commercials.

But, if the cost of software goes down significantly in the next 10 years (because AI), we could see smaller, less mercenary, more experimental networks, networks that diverge in form from the endless feed. Of course, AI will also make the mega/mono-TV unimaginably addicting, but that might spook people into seeking alternatives, to find places that ask “how do we connect in a place that is not reality TV?”

So instead of MAU (monthly active users), how could you maximize PMAP (percent of monthly active posters)?

If you give an infinite amount of monkeys a typewriter, with an infinite amount of time (obviously theoretical because neither a being or time can be infinite) not only will one of them produce Shakespeare, but the entire Western Canon would be re-derived from scratch in every moment of reality. This captures the difference between astronomic values and infinite values. In astronomic values, given an absurd amount of time, one monkey will eventually do the the impossible and write Shakespeare. But with infinite values, monkeys are inventing Shakespeare as the grammar of space-time. The astronomical shows that the impossible could happen once, but the infinite shows that the impossible could become the fabric of a reality.

And Sora is, like the 2005 Facebook feed, just the start of something new, but something that might actually be as nauseating as the infinite. If you have agents that can reproduce endlessly (potentially infinite “creators”), with the ability to remix/generate one piece of content against every other node in a growing cultural matrix (actually infinite), with limited time/cost (not infinitesimal, but fractional), that leads to every possible reality happening in every moment, at a cost that’s bearable to tech corporations.

I think I find this all interesting now, because something as abstract as the infinite might shape the future of creation/consumption. And to tie this to our talk last night about optimism/pessimism, I think the difference comes down to those who have the agency and discernment to plug in to the infinite on their own terms. It could be as simple as, if you plug in to OpenAI, Meta, or X, and let them use your data to create a generative algorithmic for you, you will be swept away in limitless personalized TV static. But if you know how to build your own tools (hardware, software, social communities), then you have a chance to harness it.

In Sora, I’m currently in a Bob Ross K-Hole, and it triggered an unexplainable interest in trying to explore the edges of Bob Ross lore, which is, now that I write this, so random and pointless and misaligned, but when I do it I’m cracking up and can’t really stop.

Contrast that with my own theoretical "infinite system," where every new log surfaces the 100 most related logs, and then each of those logs becomes the seed for an essay generator, each of which gets rewritten endlessly (for hours, days, or weeks) via an EA software feedback loop, until I decide I want to read it.

And so if you dive into the infinite, even if it’s something you love, it can easily destroy you, and instead we need to make our own systems/agents that can surf those edges for us, and bring back just the right amount of information that we can meaningfully work with.

I'm ashamed to admit that a meme on Sora got me to laugh and cry so hard that my head was in pain and I had to close the app. It was Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” but AI replaced the text with the script from the meme of that 4-year-old who can’t describe his dream (“Have you ever had a dream that you, um, you had, your, you— you could, you’ll do, you— you want, you, you could do…” etc.). There is something about seeing a great American orator mumble endlessly that I apparently can’t handle. Technically, I “made” this meme, which makes it worse, like I’m laughing at my own jokes.

What makes Sora an incredibly weird experiment is that, in 10 seconds, anyone can upload their “likeness.” Basically, you spin your head around, you say some words, and you get a photorealistic avatar that you can lend to your friends so they can prompt you into absurd situations. Of course, Sam Altman is one of the default avatars available. 50% of the app is Sam Altman fan fiction. You will find him stealing graphics cards from Target, smoking weed and saying “we’re cooked,” debating Cartman in court, using Pikachu to power a fusion reactor, etc. Also if you like Pikachu, there is now infinite Pikachu content. It is all very dumb, but it is endlessly novel.

This feels like a preview of a culture who only communicates through Superbowl commercial skits. I hope it doesn’t work, but I fear it might. I assume most people are questioning “why would anybody make their likeness public?” The answer is attention. I imagine that, within a week or two, Sam will have the montages and metrics to sway influencers and celebrities. It will be pitched as the new way to engage your audience: “let them create through you.” They know they can’t use the likeness of real people; I wonder if the point of this app (a wrapper over their underlying video model) is to get people to hand over their identity for free.

I am debating if I should delete this from my phone (I don’t allow any feeds on my phone … except Substack), or, if I should lean in, sell my likeness, and write about the consequences. This feels like an essay-worthy moment, but I can’t find the terms and conditions, and I get paranoid when I imagine the possibilities.

"The Death of the Corporate Job" went viral on Substack: 3.3k likes in a few days (eventually went up to 20k, I think). I am pretty sure this was AI-generated. I don’t feel like posting about it though. It’s clear to me that this is a kid in his 20s, building an AI tool for career discovery; he sees this essay as marketing. It will probably bring him a lot of customers. He might possibly help a lot people. I’m sure he believes in his mission.

What irks me is that the essay has been instrumentalized. There are fake I’s with vague personal details. Intellectually, it’s a ripoff of Bullshit Jobs. There’s no structural clarity, and it loops through the same points multiple times. No tension. Flat voice. Awkward repetition. I understand why the writer did this, but I’m more concerned about the state of readers, because this piece’s popularity is really a reflection of mass readers.

It shows that most people care about the topic, and barely notice or care about how it’s written. What thye care about is having their pain validated. To go viral, write about mainstream pain. So if this is what the masses want, shouldn’t we not care about composition and just write psychology-targeted think pieces? I mean, if you want to just build an audience at the expenses of your own satisfaction, then yes, possibility. But the quality of your thinking, and the friction to derive something original and independent, gives you something more than fleeting popularity, it actually shapes your lens for the longterm, and you earn something that is transferrable outside of narrow social status games.

Never respond with anger. Even when people give you snark, you should assume good intent, even if their intentions are ambiguous. Likely, they are confused. And how could they not be confused? They’ve maybe spent 5 minutes with your ideas, and were kind enough to even engage with you, before spending 2 hours to fully get it. So be friendly, be kind, and they’ll respond in kind. I don’t think most people want conflict. If someone is snarky, and then you’re kind, and they’re snarky back, what is it that they’re actually going for? Are they in a spiral?

I recalibrated my social media blocker (Cold Turkey), so that I need to write 250 characters of gibberish (takes 5 minutes), and if I get one character wrong, it resets the whole string (with moderate focus, I still get ~5 characters wrong). This creates a passable, but significant block. I had a more lenient block before, where I only had to rewrite 5 random works, which I could do in <5-10 seconds. Now, the friction is real. My friend called it “torture.” Is it really worth focusing for 5 minutes on non-sense to unlock a feed I know that will distract me?

App idea: a browser extension that locks any feed (Notes, X, etc.) until you write X words. Points: (1) There would be no option to skip, you have to write before you can enter your typical infinite scroll mode; (2) you get to set the word count (ie: 50-500 words); (3) there can be prompts so you don’t have a blank canvas each time; (4) it saves all your writings, either for future sharing, or to build an internal knowledge graph for AI context.

Feels like this could be “algorithmic Aikido” (a martial arts term for redirecting violence). It hijacks a consumption addiction and turns it into creation. 

I’m fascinated by this idea because it could be a way to bootstrap a healthy social network by helping them get unhooked off the bad ones. Everyone, even the most discipline people, know how addicted they can get. If creation discharges the need to binge, then this could save something like 30 hours per month (a modest calc of 1 hour saved per day); and if you value your time at $100/hour, that’s $3k in monthly value for only $9/month. That’s a non-advertising business model. 

Put simply, it’s a fusion of a “browser blocker” and a “note-taking app” that exists at the OS/browser level. It is adaptable enough to layer on top of any, all, future social networks. 

It follows a strong virtue: you have to write before you do anything. After you write, you have 3 options: (1) continue to your feed, guilty; (2) copy your text, so you can post it, or (3) open a finite feed of [13] related posts, ones from our network that are semantically related to your own.

Imagine having the worst thing you’ve ever done broadcasted to the entire world? Everyone would assume that lapse in virtue was your full self. Everyone has a different mean and a different range, but the question is, where does this particular cheater—the CEO at the Coldplay concert—stand? We see this 10 second clip with no context into who he actually is, and we assume it’s representative of his whole character. But when I hear that his wife who was cheated on was actually the mistress from his first marriage, it points to a pattern. Still, who knows if it’s true or not. The situation is something like a perfect storm for a man who probably deserves it. Out of millions of Jumbotron kiss cam moments, all the wrong moves happened at the same time. They could’ve separated when the kiss cam was announced, they could’ve played off the reaction instead of devolving into horrific embarrassment, and Chris Martin could have held his tongue, but none of that happened, and so now an angry public—one looking for a scapegoat—found a powerful man in a cartoon situation, getting the fate we think he deserves.

This Influencer Does Not Exist. Opening hook: “Anyone can be a hot girl online now.” The fact that AI characters are getting 100k followers, and 600k views per post is going to devalue audiences. I still think “who” is more important than “how much.” Sure, any guy can create a fake viral account, but what do they do with that audience other than the vanity metric of “big audience?” Better to have 1k followers of high-trust high-value people who support your every direction than 100k who want you for a single false thing that you’re not.

In response to a Catherine Shannon group chat:

Friendship is a bond that emerges when you’re both entangled in a circumstance. Inevitably though, an IRL circumstance changes (ie: you graduate, you move, you shift jobs, you have kids), and so you have to make an effort to stay in touch when contexts no longer align. You don’t know if someone’s a friend-beyond-circumstance until one of you shifts phases and both of you have to take responsibility for keeping it alive (not that you’re a bad friend if you don’t — you only have so much bandwidth).

For friends you meet online, there’s no stable circumstance. While there are digital watering holes—blogs, forums, courses, etc.—those tend to dissolve and shift 10x faster than IRL ones. Even though the Internet can connect you with people on your exact wavelength (unlike my neighborhood), there’s no inherent stickiness, and so I’ve learned I need to take more responsibility to start projects or rituals with the people I want to stay close with.

Not UBI, but ABI (attention-based income):

1. AI is not a bubble; the core bottlenecks around any technology is science, energy, and intelligence. Of those 3, intelligence is the most likely to boost science/energy. Meaning exponential AI is something like an acceleration of every other field to their maximum degree. It is not only not a bubble, it is the dead bubble resurrector.
2. People say not to worry about AI job loss (“people have always adapt to new tools!”) but this revolution is different because the invention is not just a tool, but labor itself. Agents will eventually create a supply shock. Sure, new jobs will be created, but they’ll be very specialized around AI research and systems design.
3. Maybe we all lose our jobs, but we also each get access to a 20-100 person digital labor force, probably at very low cost. So while traditional jobs might go away, everyone is suddenly able to be an entrepreneur with a personal labor force at the size of a Series A or Series B funded company.
4. In hindsight, it will seem like Silicon Valley used AI to make their startup culture the prominent culture. The problem is, 99% of startups fail. So even though it will marketed that so many people will be empowered, most might not be able to convert it into financial stability.
5. This means that unemployment could be historically high, and that causes unrest that the ruling class has to deal with. In our case it’s the technocrats, not the politicians in charge.
6. UBI will be shaky to implement. Some countries will have none, some a bit, and a few will give a living wage.
7. Social media companies, will 1) realize attention is the last scarce resource, and 2) populations are rioting, and so a few will start paying users to scroll. It’s a kind of UBI, but conditional on the value you provide on a specific platform.

Banning social media accounts (in Australia), by age (16), feels heavy-handed.

A better solution is to (1) verify identity and age, (2) implement a standard where features have categories and ratings, and then (3), spin up a custom version of that social media site based on age. For example, 5-year olds shouldn’t be limited from YouTube, but maybe there are content blackouts, no vertical video shortform feed, no comments, etc. As you age (/mature), the platform blooms in functionality

Email to Davey:

Thanks for sharing this, Davey. It's a nice encapsulation, an important idea, and I'm sure it's time will come.

I think your nuance on why Related Notes on Twitter didn't work is key. It can't be a side feature, it has to be core. Plexus solved the 90-9-1 problem (90% lurkers, 9% sharers, 1% posters). On Plexus, 100% were posters. This happened because the feed was intentionally withheld until you did the vulnerable thing of shaping/sharing your thoughts. And when you did, you were rewarded with a feed of similar thoughts (an act of encouragement / validation).

As Substack is undergoing TikTokification (my friend sent me a video of his Notes feed, which was all vertical video), I wonder, why can't the Plexus concept exist? Technically, it will be easier, each year, to build something like this, and I wonder what other social frictions need to be fixed for something like it to really work.

There's an inherent tension in a "semantic journaling" app. You want a space that both (1) becomes the place where each person captures their consciousness, but also (2) they want some control over who can/can't see it. I think there are a rare few who are okay being linguistically naked (ie: I have all my logs on my website and I don't care if anyone sees them). It definitely isn't the norm (most people don't even think at the edge, let alone write it, let alone share it). And I have my own limits too (for example, last night my wife reconnected with a middle school bully, and there's much I could write about it, but I lean towards not for the slim chance that someone in her group might find it).

There’s a chance that, at scale, semantically linking is just as unnatural as broadcasting (ie: people will get doxxed / revealed because everything is too interconnected). Maybe instead of having a semantic feed auto-generate, it will spawn a card (with an AI-generated title) that both parties have to accept for the logs to be exchanged/visible. The question is how can you capture the complex psychology of control/privacy in a simple interface/architecture that lets the average, guarded person be maximally unhinged, expressive, and idiosyncratic.

Maybe semi-public journaling will, over time, by 2045 (one of my predictions) become way more normalized, but maybe there’s also a tool that accelerates this (similar to how Uber, AirBnB are both tools that normalized culturally deviant things). Michael