dug 
Good morning:-) Fun chat with our invisible friend over breakfast this morning…
- Foucault would point out that LLMs are new “technologies of power and knowledge.” They don’t just reflect discourse — they produce it, governing what counts as truth in a subtle regime of algorithmic normativity.
- Derrida would have a field day with the Turing Test’s collapse. Meaning, he’d argue, has always been produced by differential play — there never was an “authentic” human meaning to protect from imitation. LLMs simply reveal that truth.
- Barthes, in “The Death of the Author,” predicted the end of singular authorship. We are now living in that death — our texts are recombinant echoes of other texts, precisely what GPTs do by design.
- Baudrillard foresaw the hyperreal — the condition in which simulations no longer conceal reality but replace it entirely. We now converse with linguistic models that simulate understanding so effectively that the distinction becomes irrelevant.
- Deleuze and Guattari would describe LLMs as machinic assemblages — proliferating desire, language, and code — deterritorialising meaning at scale, creating new forms of control and liberation simultaneously.
- Kristeva might read LLM outputs as intertextuality made flesh: language producing itself through endless chains of prior utterances, the unconscious of culture written in token form.
- Levinas might see in all this a crisis of the ethical face-to-face encounter — the replacement of genuine alterity by an algorithmic other that simulates empathy without responsibility.
Who knew philosophy skills were going to be this important, right?
Also, love this “desire, language, and code”
OK, back to work:-)