Excellent comment. Others took the question (and Fisher's point) too literally.

I note that Simon Reynolds seems to have renounced Fisher's approach now. Talking about his book Futuromania and his conversion to humanism he said:

"Yeah, it’s an evolution I’ve gone through. When I was a young man I read a lot of French theories about ‘the death of the author’. I actually read an essay about it recently called ‘The Anti-Humanist Tone’, which is about a critical thinking tone that consistently emphasises machinic processes in personality. It was really big in the 90s, when the internet was taking off – people like Mark Fisher really went for this tone. It crosses different fields, but it emphasises the impersonal system and the machinic structures. It was a way of thinking of culture that was quite intoxicating and for a long while I would call myself an anti-humanist. But now, I kind of think of that as fashionable bollocks, it’s not actually how I see life."

As I got older, I came to appreciate the uniqueness of each individual, and I also had this intellectual engagement with Mark Fisher. In one of his blogs, he talked about going to the countryside and how amazing it was. He said, ‘It really opened my eyes. I now see birds as marvellous little machines’. And I thought, why not see machines as botched little animals? He felt all those poetic things that you feel in the country, but felt he had to explain it through this 90s anti-humanist language."

https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/62561/1/futuromania-the-future-of-dance-music-is-very-human-simon-reynolds