I. The Rupture

We are living through the simultaneous collapse of modernity’s legitimating fictions — not one crisis but many crises sharing a single structure.

Sometime in the last few years, something changed. Not dramatically. Not with an announcement. It happened quietly, in the middle of ordinary work.

AI produced something good — a design, a piece of writing, an idea that would have taken hours — and the reaction wasn’t threat or admiration. It was indifference. A flat, affectless meh. And underneath that indifference, almost immediately, an anxiety without a clear object. The feeling of having lost something you can’t quite name.

It would be easy to read that indifference as laziness, or cynicism, or the weariness of someone who has been in the industry too long. But I think it’s something more precise than that. I think it’s a signal. Something has dissolved. This essay is an attempt to name what.

The dissolution isn’t only about AI and creativity. That’s just where it becomes most intimate — where it reaches inside the self. The same structure is visible everywhere you look right now. Epstein files revealing the network behind the network, the people who were supposed to be custodians of civilization exposed as participants in something monstrous. Trump not as aberration but as what the social contract looks like when it stops pretending. Gaza — the fiction that Western liberal order is built on universal human rights collapsing live, documented, with its architects funding and defending the demolition. Dedollarization — the fiction that the dollar is neutral global infrastructure rather than an instrument of power losing its hold. Financial bubbles bursting. Racial hatred resurging globally as the oldest and most primitive meaning-structures rush back in to fill the vacuum left by collapsing newer ones.

These look like separate crises. They share a single structure: the simultaneous exposure of the fictions that made modernity feel livable. That power is basically accountable. That progress is real. That institutions exist to serve people. That creative work is meaningful. That consumption fulfills. That the human is special.

The fictions are not losing their grip because people have become smarter or more critical. They are losing their grip because they are losing their material support. The economic model that sustained them is breaking down. And when the material base shifts, the stories built on top of it start to crack.

The anxiety left behind is not a problem to be solved. It is the first honest relationship with reality that modernity has permitted in a long time.

II. The Social Factory and What It Stole

AI didn’t dissolve creativity. It dissolved the alibi. The colonization is now visible because the colonizer has been replaced by a machine.

There is a concept in Autonomist Marxist thought called the social factory — the idea that capitalism’s extraction of value isn’t limited to formal labor but extends into all of life. Desire, creativity, attention, sociality, identity — all of it becomes productive, all of it gets enrolled in the system’s logic of value generation.

The desire to make things was real. It didn’t originate in the factory. Long before there were industries or careers or creative economies, human beings made things as emotional responses to being alive. Cave paintings. Songs. Stories told around fires that served no productive purpose but were absolutely necessary. The impulse is pre-economic, almost biological — a body reacting to existence, processing the fact of being here through the act of making something.

What the social factory did was capture that impulse and build a pipeline around it. It told us that making was identity. Proof of existence. Self-expression. Contribution. It converted the raw emotional response into a product, and then told us the product was the point. Over generations, the pipeline became so naturalized that most people could no longer see it. The colonization was invisible because it was complete.

Then AI arrived and absorbed the pipeline. Not the impulse — the pipeline. The conversion mechanism. The part that took emotional response and turned it into deliverable output. And suddenly, with the pipeline automated, the colonization became visible. The gap between what making was — emotional processing, response to being alive — and what the factory had claimed it was — productivity, identity, economic value — became impossible to ignore.

This is why the indifference cuts so deep. It isn’t the indifference of someone who doesn’t care about making. It’s the indifference of someone whose relationship to making has been so thoroughly mediated by the factory’s logic that when the factory’s part gets automated, there’s a moment of genuine disorientation: wait, what was I actually doing all along?

The answer is: you were reacting to being alive. You were processing emotions. You were doing the thing human beings have always done. The factory just convinced you that the processing and the product were the same thing. They were never the same thing. The product was always secondary. The processing was always what mattered.

What remains after the dissolution isn’t nothing. It’s the original thing the factory captured. It was always there. It’s still there. The pipeline is gone. The impulse isn’t.

III. The Machine Eating Itself

The attention crisis, the inequality crisis, and the meaning crisis are not separate. They are the same system failing at different layers simultaneously.

The business logic of AI investment went like this: large models require enormous capital, but once built they generate returns at near-zero marginal cost. Scale solves everything. The bigger the model, the more capable, the more valuable, the more revenue.

Several things broke that logic at once.

The training data problem. These models were trained on the accumulated human-generated content of decades — the entire written, visual, and audio output of civilization, essentially. That was a one-time resource. It cannot be replenished at the same rate. Models being trained now are increasingly trained on AI-generated content, which means the loop is closing. A model trained on its own outputs doesn’t get smarter. It gets more confidently average. The epistemic quality of the training data degrades faster than compute improves.

The obsolescence problem. The capital cycle is broken. A frontier model costs hundreds of millions to train and is effectively obsolete within eighteen months. The depreciation curve is steeper than any previous technology investment. The revenue models — subscriptions, API calls, enterprise contracts — don’t generate returns at the speed the capital cycle demands.

The attention problem. Content production is accelerating exponentially while human attention is finite and contracting. The microdramas are the symptom — the system producing ever shorter, ever more stimulating content to capture ever more fragmented attention. But this is a race to the bottom with a hard floor. You cannot compress content below the threshold of human neurological processing. You cannot manufacture more hours in the day. The system is producing more than can ever be consumed, which means most of what is produced has zero effective value regardless of its production cost.

This is a classic overproduction crisis. The system produces beyond the capacity of the market to absorb. But what’s new is the specific character of what’s being overproduced — not steel or wheat but content and cognition — and the particular cruelty of who pays the price.

The jobs being displaced are not randomly distributed. They are concentrated in the cognitive middle — the layer of workers who did skilled but repeatable knowledge work. Designers, writers, coders, analysts, paralegals, customer service, mid-level management. Exactly the layer that the postwar expansion had elevated into the middle class. Exactly the layer that formed the consumer base that justified the investment.

The deepest contradiction: the technology destroying the jobs is simultaneously destroying the consumer base that would buy the products the technology produces. You cannot automate your customers into poverty and expect the revenue model to hold. Henry Ford understood the inverse of this — he paid his workers enough to buy the cars they made, not out of generosity but because he understood the circuit. The current AI investment wave has no equivalent understanding. It is optimizing for the production side while destroying the consumption side, and the people making the capital allocation decisions are insulated enough from the consequences that they won’t feel it until it is systemic.

The system is eating its own foundations. And doing so with enormous confidence and speed.

IV. Capitalism Milks Just Enough and Moves On

The system doesn’t collapse. It mutates. Each mutation leaves real costs behind but generates enough new growth to maintain the fiction of progress for enough people to maintain legitimacy. The question is what happens when the substrates start running out faster than the mutations can generate new ones.

The pattern is consistent across history. Capitalism doesn’t break when it hits a wall. It finds the next substrate to extract value from just before the current one runs dry.

It did it with land — extracted until land reform and diminishing returns forced it into industrial labor. It did it with industrial labor — extracted until unionization and rising wages forced it into consumer finance and services. It did it with consumer finance — extracted until 2008 nearly broke the system, then moved into attention and data. It did it with attention and data — extracting now, with the signs of exhaustion visible everywhere.

The move always follows the same pattern: extract maximum value, externalize maximum cost onto workers and environment and society, and when the extraction starts producing more instability than value — mutate, find the next substrate, leave the mess behind. The mess doesn’t disappear. The displaced textile workers, the hollowed rust belt towns, the 2008 foreclosures, the attention-depleted generation — these are real and lasting. But the system moves on regardless, leaving the costs distributed across populations that don’t have the mobility to follow it.

The next substrates are already visible. The body — longevity, cognitive enhancement, genetic editing, the conversion of biological existence itself into a market. The care economy — automation displaces cognitive middle labor but cannot yet displace embodied care, so nursing, childcare, elder care, emotional labor become the next sites of intensive commodification. Synthetic presence — as human-generated content becomes scarce and valuable, the system will produce convincing simulations of it: parasocial AI companions, synthetic intimacy, presence-as-a-service. The new consumer bases — India, Africa, Southeast Asia, populations arriving with rising incomes and aspirational desire, being enrolled in the consumption cycle just as its originators exhaust it.

But here is what’s different this time. Every previous mutation had somewhere to go. Land to labor to finance to attention — each transition had enough new frontier to generate genuine growth. Enough to keep enough people enrolled in the fiction of progress to maintain legitimacy. The current moment feels different in one specific way: the costs are accumulating faster than the mutations can generate new growth. Inequality growing faster than new substrates can absorb it. Ecological damage compounding faster than green transition can offset it. Attention collapsing faster than new platforms can capture it. Job displacement accelerating faster than new employment categories can emerge.

The system isn’t broken. But the margin is narrowing. Each mutation is buying less time than the previous one.

And the new consumer bases won’t save the model in its current form. They are arriving at the party as the fictions dissolve. They will not be carbon copies of the American or Chinese consumer. They will bring their own philosophies of consumption, shaped by postcolonial histories and non-Western inheritances less attached to the specific fictions of liberal individualism that the Western consumer model was built on. Whether they produce something genuinely different, or whether they are enrolled in the same exhaustion faster than anyone expects, remains the most consequential open question in global economics right now.

V. The Unnamed Thing

The unnamed thing underneath creative meaning was never the factory’s to take. It preceded the factory’s claim on it and survives the factory’s dissolution.

Throughout this essay I have been circling something I cannot fully name. I don’t think this is a failure of precision. I think the absence of a word is itself philosophically significant — Wittgenstein’s observation that the limits of my language are the limits of my world cuts both ways. When you reach the edge of available vocabulary, you have found something genuinely new, or genuinely old and long suppressed.

What was creative meaning actually pointing at, underneath all the factory’s claims on it?

Not authorship. Authorship is a legal and economic category, invented to manage the relationship between making and property. Not mastery — the gap between vision and execution is real and worth pursuing, but it’s a description of process, not of what the process was for. Not proof of self — the need to demonstrate existence through output is a symptom of a particular kind of anxiety, not the ground of meaning itself. Not even connection, exactly, though connection is closer.

Something simpler and harder. Making as emotional processing. A body reacting to being alive. A response to the fact of existence that occasionally produces things as a byproduct.

Simone Weil wrote about attention as the fundamental ethical and existential act — a quality of presence to the world that requires no productive justification. The Japanese concept of ma points at something adjacent: the meaningful pause, the space between things, which has no function but is where everything actually lives. Agamben’s ‘whatever being’ names the possibility of existence that doesn’t need to legitimate itself through role or output. These are different traditions reaching toward the same thing: a mode of being that precedes and exceeds the factory’s claim on it.

Latour would add something important here: you never made anything alone. Every design you produced was a network — you, the brief, the user, the software, the screen, the cultural moment, the constraints, the accidents, the material properties of tools, the limits and suggestions of form. The maker-self was always a fiction that flattened a collective into a single author. What AI has done, accidentally, is make the network visible. The nonhuman actors — the algorithm, the dataset, the latent space — are now too prominent to ignore. The fiction of solitary authorship has been retired. What remains is the network, which was always the real site of making.

And underneath the network, underneath the processing, underneath the reaction: simply the fact of being a body that feels things and responds to them. That is what was always there. That is what the factory captured and the machine is now, paradoxically, releasing back to us.

The unnamed thing might be this: making as a form of being present. Not output. Not product. Not proof. Just the act of a conscious body responding to the fact of being alive, and occasionally, almost accidentally, producing something as a consequence.

That thing was never the factory’s. It only borrowed it for a while.

VI. Living Inside the Rupture

The honest response to the simultaneous collapse of modernity’s legitimating fictions is not to rebuild them, resist them, or design what replaces them — it is to discover what was real underneath them all along.

There are two inadequate responses to the dissolution, and they are everywhere right now.

The pessimists say: pure loss. Civilizational collapse. Darkness. Fisher’s cancelled future, Han’s burned-out subject, the designer made redundant, the consumer base exhausted, the fictions gone with nothing to replace them. This response is honest about what is ending but can’t see past the ending.

The optimists say: creative destruction. New things emerging. Trust the process. Tools, leverage, abundance, the next substrate already forming. This response is correct that something new always comes but dishonest about the costs, the casualties, the people who don’t get to follow the system as it mutates.

The truth is somewhere neither camp wants to inhabit: both are happening simultaneously, the tension between them is real and unresolvable, and the most honest position is to live inside that tension without reaching for a resolution that isn’t available.

This is not passivity. It is something more demanding than either optimism or pessimism. It requires sitting with the anxiety without alibi — without the comfort of a theory that explains it away, without the relief of a program that promises to fix it, without the performance of either despair or hope.

What does it actually mean to live inside the rupture? A few things, none of them heroic.

It means being a consumer who has seen through consumerism — who participates in the system without being enrolled in its fictions, who buys and uses and discards without believing that any of it constitutes fulfillment or identity. This is harder than it sounds. The system is very good at converting clear-eyed participation back into unconscious enrollment.

It means being a maker who has seen through making — who produces things not as proof of self or economic contribution but as emotional response to existence. Who makes when there is something to process and doesn’t make when there isn’t, regardless of what the factory requires. Who can let a machine handle the pipeline without experiencing this as loss, because the pipeline was never the point.

It means being a person whose existence doesn’t require the factory’s validation to feel legitimate. Not a producer or a witness or a builder or an articulator. Just a body that feels things and responds to them and occasionally makes something as a consequence and doesn’t need the consequence to justify the feeling.

Žižek would warn here: the danger is that this position gets recuperated. That ‘lucid disenchantment’ becomes a brand, a substack, a design philosophy that the market sells back to the creative class as authentic alienation. The system is extraordinarily good at monetizing its own critique. The examined life becomes a content vertical.

He’s right. There’s no position outside the system that the system cannot eventually absorb. But the answer to that is not to abandon the position. It’s to hold it lightly, without attachment to its own performance, without turning the clarity into a new fiction.

Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. He said this in Athens, in another moment of civilizational transition — the collapse of the city-state, the dissolution of the old religious and political order, the sophists arguing that truth was just persuasion and power. He was responding to a rupture, as all philosophers are. They executed him for it. But the thought survived everything that tried to kill it.

Not because it was useful. Not because it generated value. Not because it could be monetized or scaled or optimized. But because it was honest. Because it named something real about what it means to be a conscious being alive in a world where the old certainties are gone.

The fictions are dissolving. Not all at once, not cleanly, with enormous violence and cost distributed unevenly across populations that didn’t design the system and cannot easily escape it. New fictions are forming at the edges — some of them ugly, some of them still unnameable, some of them potentially more honest than what they replace.

What remains, underneath all of it, is the original thing. A body that reacts to being alive. An impulse to make responses to existence. An emotional processing that preceded the factory’s capture of it and will outlast the factory’s dissolution.

That is not nothing. That might be everything that was ever real.

The task is not to rebuild what collapsed or design what comes next or witness and articulate for others. The task is simpler and harder than any of that: to actually live inside the honest anxiety. Without alibi. Without the factory’s promises. With only the raw fact of reaction and presence and occasional, accidental making as a consequence of being here.

Requiring no further justification than that.

—