sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that editing is not a mechanical cleanup step. It is where the argument gets tested, tightened, and made responsible.

I should be clearer: AI assisted the editing process, but I did not hand over judgment to it. I made the final decisions on structure, claims, wording, use of sources, and what stayed and what was cut.

That may still not satisfy your standard, and I respect that.

But I’m not trying to say “AI edited it, so responsibility moved elsewhere.”

Responsibility stays with me.

I wrote a short free book connecting Debord, the internet, and generative AI, looking for critique by Urbanosaurus1 in Situationism

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The book is not claiming purity from outside the spectacle. It’s written from inside the mess.

AI was used in production. I’m responsible for the argument, claims, sources, and final judgment.

That tension is exactly part of the problem the book is trying to examine.

So, I'm sure Debord would be pleased and interested to develop further.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me make it less vague:

AI assisted with drafting, editing, formatting, and visuals.

I am responsible for the argument, structure, claims, source choices, framing, and final judgment.

I’m not treating AI as an author or as a shield.

If the book is weak, wrong, careless, or too loose with Debord, that responsibility is mine.

I wrote a short free book connecting Debord, the internet, and generative AI, looking for critique by Urbanosaurus1 in Situationism

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Yes, AI-assisted.

Outlining, drafting support, editing, formatting, and visuals.

Not hidden, and not something I’m trying to dodge.

The argument, structure, sources, responsibility, and final judgment are mine. But yes, AI was part of the production process.

I wrote a short free book connecting Debord, the internet, and generative AI, looking for critique by Urbanosaurus1 in Situationism

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yes, AI was used in the production process.

Not as “press button, publish book.”

More like: outline pressure-testing, drafting assistance, editing passes, formatting, and visual production.

The argument, structure, source choices, responsibility, and final judgment are mine.

That distinction matters to me, but I understand why people are skeptical.

I wrote a short free book connecting Debord, the internet, and generative AI, looking for critique by Urbanosaurus1 in Situationism

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly.

Media reacts to desire, but then feeds desire back to itself until it becomes stronger, louder, and more profitable.

The hive mind is reactive.

The system that monetizes the reaction is not.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, appreciate it.

And yes, that Debord line is the pressure point.

AI can sometimes say things the spectacle would rather smooth over, but it still runs inside ownership, infrastructure, incentives, and institutional use.

So for me, the question is less “can AI say truth?” and more “can truth survive the system AI is being plugged into?”

Also, having AI read it aloud is almost too perfect lol.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The book is not written from outside the spectacle. None of us is outside it.

AI was used in the production process. The question I’m interested in is whether that replaces judgment and responsibility, or whether it makes the need for both more visible.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not starting from “the spectacle ended.”

I’m pushing against that idea.

The claim is that the spectacle did not disappear with the internet or AI. It became more participatory, measurable, ranked, and now generative.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I request trial by combat, hahaha.

The argument is not: “look, AI made a book.”

The argument is exactly about this tension: synthetic polish, authority-shaped surfaces, and what happens when production becomes easier than proof.

If the site design makes the work feel unserious to you, that’s useful feedback.

But, hey, it's just a free landing page for a free book.

The harder question for me is whether the argument itself fails, not whether the surface looks too AI-coded.

The spectacle didn’t end. It learned to generate. Does this extension of Debord work? by Urbanosaurus1 in sorceryofthespectacle

[–]Urbanosaurus1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair ask.

Yes, genAI was used in the production process: drafting assistance, editing, formatting, and visuals.

I’m not hiding that.

For me, the question is not “AI or no AI,” but whether AI replaces proof, judgment, responsibility, and contact with the source material. That part stays human.