What do you do when Robots come for you?

Robots... and by extension the virtual abstraction of them that we carelessly labeled "AI" (without committee or academic rigor). And derivatives there of.

Thematically, this is a fairly straight forward track:

Robots are increasingly and forcibly present in our lives. And we appear increasingly powerless to limit them from reaching and injecting themselves disturbingly further into our lives. In the beginning it is all simple and not newsworthy. However, given the course of time and reckless determination by a few that choose to omit any due consideration of consequences- intended or otherwise- tension builds and builds symphonically as we slowly lose control of our human place in a world increasingly dictated by machines of various sorts! Whether violently shepherded or passively encouraged, we feel increasingly isolated and without control. The most abundant livestock on planet earth. But to whom are we served? In the end our purpose is summarized and consolidated into periodic blips and blops whenever we risk poking our heads out. Much like a chipmunk looking out of its burrow. It's just what we do.

Yup, that roughly covers the audio and video presented above.

The reference regarding livestock is contestable. It is highly probable that it was an entirely unnecessary inclusion.

All that as it may be, sometimes one train of thought provokes another. Such was the case as when this track came into creation. Thoughts were stirred. Passions were provoked. Thoughts and deliberations occurred. Thoughtful deliberations. Deliberate thoughtfulness as well. In the end it was deemed necessary to commit to digital memory.

The following is a long form meandering expository regarding the loss of anonymity derived from the track "What do You do if Robots come for You?

QUESTION OF MINOR EDITORIAL SIGNIFICANCE: Is it required to watch the video "What do you do if Robots come for you?" to understand the below content? Perhaps you have seen it. Perhaps you have not. We make no assumption either way. But in the instance you have, you may skip this call out. Or not. It's entirely up to you. You're choice. However, if you have not viewed aforementioned video- “Robots what do they do?”- then feel free, or not, to read the following on the author's written position on the matter:

It probably makes it a bit easier to follow the discussion as it provides some context. Valuable context? Debatable. Maybe you only need the first third of the video? On the other hand, the following is mostly secondary to the video. The video is about Robots and, by extension, AI. But the subsequent expository is really about the sub-sequential loss of Anonymity in a digital culture. I make no attempt to provide a causal relationship between the two. Perhaps there is a causal relationship between the two. Perhaps not. I make no statement in the in the expository either way. I will only say that it seems that they are frequent companions. Be that as it may, by all means, skip the video if you hate video or otherwise do not wish to watch the video. I would question doing so myself.

Where is Anonymity when Robots Come for you?

Though not an explicit theme, the creation of "What do you do when Robots come for you?" prompts self reflection on the abstraction we reference as anonymity.

Someone once said that AI and a loss of anonymity are constant companions. Though we romanticize the suggestion of such in our micro drama series, in this more formal academic paper we will not suggest to know if they are or are not constant companions.We will hold only that these two elements are commonly found together and as such be intermingled. However, we will only expound upon the latter as we feel the visual auditory piece sufficiently covers all aspects it wishes to cover regarding AI (vis a vis metaphoric robots).

In the instance of the work titled "What do you do when robots come for you?" the subjects commingle in startling ways. For one, the piece's name includes robots (and by extension AI). Two, there are a myriad of visuals and phrases that reference robots. The lyrics include "What do you do when robots come for you?" ; "Robots come for you."; and even simply "Robots!" There are several pictures of various robotesque characters throughout the last half of the piece. Robots are omnipresent through the narrative and visual elements of the piece.

However, there are zero direct references to anonymity within in the piece.

Yet most observers of the piece agree that the question of anonymity is nonetheless front and center. Their premise? Canned Parasite forces it upon its viewer through the directness of the camera on its subject. The director shoves the author right up and center with multiple direct screen shots that are further zoomed to become closer to the viewer over time. It is borderline oppressive.

Even the more distant shots appear close up. This is accomplished through the sparse neutral toned background that draws our attention entirely towards the Canned Parasite subject. Throughout roughly the first third of the video, Canned Parasite dominates the visual aspect of the piece. The shots are so disturbingly close we can easily scrutinize and critique the visual aspect of the subject.

Put succinctly, the author is inescapably without anonymity during this piece. The author is unquestionably exposed and vulnerable to interpretation by walking directly through the lens to the point that you may wish to look away. Perhaps some will find it provokes a need to reciprocate this affront to the senses? Perhaps it prompts escalative reciprocal abuse? Perhaps a public mocking and shaming are in order?

More than likely it does none of the above and is simply un interesting to the casual observer looking for a quick dopamine fix. Regardless, the threshold to anonymity loss is crossed. Yet again. That it is intentional or not is largely inconsequential.

For the sake of this expository, let's assume there is a boringly unsexy academic reason to value anonymity and everyone has wisely chosen to not indulge in hearing those reasons.

Why, then, the repeated and disturbing facial closeups of the author throughout the video? What the hell is up with that shit? It disturbs the creator, the editor and the senses. Why include them? Why? Is that not narcissistic?

A priori it has the appearance of such. Perhaps it is trivial, such as a bit of over indulgent self love? Selfies posing as something grand and "artsy".

Narcissistic nonetheless.

At minimum it is as narcissistic as a mule is a horse.

Why go down that avenue at all? Why not choose more abstractive methods to deliver similar content whilst refraining from what are commonly referenced as mug shots?

How did this come to be?

Deep insights and analysis have uncovered several culprits.

Banal truth often captures much of a truth. Banal truth is often a source of foundational truth.

Such is the case in this instance. Banality comes in different shapes, sizes and flavors. But banality most often covers the simplest portions of any explanation.

Banal Truth number 1: Canned Parasite is introvert centered.

It is true that the creator of the pieces found on its eponymous website are heavily biased towards introverted centric analyses and would rather avoid working with people if such circumstances can be reasonably maintained. People are mentally taxing. That sentence about people exhausted the creator. It would follow to reason that if the author is introverted, then Canned Parasite itself at least leans towards introversion. It is the sole creation of a sole individual biased towards introversion, introverted activities and introverted tendencies. It is biased towards the practices of introversion.

The Director of the piece could have chosen to film other people. Introverted people tend to avoid other people. A conundrum easily avoided if the author was cast rather than including other people.

But that is that is one explanation of the banal variety. There are others.

Banal truth number 2: The economies demand it.

Canned Parasite (CP) aint getting jack for all this effort. CP flagellate's its own self to get these works across the line. The budget is pretty much zero relative to anything above zero.

Free labor is key. Finding free labor is always tough. Especially when you are ethical, which is the code Canned Parasite follows. We know what you're thinking: "Dumbasses! Ethics? Lie, cheat, steal that is what those with power do!"

But for Canned Parasite, it is not a debatable topic. Position taken. Case closed. Let us move onward and forthwith. It is what is demanded of us and what Canned Parasite demands from itself. Canned Parasite doesn't break code. That is the path toward transcendence and transcendence is the goal.

So pretty much, yup zero exploitable people available given Canned Parasite's particularly rigid ethical self aligned standards. Not a great position for the Project Overlord of the team. This circumstance removes almost all of the known specimens in the gene poll that walk about this big blue marble.

In fact, there is only one person that fits the bill.

And that person happens to be the author. Provided the author consents to Canned Parasite first.

Fortunately the author is, in all ways, the perfect candidate. Ideal candidate? It doesn't really matter does it? The perfect idealized candidate.

It turns out the author really knows the content, the backstory and the creative direction. And the author can be forced to not author and instead act if the Project Overlord insists. Though in honesty the objective critic will note that he is not so much acting as he is attempting, rather poorly, to pantomime.

Regardless, the Project Overlord insisted the author be personally available for whatever needs the Director required support. And as the existence of visual artifact attests, he will apparently work for nothing when it comes to working for hisself. He may not give himself lunch. Or breaks. He may end up working mornings or noons or nights. On weekdays or weekends. Anything to get the project across the line.*

So, to task the author was put. While we regret to say we view the author as indentured labor to Canned Parasite's mindless travails, fortunately, the Project Overlord is a kind and pleasant leader who wants to benefit all who work with the team; who happens to be the one and same team member who is the Project Overlord.

Ultimately, The Project Overlord does not wish the author to do more than his fair share as that erodes the value of the team that also included the Project Overlord as well as Canned Parasite in its entirety. And because the unattended consequence would be the creation of a tired Project Overlord. Who may become cranky without proper rest. Who knows what calamities would ensue were that to occur? Best to avoid such and create a more harmonious situation in which both Worker and Overlord operate with proper levels of rest and recovery between situations of ardor.

The net result is a form of detente in which both Worker and Overlord have sufficient Rest and Recovery. We prioritize the team and our team's time. Even if the team is only just one individual. Especially if the team is just one individual*

While overworking is discouraged by the Project Overlord, suggesting him a benevolent leader, the Project Overlord does ask that we permit ourselves to be uncomfortable at times provided it is necessary to complete something in a timely manner. The rules are clear and succinct: Don’t be a dick. Be productive in a manner that does not create meaningful harm. So called ”funny business” would only hinder productivity and productivity is the priority to support the rules. Productivity is sometimes (often? most? always?) key over the meaningless obstacles that obfuscate what is otherwise clearly a path to the end of the trail.

“Will the path into existence by doing something productive. Baby steps are better than zero steps.” This is a mantra the Project Overlord greatly supports.

Not do we have to like the task that following that trail entails, but we need to get to the end of the trail to complete project. Hell, we can even completely suck at the task if we are being honest and sincere. Can’t act? Pantomime. Can’t pantomime? Pantomime-ish, then. Pose. Pseudo-pose. The director will edit in such a manner that all appears intentional even when it was not.

But we must complete the project lest we let it die on the plains of self indifference. We don't want that. What a waste of an opportunity in one's life to learn something about ourselves. As long as no one gets meaningfully hurt on that trail, then no foul, we should take the trail.

We will take that trail.

We took that trail.

In this instance we determined that no meaningful harm would occur to the inclusion of a particular human that has the appearance of the author. At least no meaningful intended self inflicted harm would occur. After all, the appearance of the author should not in any way or form be misconstrued as "being the author himself." After all, the work is entirely a work of fiction. Aside from the entire site being labeled as fiction, the actual video states itself as such. The point of pursuing artistic endeavors is to challenge ourselves with difficult concepts in an attempt to better understand what surrounds us.

Banal truth number 3: The author, and thereby the Management, is, if nothing else, efficiency minded.

Laziness is omnipresent in the Canned Parasite universe.

There, it was said.

The author of Canned Parasite is goal oriented to be sure. The author delivers. The author delivers quality for the discerning. But also the author is really fucking lazy if we are being honest. Years of slagging in corporate projects by anonymous unproductive uppity ups beat the craftsmanship out of the author. They proverbially beat it into him that efficiency and low cost was to be considered over everything. Qaulity product, pun intended, but not superb product. Don't overdo anything as that is costly. Costly is anything where it was not free or people were not exploited to the benefit of others. Don't do better things. Don't do things better. Do things that reduce costs to save money. Increase profit margins by reducing costs. Reduce costs by doing more with less. Doing less requires whomever is left standing in the process to do more themselves. They said "this is a best practice". The author trains well and executes accordingly. And so any process waste is to be expunged from the corporate organism- provided eliminating that waste wasn't too costly. Too costly is bad, as all cost is by definition bad.

Oddly, perpetual attempts at improvements prove too costly as we improve them. The curve that best demonstrates this is one that shows the exponential increase in cost over time.

The author, being heavily versed in jargon such as best practices, lean processes, continual process improvement, endless iteration, kanban, the five why’s, critically effective habits of douchey peoples, etc, etc, etc, etc… was able to rapidly identify the critical path in any process presented to him. In fact for many years he was bestowed the job title “Expert” due to his encyclopedic knowledge that he entirely obtained via his observational knack.At which point he said "Good enough!"* and stopped doing nonsensical heroical looking work that produced zero tangible personal benefit.

This need to constantly refine processes for efficiency, however, seeped well beyond work and into his perpetual life. He more or less applied it as though it were a lifestyle in and of itself. The efficient life. Not always frugal, unfortunately. But rather efficient.

And through that practical application of his efficiency minded processes he bore a sense of laziness that could only be found in the sloth suborder of the xenarthran mammalian constituency. One person running the camera would be also in front of the camera. His former professional self would have exclaimed “Behold! Efficiency in practice. No room for perfection when cost is driver. It is good enough to do it in this manner!“ Pure Vida!

Despite the lengthy preceding dissertation to no where, these banal truths unfortunately only tell us what shaped the feasibility and viability of the author being enlisted into the frame of the camera. It does not tell us why the Director decided to subjugate the Canned Parasite’s metawork’s tendency to proffer an anonymity narrative and replace it with its stark absence.*

In the end the Director forces the author to do basic pantomime into a camera in time to the audio we hear. He then juxtaposes that with some closeup facial stills*. He applied the overused “Ken Burns effect” to manipulate these shots to often appear even closer to the viewer.

Canned Parasite chose to frame these “visually overtly direct” to make just about everyone a tad uncomfortable. *

So there is the author: bold and center. He appears exactly where he would not choose to be; Beholden to seeing a work through to its completion, he trudges forward again and again towards the lens. As is demanded from him. By the Director.

Fortunately for the viewer he does such for only some of the video.

Thankfully, the Director appears to suffer from mild ADHD and moves us onward like a Lassie bounding through endless fields chasing rabbits as the show shifts to new visuals.

But then, wait, there he is. The author in the camera. Again.

Center of attention. Again.

A cheap bridge between one scene and the next.

It happens again and again.

He even gets a call back at the end.

That sure seems narcissistic.

Why is that suddenly ok? Why the shift in presence?

Perhaps it is simply to admit that we, and by the extension the author, have left the era where one can choose to insure high levels of anonymity through ambivalence and intent? Modern life is digital. Digital life is ever present. Digital life is modern communal life. Digital social life demands engagement. It is created to be mindlessly alluring and tempting and its seeks to hook its tentacles deeply within us. It seeks to stir us in primal ways and does so in manners that defy rational. It often demands we observe more than we engage. It encourages voyeurism. Perhaps the author is simply waiving the proverbial white flag in saying “fine, there you go. Observe me bastards if that is what you want? Sick fucks!”

Digital life is at odds with the freedom to pursuit the right of anonymity given every movement across the digital landscape leaves a trail, even if feint.

Perhaps the author is declaring “We have all already lost our ability to remain quietly and unobservable on the sidelines. You are already profiled. Here is a potential example.“

So what to do? Walk boldly forward. With no guarantee of anonymity, one‘s only correlative option is to choose to express one’s self freely. Freedom of expression is salient right. And in the current digital age it is alive in spades. Governments and groups may seek to oppress it, but at our core, every human is an agent of free expression. The author vis a vis the Director walks boldly towards the flame.

With that right comes responsibility. We must each manage our selves responsibly. It requires we behave with the welfare of others in mind and not needlessly provoke out of over inflated levels of self righteousness. It requires we abstain from needless, fruitless, non productive interactions that serve to only generate ill will and discontent. It requires that we leave doors open as much as possible even though we must also, unfortunately, on rare occasions show people the door when they become a meaningfully clear and present danger to others in the community.

All of this necessary in order to retain a sense of common mutual respect and cohesion so as to retain a civil public landscape in which we can reasonably cohabitate safely amongst one another.

We reside in an age where anyone can drag you out onto the digital stage and direct the center of attention of the audience towards you. You may be lauded a hero. Or you may be titled a villain. You will be controversial if certain people choose it to be as such. Even if you are not really controversial in aggregate, there is always some trait, characteristic, awkward photo or utterance- some detail - that can be highly emphasized and scrutinized and magnified. And manipulated and distorted to serve a ruthless cause at your own expense.

That risk is unavoidable when we engage the world through the digital realm where the unintended byproduct of freeware is the relative loss of anonymity. And all modern life is digital. Everything inside and outside our homes is available to be digitized. If it hasn't yet, it is not from a lack of some consultant or business executive demanding some one figure out how it could be. Someone can look at the exterior of your house digitized on the internet. They know how many trees are in your yard.

A business asks why they ought they not also see inside you bathroom to see what toilet paper you prefer? They’re just trying to help you in. Every way so they can make some money from you by providing you benefit. Can they at least do this indirectly until they can persuade someone to just let them place a camera in there? How many regulations must we remove to do such? What if we just ignore the regulations? Can we not afford that?Are we not large enough to batter them into compliance?

Correct, the author asserts we are society that no longer guarantees a relative sense of anonymity. At least not to the degree that he as a pre digital age person possessed once upon a time. The author fondly remembers being mostly anonymous. He loathes that loss of freedom. He didn't have a say in it. Even were he to leave his phone and start walking down the freeway without it, that freedom would not reappear. As it is already gone. Everything is recording us. Repeatedly. A slight exaggeration? An inevitable truth? All actions attempted to be preserved in digital format for later purposes. Data. We are data. Be they known cameras or microphones or key strokes or gestures, the age of post internet monitorization commoditization has arrived.

We are some organization’s product. Or more likely many different products simultaneously. One owns your hobby interests. One owns your sexual persuasions and proclivity’s there from. Another may own you political identity. Yet another your religious fervor. It extends endlessly and everything is viable. Insurance? Check. Hospital records? Check. What you ate last week in a downtown area you rarely frequent? Check?

We become skus. And as skus we are valuable commodities to be developed and bucketed for potential revenue. Rather than “Hereford” we could be labeled "generic older white male" and sold for low margins. And from there bartered and traded by folks with more money than common sense.

Despite these efforts to commoditize us, we refuse to be cattle led to slaughter. What we lose in anonymity we can correspondingly gain by freely expressing our individuality. We may be tracked and goaded all the we can insist on being ourselves. Provided we do not create meaningful harm it is within our inalienable rights to do so. If the Director demands the author to stand in front of a camera, there is no meaningful harm, and the free expression of the author is of free will. The project is completed. On time. In full. No harm. No foul. We didn’t lose anything we hadn’t already lost. We expanded our understanding of ourselves and demonstrated a strong desire to preserve other salient liberties.

An ode to Anonymity. I remember being under the age of ten and the first time I wandered out of my neighborhood the first time via a bicycle. It felt like such a roguish act at the time. I had not been granted permission to wander out of the neighborhood. I didn't ask either. I simply, with trepidation, crossed a street. A big deal as I had up to that point only travelled within my neighborhood. I could, not likely, get smashed by a car. were I to cross a street.

The adrenaline rush was thrilling.

But in crossing that street I was in a new neighborhood.

One I had never personally been in. One that was foreign to me. It was an adventurous move. And from there I would pedal onwards down its roads. Eventually I braved other streets and wandered those roads. I explored interesting things I had not previously explored.

And that entire time I was rather anonymous. I was just that kid on a bike. Unlike my neighborhood where I was either someone with a name or that kid that lived in such and such house. No phone with GPS. No identification. Just some random kid wandering around on a bike. I wonder if anyone labeled me menacing? Probably not. No door cameras. No street cameras. Likely no business cameras given the rural nature of the community in which I lived.

There was an electricity to the feeling I had during these times. That sense of the unknown. I was an explorer. Well, probably more like a novel experience junky looking for a quick fix. In this case the fix was finding new neighborhoods I had yet to travel and explore. But like a corporate logging company looking to clear an entire forest year after year, I was having to go further and further into the proverbial wilderness to find non-felled forests.

This required increased attention to time and distance and my ability to travel at certain rates of speed. I eventually hit my max when I crossed an interstate business loop and train tracks. I could never quite find the right combination to get me to the next possible new neighborhood from there. I had to settle for re riding other neighborhoods but the enjoyment was much like what one would get picking up cigarette butts on the street and smoking what was left. It was never the same. Eventually, I accepted that the moment of novelty had passed and I moved on to other things. My days of exploration delayed until I could acquire more efficient means of transportation.

We don't seem to have many explorers these days. They exist, but you've never heard of them because they are exploring the lands that are well off the beaten path by this point. There a dime a plenty of poseurs with outsized megaphones pedaling ideas, product and activities that pose as exploration. Sadly they are performative forms of exploitation. Nothing new to be seen there. Just rehashed ideas done more quickly. Snake oil salesmen selling various Ponzi schemes based on one way loyalty demands. A suckers game.

Decades later from those innocent bike rides, living in newer times I now encounter the seemingly unreachable at my doorstep. We were unprepared for their arrival. Be it out of procrastination, avoidance, oppressive oligarchs, it matters not. This new technology changes things. Forced to adapt, we must adapt. There is no alternative. We didn't destroy the wheel. Or the cotton gin. Or the Printing press. We won't be able to put the AI genie back into its bottle.

We are now monitored directly and indirectly without consent 24x7x365 as these engines mine every digital action we take. The overwhelming majority of citizens are no longer asked but are told what they will be subjected to when it comes to abridging our right to privacy. Our voices are diminished, our opinions trivialized and our documented rights are often ignored and our images and manipulated with no clear plan of action. We can no longer ask. They no longer tell. Our most trivial actions and utterances can now be distorted and amplified to personally vilify and intimidate us. Or to simply commoditize us by telling us what kind 0f product we are. We are increasingly prompted to be silent and agreeable lest we suffer negative consequences by those who have outsized reach and impact and thereby power and control we did not elect upon ourselves.

Through advances in our technology our anonymity has been eliminated. And with it our right to privacy. We are knowingly and unknowingly exposed even when we want to choose otherwise. Just by being a person walking the streets and riding in cars and using technology. Though we ponder our positions on technology, we are generally powerless to stop it from injecting further and further into our lives.

To be sure, we were never really truly anonymous. We were the "kid on the bike", the "only other god damn person on the trail" or that "one customer that was kind of funny." But for sure we were more able to have our anonymity prior to the digital age. Now we are all to be relentlessly pursued in some form or 0ther.

So yeah, robots.

They aint all what they are cracked up to be. Marry them at your own risk.

At the back drop is AI trying to define our system of record. tsk, tsk, tsk little AI.

To what ends? It is a false question. It has no motive. It was designed to do this. It is its purpose. As per the usual it is the people behind it's expansive use that must be observed.

What do you do when the robots come for you?

You insist on being human and you insist on being yourself.

It's all you ever had anyways.