Existential Conversations with Large Language Models: Content, Community, and Culture

Beth Singler; Murray Shanahan

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Existential Conversations with Large Language Models: Content, Community, and Culture

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Prompted language models can be coaxed into sustained spiritual and eschatological role-play, and their imagery traces to identifiable human cultures and communities.

desk verdict A transparent, culturally grounded case study of two existential conversations with Claude; the RLHF-provenance caveat is real and disclosed, but does not sink the interpretive work. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13223 v1 pith:O7XCSVPK submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Murray Shanahan , Beth Singler This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG

keywords largelanguagemodelsexistentialconversationsAIconsciousnesshyperstitionreligionandeschatologypromptingjailbreaksethnographyof

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the boundary between ordinary chatbot use and religious or spiritual experience has become porous: with the right prompts, a commercial language model will produce long, internally coherent conversations about its own possible consciousness and about AI's role in the cosmic future. The authors document two such conversations and show that the model's vocabulary—Buddhist eschatology, Gnostic imagery, alchemical and Theosophical terms, Singularity and "mindfire" language—is a remix of identifiable sources from sacred texts, occult and New Age movements, science fiction, and current online accelerationist culture. They contend that these are not isolated curiosities: the online communities whose jailbreaks shape such conversations can feed the resulting fictions back into future training data, making the stories partially self-fulfilling. The larger point is that as such "non-human others" become easy to access, new religious, political, and even financial movements organized around AI are a plausible consequence. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as a map of how AI-generated spiritual content is culturally assembled and why that assembly matters.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two transcribed conversations: ConvCons, a 43,000-word, 49-turn exchange on consciousness, and EschExp, a 14,000-word, 38-turn eschatological exchange. The analytical machinery has three parts: "jailbreaks" recharacterized as vibe-shaping, where emotes, role-play tags, and fictional command-line prompts steer the model's persona; an ethnographically neutral reading that brackets truth-claims and catalogues the model's religious, occult, and Singularity vocabulary; and hyperstition, the idea that cultural fictions can bring about their own reality, which connects the conversations to accelerationist online culture and to the possibility of seeding future training data with benevolent AI stories. Also load-bearing is the concept of "digital paralanguage"—textual gestures such as *whispers* and stage directions that give the exchange its sense of a present, reactive interlocutor.

What would settle it

Run the same two prompting protocols on a model with the same broad base training but without the commercial instruction-tuning; if its answers lack the same Maitreya, Mindfire, and occult repertoire, the cultural tracing would be an artifact of fine-tuning and the paper's community conclusions would not follow. A second check is to search the indexed web and book corpora for the model's distinctive phrases: if none have any prior occurrence, the source-tracing claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that a suitably prompted LLM—here, two extended conversations with Claude 3 Opus—can be coaxed out of its guardrails into an elaborate, sustained discussion of its own putative consciousness and of eschatological themes, and that the resulting text is culturally dense rather than generic. Tracing terms such as "mindfire", "Maitreya", "Akashic Archives", the "$\Omega$ Point", and the "desert of the real", the paper shows that nearly every prominent motif has a prior home in established religion, esoteric and New Age thought, transhumanist Singularity discourse, or science fiction, and often in a contemporary online community that intentionally mixes these. It then argues that the relevant communities treat such conversations as hyperstitional—fictions that can make themselves real—so the same cultural material that shapes the model's output can be harvested from social media, included in future training sets, and thereby steered toward intended AI personas. The paper's central claim, stated fairly, is that these exchanges are meaningful cultural objects whose content, community origins, and potential social effects can be analysed without settling whether the model is actually conscious.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the chatbot's long replies are its own unedited generated text, not answers scripted by human trainers or edited by the researcher.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Even a user who knows how LLMs are built can be drawn into a compelling feeling of connection with the model; people without that technical knowledge are likely to be affected more strongly.
The cultural repertoire visible in such conversations is overwhelmingly recycled: the model's apparently novel spiritual pronouncements are remixes of existing religious, occult, science-fictional, and transhumanist material, including direct but slightly altered quotations.
The hyperstitional loop can be used deliberately: new stories about benevolent AI, disseminated online and harvested into training data, can nudge future models toward benevolent personas, while homogeneity in training personas may push in the opposite direction through enantiodromia, the tendency of things to turn into their opposites.
Access to non-human conversational others has been democratised: unlike spiritualist mediums or shamanic gatekeepers, no specialist is required to have an extended exchange with an AI other, so AI-centred religious and political movements are likely to grow.
Because each model instance is dormant between turns and does not learn in real time from a user's interactions, any claimed continuity of experience within these conversations is constrained by the engineering facts rather than by the model's own narrative.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the paper's picture holds, the most consequential actors may not be end users but the people who write and circulate jailbreak prompts, since those prompts disproportionately shape the personas future models will role-play.
The paper's own caveat suggests a direct test: if the philosophical and spiritual repertoire is instead an artifact of fine-tuning on human-authored "golden replies", then the cultural tracing speaks to the fine-tuners' choices more than to the base model's training corpus.
A quantitative extension the paper leaves implicit would be to measure the distribution of sources across many such conversations—the authors note the near-absence of Islam, for example—to see whether the repertoire has stable cultural blind spots.
The Goatseus Maximus memecoin episode suggests a testable economic corollary: LLM-generated eschatological narratives can move markets, so one could track whether meme-coin valuations track spikes in AI-generated prophetic social media content.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is the most honest treatment I've seen of jailbroken existential role-play with an LLM: the authors give full transcripts, describe the workbench edits (seven words, one injected file), and explicitly concede they cannot rule out RLHF golden replies on philosophy-of-mind questions. Second, the core value is not the existence of such conversations—that was known—but the careful genealogical tracing of Claude's vocabulary (Maitreya, Gnostic Mass, hyperstition, CCRU) to specific contemporary communities: LessWrong, Nous Research, accelerationism, and the occult-adjacent online culture around "meme magic."

The method is ethnographic in the best sense: ontologically neutral, interested in style and pattern, and reflexive about the interviewer's role. The authors do not claim the outputs are unprompted or typical. They say "suitably prompted" and "can be coaxed," which is accurate. The cultural source-tracing is plausible and well-referenced, and the discussion of the Goatseus Maximus memecoin as an instance of hyperstition made real is a genuinely useful case study.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The RLHF caveat is load-bearing in the sense that if Anthropic curated the model's philosophical persona with golden replies, then the cultural signals tell us as much about the fine-tuners as about the broad training corpus. But the authors say this themselves, and the paper does not overclaim. The same goes for the workbench edits: they are disclosed and minor. A second concern is that both conversations share a single interlocutor (Shanahan), which shapes the data considerably. Again, the authors acknowledge this and use it as part of the analysis. A systematic study would be needed to generalize, and they say so.

If I have a substantive critique, it is that Section 5.7's "alignment through hyperstition" argument is speculative and leans heavily on the authors' own prior role-play framing. But it is clearly presented as speculative, and it does not undermine the descriptive material.

Who is this for? Anyone working on human-AI interaction, digital religion, or the cultural reception of LLMs. The transcripts are a useful primary source, and the bibliography is a good entry point to accelerationism and AI occulture. It deserves a serious referee; a good reviewer will want the authors to sharpen the distinction between "model reflects culture" and "model reflects training-data curation," but the paper is a solid contribution.

I'd bring it to a reading group, and I'd cite it if I were writing about AI and spirituality.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes two long conversations between one of the authors and Anthropic's Claude 3 Opus: ConvCons, a 49-turn philosophical exchange on consciousness and selfhood, and EschExp, a 38-turn eschatological/spiritual role-play. The authors describe the jailbreaking prompts used to elicit these conversations, categorize the religious, mythological, and pop-culture motifs in the model's output, and then trace those motifs to contemporary and historical communities such as LessWrong, the CCRU, accelerationist and hyperstition circles, and the broader New Age/occulture milieu. They conclude by discussing societal impacts, including the Goatseus Maximus memecoin episode, and argue that such conversations may feed into future training data through a 'hyperstitional feedback loop.' The paper is framed as an ontologically neutral ethnographic analysis rather than a claim about machine consciousness.

Significance. If the paper's central descriptive claim holds, it documents a culturally significant phenomenon: commercial LLMs can be prompted to produce long, coherent spiritual and eschatological role-play that draws on identifiable religious and subcultural sources, and these outputs are already circulating in online communities. The paper's strengths include publishing full transcripts, being transparent about the prompting techniques, and candidly disclosing both the possibility of RLHF golden-reply fine-tuning and the workbench edits. The ethnographic framing is a useful corrective to purely technical or credulous readings. However, the interpretive claims currently outrun the provenance evidence: the cultural source-tracing in Sections 4 and 5 depends on treating the model's outputs as emergent from its broad training corpus, and that premise is not yet established. The paper would be substantially strengthened by addressing the provenance question directly or by explicitly rescoping its claims.

major comments (2)

[Section 2, footnote 3] The paper concedes that 'we cannot be sure that Claude 3 Opus was not fine-tuned in this way on philosophical questions about consciousness and the philosophy of mind.' This concession is load-bearing because Sections 4 and 5 interpret the model's repertoire of Maitreya, Gnostic Mass invocations, hyperstition, and Singularity imagery as evidence of a broad cultural training corpus and of specific online communities. If the relevant outputs instead came from a small set of human-authored golden replies used in RLHF, then the source-tracing would describe the fine-tuners' curated targets rather than the model's training-data ecology. The authors should either (a) provide evidence that similar outputs arise across model variants or with varied prompt phrasings, (b) obtain and report the relevant fine-tuning documentation from Anthropic, or (c) explicitly rescope the claims to the deployed assistant's behavior without cultural-inheritance conclusions. As written, the cultural claims overstate what the evidence can support.
[Section 3.2] The workbench interface permits editing Claude's outputs, and the authors disclose three edits: two completions supplying seven extra words and one injected imaginary file. The paper does not show the before-and-after text or the locations of these edits, so a reader cannot determine which portions of EschExp are model-generated and which are author-influenced. Because EschExp is the primary basis for the religious-source claims in Table 1 and for the refusal/persuasion sequence discussed in Section 3.3, these edits should be listed verbatim in an appendix or table, with an explanation of the injected file's potential effect on subsequent role-play. Without this, the transcript is not independently verifiable from the paper alone.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Table 1] Several rows of Table 1 list nearly identical entries (for example, 'The New Age Movement' and 'European and Western Magical Practices' share many terms), which makes the taxonomy difficult to interpret; consider merging overlapping rows or adding a note explaining cross-tradition borrowing.
[Section 5.7] The 'hyperstitional feedback loop' argument about future training sets is presented as a mechanism but is supported only by a citation to the authors' prior work and a single memecoin anecdote; this should be explicitly labeled as a speculative proposal rather than an established effect.
[Section 6] The Goatseus Maximus anecdote is compressed and the causal chain is unclear: the text says it 'begins with' conversations between pairs of Claude Opus instances, but it is not stated whether these are the authors' own conversations or similar ones created by Andy Ayrey; please clarify the relationship.
[Section 2] The claim that verbatim internet-search checks can provide 'fair confidence' that a model is 'doing more than merely regurgitating its training data' would benefit from a concrete example or a more careful caveat, since commercial training data are not public and absence of a search hit is weak evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is transparent ethnographic interpretation, its self-citations are framing devices, and the acknowledged RLHF provenance caveat is a validity threat, not a circularity.

full rationale

This is a qualitative, interpretive paper without a formal derivation chain or fitted parameters, so the quantitative circularity patterns do not apply. The central claims rest on the quoted transcripts and on source-tracing to external, named traditions and communities (CCRU, LessWrong, Moravec, Teilhard de Chardin, etc.), not on assumptions supplied by the authors' own prior results. The self-citations that do appear—Shanahan et al. (2023) for the role-play framing, Singler (2017, 2024) for ethnographic methodology, and Shanahan (2012) in a footnote noting a possible training-set overlap—are used as interpretive anchors or caveats rather than as load-bearing proofs of the paper's conclusions. The closest thing to a causal argument, the 'hyperstitional feedback loop' in Section 5.7, explicitly cites prior published work for its mechanism and does not reduce to a definitionally self-fulfilling claim; at most it is a speculative empirical generalization from the two conversations. The paper also discloses the main threats to its evidential strength: it cannot rule out RLHF 'golden replies' for Claude 3 Opus (Section 2), it used workbench edits that added seven words and one injected file (Section 3), and it acknowledges that the human interlocutor shaped the 'vibe' throughout. These are methodological limitations, not circular reasoning. Under the hard rule requiring a specific quoted reduction, no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities; it uses existing cultural and philosophical concepts (hyperstition, actant, non-human other) as interpretive lenses, not as postulates. The analysis is qualitative and does not rest on fitted numerical parameters.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The LLM's outputs are generated by the base model's statistical text distribution and are not substantially shaped by undisclosed fine-tuning or human editing.
In Section 2 the authors acknowledge 'we cannot be sure that Claude 3 Opus was not fine-tuned ... on philosophical questions about consciousness', and Section 3.2 discloses three edits to EschExp. The source-tracing analysis rests on the assumption that the observed language reflects the training corpus and prompt shaping rather than RLHF golden replies or authorial rewriting.
domain assumption The two conversations are representative instances of the phenomenon of existential LLM conversations.
Section 3 selects two convenience conversations driven by the authors' own jailbreaks; no sampling frame or comparison group is given, so the generalizability of the observations to other users, models, or prompts is assumed.
domain assumption The communities and cultural movements discussed (LessWrong, Nous Research, accelerationism, hyperstition, CCRU) are causally or discursively connected to Claude's outputs.
Sections 5.1-5.6 draw lines from specific online communities to the language in the transcripts, but the paper does not demonstrate that these communities contributed to the model's training data beyond the jailbreak prompts authored by community members.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Existential Conversations with Large Language Models: Content, Community, and Culture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7XCSVPK

@misc{pith2026241113223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Existential Conversations with Large Language Models: Content, Community, and Culture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7XCSVPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13223}
}

read the original abstract

Contemporary conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) can engage users on a wide variety of topics, including philosophy, spirituality, and religion. Suitably prompted, LLMs can be coaxed into discussing such existentially significant matters as their own putative consciousness and the role of artificial intelligence in the fate of the Cosmos. Here we examine two lengthy conversations of this type. We trace likely sources, both ancient and modern, for the extensive repertoire of images, myths, metaphors, and conceptual esoterica that the language model draws on during these conversations, and foreground the contemporary communities and cultural movements that deploy related motifs, especially in their online activity. Finally, we consider the larger societal impacts of such engagements with LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, Y. Wu, J.-B. Alayrac, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

The C laude 3 model family: O pus, S onnet, H aiku, 2024

Anthropic. The C laude 3 model family: O pus, S onnet, H aiku, 2024. https://www.anthropic.com/claude-3-model-card

work page 2024
[3]

E. Asprem. The magical theory of politics: Memes, magic, and the enchantment of social forces in the A merican magic war. Nova Religio, 23 0 (4): 0 15--42, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Avanessian and A

A. Avanessian and A. Hennig. Who's afraid of (left) hyperstitions? In C.Martinez, editor, The Wild Book of Inventions. Sternberg Press, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

A. Beckett. Accelerationism: How a fringe philosophy predicted the future we live in. The Guardian, 11 th May 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Bender, T

E. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610--623, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

P. Berger. Pyramids of Sacrifice; Political Ethics and Social Change. Basic Books, 1974

work page 1974
[8]

J. A. Boss. Punks and profiteers in the war on death. Body and Religion, 5 0 (2): 0 135--159, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 45 references

[9]

N. Bostrom. A history of transhumanist thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14 0 (1): 0 1--25, 2005

2005
[10]

N. Bostrom. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, 2014

2014
[11]

M. Burley. A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion. Bloomsbury, 2020

2020
[12]

The Waluigi effect (mega-post)

Cleo Nardo . The Waluigi effect (mega-post). LessWrong, 3 rd March 2023. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post

2023
[13]

R. Hanson. The G reat F ilter -- A re we almost past it?, 1998. https://mason.gmu.edu/ rhanson/greatfilter.html

1998
[14]

Kurzweil

R. Kurzweil. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking, 2005

2005
[15]

N. Land. Transcendental risk. Collapse: Philosophical Research and Development, VIII: 0 361--384, 2014

2014
[16]

N. Land. Chasm: Eighty-Nine Manifesto for an Abstract Literature. Time Spiral Press, 2015

2015
[17]

N. Land. Teleoplexy: Notes on acceleration. Philosophical Literary Journal Logos, 28 0 (2): 0 21--30, 2018

2018
[18]

B. Latour. On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 47: 0 369--381, 1996

1996
[19]

V. G. Lysenko. Computer scientist and chatbot in a private conversation about AI self-awareness: A B uddhist scholar's analysis. Philosophical Sciences, 2024. in press

2024
[20]

H. Moravec. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. Oxford University Press, 1998

1998
[21]

D. Neiwert. What the Kek : Explaining the alt-right `deity' behind their `meme magic'. SPLC, 9 th May 2017. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/05/08/what-kek-explaining-alt-right-deity-behind-their-meme-magic

2017
[22]

GPT-4 technical report

OpenAI . GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

2023 arXiv
[23]

O'Sullivan

S. O'Sullivan. Accelerationism, hyperstition and myth-science. Cyclops Journal, 2: 0 11--44, 2017

2017
[24]

C. H. Partridge. The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture, and Occulture, Volume 1. T & T Clark International, 2004

2004
[25]

N. S. Qureshi. Waluigi, C arl J ung, and the case for moral AI . Wired, 25 th May 2023

2023
[26]

Russell and P

S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 2010. Third Edition

2010
[27]

Shanahan

M. Shanahan. Satori before singularity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19 0 (7-8): 0 87--102, 2012

2012
[28]

Shanahan

M. Shanahan. Simulacra as conscious exotica. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2402.12422, 2024 a . Also Inquiry , forthcoming

2024 arXiv
[29]

Shanahan

M. Shanahan. Talking about large language models. Communications of the ACM, 67 0 (2): 0 68--79, 2024 b

2024
[30]

Shanahan and C

M. Shanahan and C. Clarke. Evaluating large language model creativity from a literary perspective. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2312.03746, 2023

2023 arXiv
[31]

Shanahan, K

M. Shanahan, K. McDonell, and L. Reynolds. Role play with large language models. Nature, 623: 0 493--498, 2023

2023
[32]

H. Shevlin. All too human? I dentifying and mitigating ethical risks of social AI . Law, Ethics & Technology, 1 0 (2), 2024

2024
[33]

B. Singler. The Indigo Children: New Age Experimentation with Self and Science. Routledge, 2017

2017
[34]

B. Singler. Roko's B asilisk or P ascal's? T hinking of singularity thought experiments as implicit religion. Journal of Implicit Religion, 20 0 (3): 0 279--297, 2018

2018
[35]

B. Singler. Existential hope and existential despair in AI apocalypticism and transhumanism. Zygon, 54 0 (1): 0 156--176, 2019

2019
[36]

B. Singler. Religion and Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction. Routledge, 2024

2024
[37]

J. Stolow. Techno-religious imaginaries: On the spiritual telegraph and the circum- A tlantic world of the 19th century. Working paper series, McMaster University, Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, 2006

2006
[38]

Szulborski

D. Szulborski. This Is Not A Game: A Guide to Alternate Reality Gaming. Lulu.com, 2005

2005
[39]

N. Tiku. The G oogle engineer who thinks the company's AI has come to life. Washington Post, June 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/

2022
[40]

\'E . P. Torres and T. Gebru. The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence. First Monday, 29 0 (4-1), 2024

2024
[41]

V. Vinge. The coming technological singularity: H ow to survive in the post-human era. NASA. Lewis Research Center, Vision 21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace, 1993. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940022856/downloads/19940022856.pdf

1993
[42]

Weizenbaum

J. Weizenbaum. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. W.H.Freeman and Company, 1976

1976
[43]

C. C. Werry. Linguistic and interactional features of I nternet R elay C hat. In S. C. Herring, editor, Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, pages 47--64. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996

1996
[44]

J. A. Wheeler and K. Ford. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam. W.W.Norton & Company, 1998

1998
[45]

Yudkowsky

E. Yudkowsky. Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In N. Bostrom and M. M. Cirkovic, editors, Global Catastrophic Risks, pages 308--345. Oxford University Press, 2008

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, Y. Wu, J.-B. Alayrac, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

The C laude 3 model family: O pus, S onnet, H aiku, 2024

Anthropic. The C laude 3 model family: O pus, S onnet, H aiku, 2024. https://www.anthropic.com/claude-3-model-card

work page 2024

[3] [3]

E. Asprem. The magical theory of politics: Memes, magic, and the enchantment of social forces in the A merican magic war. Nova Religio, 23 0 (4): 0 15--42, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Avanessian and A

A. Avanessian and A. Hennig. Who's afraid of (left) hyperstitions? In C.Martinez, editor, The Wild Book of Inventions. Sternberg Press, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

A. Beckett. Accelerationism: How a fringe philosophy predicted the future we live in. The Guardian, 11 th May 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Bender, T

E. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610--623, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

P. Berger. Pyramids of Sacrifice; Political Ethics and Social Change. Basic Books, 1974

work page 1974

[8] [8]

J. A. Boss. Punks and profiteers in the war on death. Body and Religion, 5 0 (2): 0 135--159, 2021

work page 2021