The Treachery of Vibes

Overvaluing an aesthetic of moderation can be treacherous. Part of its appeal may lie in the expectation that a moderate stance arises from a cautious, level-headed, well-reasoned approach, but mistaking the former for the latter can be a trap. Where the two are conflated, superficial assertions can skate by undetected, which means they can mislead people into buying ideas that don’t really hold up to scrutiny.

The letter and its repercussions are symptomatic of contemporary times in that it’s an example of “classic” power and economic struggles over agenda-setting, claims-making, discourse-framing, and ultimately AI governance issues that are now occurring at extremely high speed in the age of ubiquitous (social) media.

As a result, this letter has spread throughout the Western mainstream media, which all too often uncritically reproduce its dramatic claims, further inflaming them. Lee Vinsel has used the term “criti-hype” for this process, a form of critical writing that parasitically seizes on and even inflates the hype and in this way “feeds and nourishes on the hype as criti-hype.”[2] This, of course, captures the attention of the viewer. Isn’t an impending takeover by a man-made intelligence much more exciting than arduous social struggles for reproductive rights, housing, or a living wage?