Go with Elmo Lovano on Instagram: "Ilan Rubin’s hilarious Tom DeLonge and Trent Reznor story 😂 From Go With Elmo Lovano Episode 101: Ilan Rubin #tomdelonge #trentreznor #angelsandairwaves #nineinchn... 3,849 likes, 25 comments - gowithelmo on April 8, 2026: "Ilan Rubin’s hilarious Tom DeLonge and Trent Reznor story 😂 From Go With Elmo Lovano Episode 101: Ilan Rubin #tomdelonge #trentreznor #angels...

great tom delonge story from ilan rubin www.instagram.com/reels/DW4NtQ...

A lot of people have asked what the Oakland Review of Books is. One good answer is that ORB is the opposite of whatever these guys have become. Give a thought to subscribing, won't you? www.oaklandreviewofbooks.org#/portal/signup

The noise about sideshows The screeching moral panic over the sideshow hides what it really is: an event, shaped by cops and capital flight, where Oakland youth fight for a place to play.

Read the article about the history of Oakland's sideshows that everyone at r/OaklandCA (that's the reactionary Oakland subreddit) absolutely hated: www.oaklandreviewofbooks.org/sideshow-his...

excellent as usual

For all the revolutionary, transformational promises of A.I.--for good and for ill--the problems it causes all seem quite familiar. My perspective on this is admittedly shaped by a 17-year career in digital media that I would describe as “de-sentimentalizing,” at a minimum. To work as a journalist online over the past decade has generally meant--with only a few exceptions--to be producing text inside a system that prioritizes speed, volume, and attention over any other attribute, including and maybe especially those you’d associate with “quality.” At some publications, institutional identities and imperatives can militate against sloppiness, unreliability, and banality. But the external pressures and incentives toward slop are enormous and un-ignorable. And that has been true for many years, since well before A.I. offered a tantalizing push-button interface for high-volume content production. All the problems of A.I. writing--inaccuracy, misinformation, plagiarism, misrepresentation, and, above all, hack work--were widespread in the early days of blogs¹ and throughout the digital media boom years, accelerated by the Facebook News Feed and other platform distribution schemes.

Generally, this is exactly the kind of assumption of inevitability that rubs A.I. critics precisely the wrong way.² And in most ways I agree with A.I. critics that no technological development or implementation is “inevitable” in the sense of un-opposable, and certainly not “inevitable” because it presents some kind of revolutionary new paradigm that’s self-evidently superior. But if we understand A.I. as a product of the systems that precede it, I think it’s fair to say ubiquitous A.I.-generated text is “inevitable” in the same way that high-volume blogs were “inevitable” or Facebook fake news pages were “inevitable”: Not because of some “natural” superiority or excellence, but because they follow so directly from the logic of the system out of which they emerge. In this sense A.I. is “inevitable” precisely because it’s not revolutionary.

what kind of "inevitable" is ai? maxread.substack.com/p/is-ubiquit...

this but for war crimes

he's doing reality tv promo. you should imagine this music on while you read this www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx9u...

this is about AI in journalism and writing but it applies just as much to AI use in education - it's an acceleration of existing issues. you don't "fix" it without persuading students to value education in a way they currently do not.

For all the revolutionary, transformational promises of A.I.--for good and for ill--the problems it causes all seem quite familiar. My perspective on this is admittedly shaped by a 17-year career in digital media that I would describe as “de-sentimentalizing,” at a minimum. To work as a journalist online over the past decade has generally meant--with only a few exceptions--to be producing text inside a system that prioritizes speed, volume, and attention over any other attribute, including and maybe especially those you’d associate with “quality.” At some publications, institutional identities and imperatives can militate against sloppiness, unreliability, and banality. But the external pressures and incentives toward slop are enormous and un-ignorable. And that has been true for many years, since well before A.I. offered a tantalizing push-button interface for high-volume content production. All the problems of A.I. writing--inaccuracy, misinformation, plagiarism, misrepresentation, and, above all, hack work--were widespread in the early days of blogs¹ and throughout the digital media boom years, accelerated by the Facebook News Feed and other platform distribution schemes.

Generally, this is exactly the kind of assumption of inevitability that rubs A.I. critics precisely the wrong way.² And in most ways I agree with A.I. critics that no technological development or implementation is “inevitable” in the sense of un-opposable, and certainly not “inevitable” because it presents some kind of revolutionary new paradigm that’s self-evidently superior. But if we understand A.I. as a product of the systems that precede it, I think it’s fair to say ubiquitous A.I.-generated text is “inevitable” in the same way that high-volume blogs were “inevitable” or Facebook fake news pages were “inevitable”: Not because of some “natural” superiority or excellence, but because they follow so directly from the logic of the system out of which they emerge. In this sense A.I. is “inevitable” precisely because it’s not revolutionary.

what kind of "inevitable" is ai? maxread.substack.com/p/is-ubiquit...

Good article by Max, but I want to point out that Marche is twisting the order of events and simply lying. It was the readers who pointed out that the book was AI, not the other way around. You could see it in the reviews before the investigation.

Exactly correct. If you’ve been in media for the last 20 years, you see how AI writing will slot into capitalist enterprise of “word production” in a different (maybe clearer?) way than the outlines of the conversation usually take.

amplification is a type of transformation, for sure, but it’s a specific type

“A.I.-generated text is ‘inevitable’ in the same way that high-volume blogs were ‘inevitable’ or Facebook fake news pages were ‘inevitable’: Not because of some ‘natural’ superiority or excellence, but because they follow so directly from the logic of the system out of which they emerge.”

A good read.

Is ubiquitous A.I. writing "inevitable"? On a weird few weeks of A.I.-writing scandals

what kind of "inevitable" is a.i. writing?

no, we did an event last night that was recorded and will function as this week's podcast, hopefully

to me 3bp is about how anything foreign to us is probably going to kill us so we should kill it first. project hail mary is about how aliens can be our friends :^)

this guy's writing is dogshit but i think it's great that in a world where 3 body problem--reactionary nationalist propaganda!!--is a huge hit there's really popular sci-fi about how aliens and us would probably get along and work together to save the galaxy :) that's political and it's good!

What Anthropic's fight with the Pentagon tells us about the politics of Silicon Valley Trying to make sense of the conjuncture

Very funny how the influence of EA was memory-holed after SBF’s fall. @maxread.info one of the few people to take it seriously as it ought to be, e.g.

maxread.substack.com/p/what-anthr...

Sim Latina

the lost maxis classic

false alarm!

i think she agrees with you!

pov: youre dave roberts and you just asked major kusunagi to pinch hit for andy pages

Alex Rain (Olivier Gruner) in the 1992 sci-fi actioner NEMESIS

Mookie Betts of the Los Angeles Dodgers

Freddie Freeman of the Los Angeles Dodgers

Moritz (Brion James) and Farnsworth (Tim Thomerson) in the 1992 sci-fi actioner NEMESIS

NEMESIS (1992), dir. Albert Pyun

you can tell this lady used to be a gawker commenter bc she has that particular combination of smug, dull, and unselfaware

surprised no one in the replies mentioned gender--roughly as many men and women drink, but significantly more men than women gamble

going live on substack shortly with @lioneltrolling.bsky.social