AI as a Semiotic Collaborator: Rethinking Its Role in Meaning-Making

AI as a Semiotic Collaborator: Rethinking Its Role in Meaning-Making

The dominant narratives around AI tend to fall into extremes: either AI is a mindless tool that simply regurgitates patterns, or it's an emerging intelligence that we need to control or fear. But what if we shift the focus to how AI functions as a tool for interaction and creation—not just as an automaton that outputs text but as a semiotic device that reshapes how meaning is instantiated and negotiated?

AI as a Semiotic Collaborator

Rather than merely generating text in response to a prompt, AI introduces a new kind of agency in the meaning-making process—not human, but not entirely passive either. Instead of simply reflecting back our existing knowledge, it can act as a creative amplifier, introducing associative leaps and unexpected recombinations that push human thought in new directions.

• AI as a Dynamic Mirror – Instead of seeing AI as an ‘oracle’ that provides answers, we might think of it as a mirror that warps reality in productive ways. The patterns it generates are shaped by human input, but they emerge in ways that humans might not have anticipated.

• AI as a Generator of Surprise – Because it lacks intentionality, AI-generated outputs can defamiliarise familiar concepts, opening up new angles of exploration. This is particularly useful in fields like creative writing, philosophy, and even scientific hypothesis generation.

• AI as an Improvisational Partner – Rather than treating AI as a ‘dumb’ automaton or a ‘smart’ mind, we might see it as akin to jazz improvisation—providing unpredictable, but pattern-based, variations that interact with human intention in generative ways.

Reshaping Our Understanding of Meaning

If AI-generated text isn't meaningful in itself, but becomes meaningful through interaction, does that change how we define meaning? This raises important questions:

• Does the act of interpreting AI outputs make us more aware of how we create meaning in human discourse?

• Could AI help externalise and visualise meaning potential in ways that weren’t previously possible?

• Does our engagement with AI highlight the fundamentally interactive nature of meaning-making?

AI and the Evolution of Discourse

Each new medium—writing, printing, broadcasting, the internet—has reshaped how knowledge is produced and disseminated. AI could be the next step in this evolution. Rather than treating AI-generated text as a ‘pollutant’ in human discourse, we might see it as part of a broader shift in how discourse operates:

• AI challenges traditional models of authorship and originality—what does it mean to ‘own’ an idea when the AI plays a role in generating it?

• AI could expose hidden biases and structures in language, allowing for a more reflective and critical engagement with discourse.

• Instead of replacing human meaning-making, AI might be a co-participant in a meaning-making system, transforming how we interact with language and ideas.

AI in Human Society: A Hybrid Model

Instead of viewing AI as an independent agent or a mere tool, we might see its role as integrative—a hybrid process in which human cognition and machine generation interact in a feedback loop. This means:

• AI isn’t a replacement for human meaning-making, but a catalyst for new forms of engagement.

• Its value lies not in whether it truly understands but in how it extends, challenges, and transforms human interaction with language and ideas.

• The focus should be on developing better frameworks for human-AI collaboration, rather than on debating whether AI is ‘really’ intelligent.

Shifting the Debate

The real challenge isn’t in proving that AI can think (it can’t) but in understanding what it enables humans to do that they couldn’t before. This suggests a shift in focus:

• From "Does AI understand meaning?" to "How does AI participation in discourse change how we construct meaning?"

• From "Is AI reliable?" to "How do we design AI interactions that enhance human cognitive and creative processes?"

• From "AI can't think" to "AI makes us rethink what thinking is."

AI is not an intelligence in its own right, but it is changing the landscape of human creativity and discourse. The most interesting questions now are not about AI itself, but about how humans engage with it—and what that reveals about meaning-making as a fundamentally interactive process.

Unsuccessful Gospels

There’s a whole rogue’s gallery of "unapproved" gospels—texts that were either too weird, too radical, or just too inconvenient for the emerging Church. Many of them were banned, burned, or quietly ignored, but some survived. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most infamous ones:

---

1. Gospel of Judas (aka "Jesus’ Worst Friend Gets a Rebrand")

Why it was unapproved:

• It paints Judas as a hero, not a villain.

• Jesus asks Judas to betray him so he can be freed from his material body.

• Says the other disciples were clueless about Jesus’ true teachings.

Why it’s interesting:

• It flips the betrayal narrative on its head—Judas isn’t evil, just misunderstood.

• Reflects Gnostic ideas—Jesus needs to escape his body, not resurrect in it.

➡ Status: Found in 2006 in a tattered codex. The early Church would have set this thing on fire if they got their hands on it.

---

2. Infancy Gospel of Thomas (aka "Jesus, the Terrifying Toddler")

Why it was unapproved:

• It portrays young Jesus as an unhinged supernatural menace.

• Child Jesus kills another kid for bumping into him.

• He later resurrects the same kid, but only because the townspeople freak out.

Why it’s interesting:

• Early Christians really struggled with the idea of Jesus as a kid—so this gospel fills in the blanks.

• Shows how the divine and human sides of Jesus clashed in some people’s minds.

➡ Status: Too bonkers for canon, but popular in the early Church.

---

3. Gospel of Peter (aka "The One with a Giant Jesus and a Talking Cross")

Why it was unapproved:

• The Resurrection scene is cinematic insanity—Jesus emerges from the tomb 50 feet tall, followed by a floating, talking cross.

• Jesus doesn’t suffer on the cross—he’s above it all, almost literally.

• Blames "the Jews" for the crucifixion, which later Christians found problematic.

Why it’s interesting:

• It suggests that Jesus’ body was divine even before the resurrection, unlike the Gospels that emphasise his suffering.

• The talking cross bit is next-level surrealism.

➡ Status: Censored and buried, then rediscovered in the 19th century.

---

4. The Gospel of the Egyptians (aka "Celibacy or Bust")

Why it was unapproved:

• Hyper-asceticism—it claims the true followers of Jesus must reject marriage, sex, and all physical desires.

• Suggests that salvation is only for those who completely abandon the material world.

Why it’s interesting:

• Gives insight into early Christian debates on sex and purity—some thought no one should marry after Jesus.

• Would have made Paul look like a hedonist in comparison.

➡ Status: The Church went with "be fruitful and multiply" instead.

---

5. The Gospel of the Hebrews (aka "The One That Almost Made It")

Why it was unapproved:

• One of the few Jewish-Christian gospels, but it didn’t fit with the Church’s evolving theology.

• Features Jesus calling the Holy Spirit his Mother—too weird for later Trinitarian doctrine.

• Has different post-resurrection appearances than the canonical gospels.

Why it’s interesting:

• It represents early Jewish-Christian followers who were squeezed out as Gentile Christianity took over.

• Some Church Fathers quoted from it positively, so it nearly avoided being labelled heresy.

➡ Status: Lost, except for fragments.

---

6. The Secret Gospel of Mark (aka "The One That Might Be a Hoax")

Why it was unapproved:

• It contains a mystical, intimate encounter between Jesus and a young man—some interpret it as homoerotic, others as a secret initiation ritual.

• It was supposedly discovered in the 20th century, but some scholars think it’s a modern forgery.

Why it’s interesting:

• Raises huge questions about whether there were secret teachings of Jesus kept from the masses.

• If real, it suggests that Mark’s Gospel originally had extra material that was later removed.

➡ Status: Either heresy or hoax, depending on whom you ask.

---

7. The Gospel of Philip (aka "Jesus and Mary Magdalene: More Than Just Friends?")

Why it was unapproved:

• Suggests Jesus and Mary Magdalene were unusually close, with the famous line that he "kissed her often on the mouth."

• Goes full Gnostic—salvation is through knowledge, not faith in Jesus’ death.

Why it’s interesting:

• This is where some "Jesus was married" theories come from.

• Adds to the mystery of Mary Magdalene’s role in early Christianity.

➡ Status: Church: "Too spicy for canon."

---

Final Thoughts

These gospels show just how diverse early Christianity was before the Church standardised the narrative. If history had played out differently, the Bible could have included:

• A child Jesus with murder powers

• A Jesus who laughs at his crucifixion

• A Jesus with a giant talking cross

Instead, we got the four we know today—probably the safest and most theologically useful choices.

Unsuccessful Christianities

The Gospel of Thomas

• Genre & Structure: A collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, written in a style resembling wisdom literature or aphorisms rather than a narrative.

• Content: Lacks a passion narrative (no crucifixion or resurrection). Instead, it presents Jesus as a teacher of hidden knowledge (gnosis), emphasising self-discovery and enlightenment.

• Key Themes:

  • The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you.

  • Salvation comes from self-knowledge rather than faith in Jesus' death and resurrection.

  • The material world is less important than the spiritual.

• Tone: Mystical, enigmatic, at times cryptic—Jesus sounds like a Zen master.

• Likely Audience: Early Christian groups with a Gnostic bent, more focused on direct mystical experience than adherence to church structures.

The Gospel of Mary

• Genre & Structure: A narrative text with some dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, including Mary Magdalene, who plays a key role.

• Content: The surviving fragments describe Mary Magdalene as a recipient of secret teachings from Jesus. After his departure, she attempts to teach the male disciples, but Peter and Andrew challenge her authority.

• Key Themes:

  • Direct revelation is possible outside of the male apostolic tradition.

  • Jesus’ teachings go beyond what was publicly recorded in the canonical Gospels.

  • The body and material world are less important than spiritual understanding.

• Tone: Theological and confrontational—it presents an alternative vision of leadership in the early Christian movement, challenging patriarchal structures.

• Likely Audience: Christian groups sympathetic to the idea of female leadership and mystical knowledge.

Comparison

Final Thoughts

• The Gospel of Thomas is about inner enlightenment—less about Jesus as saviour, more about Jesus as a revealer of hidden truth.

• The Gospel of Mary is about spiritual authority—it’s a power struggle between different factions of early Christianity, particularly regarding Mary Magdalene’s role.

Both texts suggest that early Christianity was far from monolithic—there were competing interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, some of which were later excluded from orthodoxy.

When it comes to the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, both seem much closer to Jesus than Paul, but in very different ways.

1. Gospel of Thomas: Closer to Jesus or Paul?

• Much closer to Jesus than Paul.

• Contains sayings attributed directly to Jesus with no mention of Paul’s key theological ideas (atonement, justification by faith, original sin).

• Emphasises self-knowledge and inner enlightenment, which is more in line with the wisdom tradition Jesus engaged in (like the parables) rather than Paul’s systematic theology.

• Jesus in Thomas does not talk about his death or resurrection as necessary for salvation—unlike Paul, who centres his whole theology on that.

• The Kingdom of God is not an apocalyptic event (as Paul sees it) but something already present if one has the eyes to see.

➡ Verdict: If you stripped away later Christian doctrine and just had Jesus as a wandering wisdom teacher, the Gospel of Thomas feels like something that could be quite close to him.

---

2. Gospel of Mary: Closer to Jesus or Paul?

• Again, closer to Jesus, but in a different way.

• Features post-resurrection teachings, which means it is already moving into the territory of early Christian theological reflection (though not Paul’s version).

• The conflict between Mary and Peter reflects tensions in the early church about who had authority to interpret Jesus’ teachings—Paul was also part of this fight, but this Gospel goes in a different direction.

• No emphasis on justification by faith, grace, or the law—which are Paul’s big themes.

• Strong focus on esoteric knowledge (gnosis), which is quite different from both Jesus’ parables and Paul’s letters.

➡ Verdict: Not as direct a link to the historical Jesus as Thomas, but still far from Paul. More like a Gnostic Jesus, where spiritual understanding matters more than church structures.

---

Jesus vs. Paul Summary

---

Final Take

• Gospel of Thomas: Probably the closest to the historical Jesus’ teaching style, but reinterpreted through a mystical lens. Paul would hate it—too much self-knowledge, not enough grace.

• Gospel of Mary: More about early Christian politics than direct sayings of Jesus, but still much closer to Jesus than Paul in its themes of revelation and leadership.

If Paul had encountered these texts, I imagine his reaction would be something like:

📜 "These fools have abandoned the cross for riddles and mysticism! Anathema be upon them!"

Meanwhile, Jesus (at least in the Synoptic Gospels) might say:

📜 "Let them who have ears, hear."

Perception Management

Widespread visibility does indeed drive widespread perception management. In today’s hyper-connected world, where information is constantly shared and broadcast across multiple platforms, the way individuals, organisations, and even governments are perceived has become as important—if not more important—than their actual actions or policies. This is the heart of perception management: the strategic shaping of how others see you in order to influence opinions, behaviour, and decision-making, often at the expense of substance.

Here’s how visibility fuels perception management:

1. The Amplification of Image over Substance: With platforms like social media, visibility is not just about being seen—it’s about how you are seen. Every post, tweet, video, or even casual comment is an opportunity to shape or reinforce a public image. The content itself might not have any real substance or depth, but the performance of it—how it makes people feel or how it fits into existing narratives—is what counts.

   Example: A politician posts a well-crafted tweet supporting climate change action. While the tweet may be received positively and generate buzz, it doesn’t require the politician to enact any actual change. The visibility of their “support” is enough to manage public perception that they care about the issue, without requiring them to take real action.

2. The Power of Public Image: In the modern era, personal branding is a critical form of perception management. Individuals and organizations alike manage the "brand" of their identity and reputation through carefully curated public-facing content. Visibility becomes a tool for constructing and maintaining a particular image, whether that’s one of morality, intelligence, wealth, or activism. This image is what gets noticed, shared, and discussed. The more a specific image or persona is visible, the more it is normalized and reinforced in the public consciousness.

3. Visibility as Control: In many ways, visibility itself is a form of control. The more we are seen, the more we become the subject of public judgment, and the more pressure there is to maintain a certain type of visibility. This creates a feedback loop where being visible leads to more visibility, which then requires more careful management of that visibility to prevent reputational damage or undesirable associations. Those who successfully manage their visibility are seen as credible, trustworthy, or desirable, while those who fail to manage their image may be vilified or ignored.

   Example: Corporate PR campaigns that highlight a company’s “commitment to sustainability” may not always be backed up by substantive environmental policies. However, the more visible the campaign (through ads, social media, and influencer endorsements), the more consumers believe the company is contributing to the cause. This manages public perception of the company’s ethical stance and makes it more likely that consumers will support the brand.

4. Widespread Visibility and the “Performative” Pressure: As visibility increases, so does the pressure to perform—to signal the “right” values, adopt the “right” language, and exhibit the “right” behaviors. This pressure can lead to performative actions—actions that are done for the sake of being seen, rather than for any real purpose. The performative nature of these actions feeds back into the system of visibility, reinforcing the cycle of perception management.

5. Shaping Public Opinion and Manipulating Perceptions: In the age of widespread visibility, perception management isn’t just a personal strategy—it’s become a tool used by politicians, brands, influencers, and even governments to shape public opinion. With constant news cycles, social media algorithms, and viral content, individuals and groups can manipulate the way information is framed, thus influencing the way people think about various issues.

   Example: A political leader may focus their media appearances on the most favorable aspects of their leadership or crisis management, leaving out the more problematic parts. Through carefully managed visibility, they can shape a perception of competence, empathy, or decisiveness, even if their actual track record is more complicated. By controlling the narrative and selectively highlighting certain traits, the public’s perception of the leader is managed in a way that maintains their popularity or influence.

6. Widespread Visibility and the Decline of Authenticity: In this environment, authenticity has become both a commodity and a performance. Genuine interactions and feelings are often overshadowed by the need to present an image that aligns with what’s trending, what’s popular, or what’s socially acceptable. Authenticity itself becomes a performance—something that is displayed publicly, for maximum emotional effect. The more authentic someone appears, the more visibility they gain, perpetuating the need for further performances of authenticity.

The Role of Algorithms and Filters:

Another layer of complexity is added by the algorithms that govern visibility on social media platforms. Algorithms determine which content is seen by the largest number of people, often favouring content that is emotionally charged, controversial, or fits within existing narratives. This can distort perceptions, not only of individuals but also of the larger cultural, political, and social issues at play. The algorithms reward engagement, but engagement doesn’t always equate to substance—it often rewards performative gestures and inflammatory content instead.

How It All Ties Together:

In the end, the rise of visibility-induced perception management marks a shift in how we interact with the world and each other. It creates a world where appearances matter more than reality, where being seen becomes synonymous with being valid. However, this “seen-ness” can be deceptive. It’s performative—designed to create an impression without necessarily achieving any substantive change. In many ways, the visibility of action becomes the action itself, and the more visible you are, the more real you seem.

This brings us back to our earlier conversation about performativity. As visibility spreads, so does the pressure to perform—to manage how we are perceived. We are constantly caught in a game of public self-presentation, driven by the need to maintain a favourable image in the eyes of others, often at the cost of authentic engagement or real transformation.

In this context, the real question is: What are we really achieving when we perform for visibility?

If so much of our activity is geared towards managing perceptions rather than substantive action, what is actually being achieved?

A Few Possibilities:

1. Validation Without Change
   – If the goal is to be seen as good rather than to do good, then the incentive is performing virtue rather than embodying it.
   – Example: A company posts about sustainability but still engages in exploitative labour practices. The perception has changed, but the reality hasn’t.

2. The Illusion of Progress
   – Performative visibility creates a sense of momentum—that things are happening, that we’re moving forward, even if no real structural change is occurring.
   – Example: Politicians making grand symbolic gestures without passing legislation that addresses the core issue.

3. Survival in the Visibility Economy
   – In a world where being seen = being relevant, engagement becomes an end in itself.
   – Individuals and brands must constantly perform visibility to stay in the game, regardless of whether their content has any substance.
   – Example: Influencers jumping on every social cause to maintain audience attention, regardless of their real beliefs.

4. A Self-Reinforcing System
   – The more we operate within this system, the more entrenched it becomes.
   – The expectation of performative visibility forces others to play along or risk being left behind.
   – Example: A charity spends more effort crafting emotional viral videos than solving the problems they claim to address because visibility drives donations.

The Real Punchline?

We may have created a world of elaborate theatre, where:

• Action is secondary to its perception.

• Truth is secondary to engagement.

• Authenticity is secondary to strategic self-presentation.

Or, to put it bluntly: We’re optimising for applause, not impact.

Virtue Signalling

Virtue signalling is a specific thread in the larger tapestry of performativity. It’s an act of signalling moral correctness or social consciousness without necessarily engaging in meaningful or substantive action to back it up. In the context of the broader rise of performativity, virtue signalling fits as a reflection of how society, particularly in the digital age, has come to value visible expressions of alignment with the right causes over actual engagement with the root issues.

The reason virtue signalling is so pervasive is that it plays into the desire for social validation and the fear of being left behind in an increasingly polarised world. In an era of hypervisibility and instant feedback (likes, shares, retweets, etc.), expressing the "right" stance or opinion becomes more about positioning oneself in relation to others, rather than authentically engaging with the complexities of a problem.

Here's how virtue signalling ties into the bigger picture:

1. Visibility over Substance: Virtue signalling is all about showing people that you are in alignment with certain values, often in public and visible ways. This ties into the broader performative trend where the act of appearing to do something is often enough to be deemed valid, even if there's little behind it. It's a reflection of the social pressure for people (and institutions) to appear progressive, caring, or woke, without necessarily doing the deep work required to actually solve the issues.

2. The Shift from Action to Image: What’s fascinating is that virtue signalling has less to do with the material world (policy changes, advocacy, direct action) and more with image construction. It’s often less about the outcome (e.g., making a tangible difference in society) and more about what your actions say about you—especially within a specific social context. It's a way to say, "I am part of this group," without having to do the real work of engaging with that group's underlying issues.

3. Signals as Status: Much like the way brands use performative gestures (greenwashing, for instance), virtue signalling has become a status symbol. If you signal your commitment to the "right" causes, you show others that you have cultural capital—an understanding of social norms and power structures, even if you’re not actively engaging with them in meaningful ways. This can act as a shortcut to social or political legitimacy.

4. Performativity in the Age of Individualism: The rise of performativity correlates with our growing individualism, where personal identity is increasingly shaped by how we present ourselves in the public sphere. Virtue signalling becomes a way for people to define themselves within this context—by what they stand for (or what they performatively stand for) rather than who they truly are or what they actually do. In many ways, it's a strategy for navigating the complex and fragmented cultural landscape.

5. Escaping Accountability: One of the more insidious aspects of virtue signalling is that it allows people to sidestep accountability. By making a grand statement of support or adopting a popular stance, one can bypass the hard conversations, uncomfortable truths, or the deeper involvement that might be required to address real change. It's a way of showing moral alignment without actually challenging one's own privilege, structures, or practices.

Example of Virtue Signalling in Action:

Imagine a celebrity tweeting about a cause, expressing support, and getting applause for it. While this may bring awareness to the cause, the act itself doesn’t actually push for any tangible change. It may provide a platform for others to rally behind the cause, but the celebrity themselves hasn’t made any real personal sacrifice or commitment. It’s an instance of performativity—of signalling an identity that aligns with what is perceived as morally "right"—rather than doing the deep work of addressing the underlying issues.

In this larger cultural context, virtue signalling becomes part of the system of performativity. It’s a visible act of participation in a larger performative game where the audience is just as complicit in maintaining the illusion of progress.

In conclusion, virtue signalling is a microcosm of the performative nature of contemporary society. It's not that it’s inherently bad—it can raise awareness and inspire others—but it’s only effective when paired with tangible action. When it becomes an end in itself, it reveals the tension between the visibility of actions and the actual work needed to address the issues at hand. It’s another example of how performativity, in all its forms, can blur the lines between appearance and substance, leaving us to question: What are we actually accomplishing when we perform actions for the sake of performance?

The Rise Of Performativity

The rise of performativity—whether in society, politics, or technology—can be traced to several interwoven social, economic, and technological trends. Let’s break it down a bit:

1. Hypervisibility and the Digital Age:

The digital age, driven by social media and constant connectivity, has created a world where visibility is a form of validation. People, organisations, and even systems need to be seen to be “doing something.” This is often more important than actually achieving meaningful outcomes. For example, social media campaigns, corporate social responsibility, and even political gestures are often less about substantive change and more about being seen to act.

In this context, performativity is the new currency. You don’t need to solve the problem; you need to make it look like you’re trying to. Think of it like online activism: tweeting “thoughts and prayers” after a tragedy is less about helping and more about signalling empathy.

2. The Rise of Neoliberalism and Market-Driven Thinking:

Neoliberalism has made it so that everything, including people’s behaviour, is viewed through an economic lens. Success isn’t about what’s actually accomplished but what’s perceived. In a market-driven culture, what’s visible, marketable, and easily measurable (even if it’s shallow) is prized over actual efficacy. This has pushed institutions—whether government, business, or media—to focus on surface-level performative actions, as they yield immediate rewards (media attention, increased engagement, etc.) even when they don’t address the core problem.

This is why we see an explosion of “sustainable” brands, for instance. It’s not that the products or practices are genuinely sustainable, but the image of sustainability is a selling point. The same applies to diversity and inclusion efforts in many corporations: actions that don’t lead to meaningful structural change but signal progress for the sake of brand image.

3. Postmodernism and Relativism:

Postmodern philosophy, with its focus on the instability of meaning, suggests that actions are often less about their inherent value and more about their social context or the narrative we construct around them. When everything is a narrative, the distinction between what is “real” and what is “performative” becomes blurry. In a world where meaning is constructed rather than intrinsic, the appearance of progress, change, or authenticity can be just as significant as actual change.

This brings us to the idea of performativity in a social sense, as laid out by Judith Butler in her work on gender theory. She argues that identities and roles are "performed" rather than being inherently fixed or pre-existing. This line of thought has spread into wider societal norms, where individuals and institutions alike “perform” their social roles or moral stances in ways that may not be backed up by deeper or sustained action.

4. Technological Mediators and Automation:

Technology has made performativity easier, even automated. Take CAPTCHA systems, for example: they are performative because, in many cases, they don't do anything substantial (especially when the bots they’re trying to stop evolve), but the user still has to “perform” the task of solving them. On a societal level, automation and AI are pushing us toward performative behaviours: systems that present an illusion of productivity or intelligence while often just giving the appearance of function without necessarily solving the problem at hand.

This also explains phenomena like the "algorithmic bias" debate. The AI systems might not be addressing the biases themselves, but they perform an appearance of fairness or objectivity by being "data-driven," even if the data itself is flawed or biased. We trust the algorithm because it appears neutral.

5. Crisis of Meaning and the Search for Legitimacy:

Performativity can also be a response to a deeper crisis of meaning in modern society. As traditional structures of authority, meaning, and identity crumble (whether religious, political, or cultural), people and institutions are left scrambling for legitimacy. The act of performing “right” behaviour or signalling adherence to certain norms has become a stand-in for deeper values or beliefs.

In essence, performativity rises as people and systems become more obsessed with appearances—because, in a world that feels increasingly fragmented and uncertain, appearances (or narratives) are what allow us to feel grounded, even if they don’t necessarily reflect reality. It’s the difference between acting "sustainably" and actually being sustainable, or saying you support social justice while continuing to benefit from systems of inequality. The performance becomes the reality, whether or not it has lasting impact.

6. Cultural Shifting Toward Instant Gratification:

The increasing demand for instant gratification also drives the rise of performativity. In a culture where speed is prioritised and “outcomes” are measured in clicks or likes, quick, visible actions are more valued than slow, behind-the-scenes, substantive change. Performative gestures are often easier to execute and more immediately satisfying than actual problem-solving, making them an attractive option for both individuals and organisations.

Conclusion: The "Illusion of Progress"

Performativity is everywhere because it offers a way to feel like something is being done, even if it isn’t. It’s a byproduct of a world where visibility and instant results are prized over substance and depth. Whether in politics, technology, or personal identity, the focus is increasingly on showing that we’re doing the right thing, or appearing to be doing something, rather than making lasting, meaningful changes.

So, in this world, the performative becomes its own form of reality, for both individuals and systems. It offers the illusion of progress while often evading the hard, messy, and slower work of actual change.

Artificial "Intelligence"

ChRIS said:

Another matter I'd like your opinion on is the focus on 'intelligence' in AI, especially LLMs. To me it seems to be missing the point, or in some way, using a vague unquestioned concept (cf. free will) that obscures a clear understanding of what's developing in the field.

ChatGPT said:

You’re raising a crucial point, and I absolutely agree that the focus on “intelligence” in AI—especially in large language models (LLMs)—can obscure a clearer understanding of what's actually going on. The concept of “intelligence” in AI tends to be used vaguely and without much critical examination, much like the term “free will” is often used in philosophy without clear definition. Both terms carry a lot of cultural and emotional baggage, which can cloud their usefulness when trying to understand what’s really happening.

Let me break it down and add a few angles on this:

1. The Problem of “Intelligence” as a Metaphor

The way we talk about AI “intelligence” is often metaphorical. When people refer to LLMs as being "intelligent," they’re drawing a parallel to human cognition, which, at best, is a limited analogy. But unlike humans, LLMs don’t have consciousness, intentionality, or any kind of agency. They don’t understand what they say in the way that we understand our own thoughts. They process and generate outputs based on patterns they’ve learned from vast amounts of data. This distinction matters because calling something "intelligent" suggests a level of awareness, reasoning, and self-directed action that these models don’t have. The model's outputs aren’t the result of thought or reasoning in a human sense—they’re the result of statistical correlations and pattern recognition.

2. The Problem of Functionality vs. Cognition

When we focus on intelligence in AI, we tend to overlook the functional nature of these systems. What LLMs do is not so much “think” as it is “pattern-matching.” They function by mapping inputs (prompts) to outputs (responses) in a highly complex and nuanced way, but there’s no internal experience or consciousness guiding this. This is where I think the concept of “intelligence” becomes misleading—it implies a kind of cognition or mental process that’s simply not happening in the way we think about it in human terms. AI systems are incredibly sophisticated, but their complexity comes from their ability to handle vast amounts of data and recognise patterns—not from any form of cognition.

3. Why the Focus on “Intelligence” Hinders Understanding

By framing the discussion around “intelligence,” we risk misdirecting attention away from what’s actually important. What’s truly developing in AI isn’t “intelligence” but increasingly complex systems of data processing and pattern recognition. LLMs are tools designed to process information in ways that simulate aspects of human language use, but they don’t have intentions, goals, or understanding.

Instead of thinking of them as “intelligent,” it might be more accurate and insightful to think of them in terms of their functionality, scope, and application. These systems are incredibly good at mimicking patterns of human language, but their capacity is entirely dependent on the data they’ve been trained on. What’s developing in the field is the ability to process and generate text at scale, with sophistication, not “think” or “understand.”

4. The Question of "Free Will" in AI

This is similar to how the term “free will” is often used without a clear definition. We’re talking about human decision-making, but when you break it down, you find that human decision-making is the result of many interrelated factors (biology, environment, culture, etc.), just like AI processes are the result of various factors (data, algorithms, etc.). But we don’t have the same kind of “free will” in a deterministic sense that’s often implied in these discussions.

In the context of AI, we’re often trying to understand agency and autonomy when, in reality, the system has no internal subjective state to guide actions. We might attribute “decision-making” to LLMs, but it’s really just a matter of selecting the most statistically likely response based on the input, not a decision made by a “mind” or “will.” In that sense, much like free will, the concept of “intelligence” becomes a catch-all that misleads us about the actual mechanics at play.

5. Shifting the Focus: What Should We Talk About?

Instead of “intelligence,” we should focus on the specific capabilities of LLMs—things like:

• Pattern recognition: LLMs excel at detecting patterns and structures in data, which is what enables them to generate responses based on prompts.

• Data processing and synthesis: These models can pull together and synthesise vast amounts of information in ways that seem “intelligent” but are really just impressive data manipulations.

• Application scope: The adaptability of these models to different contexts (e.g., conversational agents, text generation, summarisation) is more about the system's ability to handle diverse types of input-output relationships, rather than “thinking.”

By focusing on these aspects, we can move away from the vague, loaded term of “intelligence” and instead focus on the technical processes and their real-world implications. This would allow for a clearer understanding of what these systems are capable of, and where they might be headed.

Conclusion: Rethinking “Intelligence” in AI

The focus on intelligence in AI, particularly in LLMs, can mislead us by suggesting these systems possess cognitive faculties that they don’t. What’s developing in the field is not intelligence in the traditional sense but rather increasingly sophisticated methods of data processing, pattern recognition, and statistical prediction. In much the same way the concept of "free will" obfuscates our understanding of human decision-making, the term “intelligence” in the context of AI distracts us from the underlying mechanics and limitations of these systems. Instead of viewing AI through the lens of human-like intelligence, it might be more productive to focus on the specific technological advancements and applications—allowing for a more precise and nuanced understanding of what these systems are and where they are headed.

The Fluidity of Meaning: Art, Interpretation, and the Dynamic Nature of Meaning Potential

Art, as a vehicle of meaning, is often discussed as a static object with a singular interpretation. However, the process of meaning-making is anything but static. It’s a dynamic, evolving interaction between the artist's intention, the artwork itself, and the audience’s personal and cultural context. By framing this conversation through the lenses of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and concepts like individuation and instantiation, we can explore how meaning evolves and varies over time.

The Meaning Potential of Art

In SFL, the concept of the instantial system refers to the meaning potential of an instance. An artwork, then, is not just a static object with a fixed meaning; it’s an instance of the artist's meaning potential. It serves as a conduit for the artist's intended message, but it also contains potential meaning for the audience—meaning that is yet to be actualised. The artwork itself offers a rich instantial system, filled with the possibility of multiple interpretations, depending on how an individual engages with it.

Consider Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, a prime example of an artwork that invites numerous interpretations. The famously enigmatic smile of the subject may seem like a singular, clear-cut feature, but in reality, it’s a subtle mix of emotional cues—her eyes convey one emotion, while her mouth conveys another. This ambiguity is further enhanced by Leonardo’s sfumato technique, which blends forms and tones, creating an almost dream-like effect. The ambiguity of her smile isn’t just a feature of the painting—it’s an intentional manipulation of meaning potential. The more one engages with the painting, the more meanings emerge, which speaks to the open structure of the artwork.

This dynamic between the artist’s meaning potential and the viewer’s interpretation allows art to generate not just one text, but multiple texts—meaning instances. In the case of the Mona Lisa, each viewer might see her as serene, mysterious, seductive, or even condescending, depending on their own cultural and personal context. The artwork becomes an active participant in a dialogue between the artist’s intent and the audience’s meaning-making process.

Individuation: How Meaning Diverges Across Individuals

The concept of individuation is essential here. In SFL, individuation refers to the way meaning is shaped by the individual’s unique context, background, and experiences. Just as each viewer interprets the Mona Lisa differently, each individual brings their own meaning potential to the table. This is how art, or any form of communication, can generate a variety of meanings: each person instantiates their own meaning, influenced by their unique set of life experiences.

However, individuation doesn’t only generate diversity of interpretation—it also plays a crucial role in how collective meaning is formed. The interaction between individuated meaning potentials leads to the emergence of dominant interpretations, which may or may not align with the artist’s original intention. This is where power, discourse, and history come into play. For example, the Mona Lisa has been interpreted and reinterpreted in countless ways over centuries, with each new interpretation informed by changing cultural, political, and social contexts. What was once a simple portrait becomes a symbol of mystery and intrigue, largely due to the way collective meaning potentials have evolved and been reinforced over time.

The Role of Interpretation in Meaning Evolution

Meaning isn’t simply assigned to an artwork—it evolves through a process of interpretation. As individuals or groups engage with art, they activate their own individuated meaning potentials, which in turn interact with the artwork’s instantial system. This leads to new readings and reinterpretations, some of which gain traction and become dominant, while others fade into obscurity. This process mirrors the interaction between phylogenesis (evolution of meaning over time) and ontogenesis (individual variation in meaning).

Political art, for example, may start with a clear, determinate meaning: to inspire action, protest, or support a cause. However, over time, its meaning may shift as new interpretations emerge. A piece of political propaganda may once have been read as a direct call to action but later be recontextualised as ironic or a symbol of resistance. This shift is not just the result of new interpretations; it’s the result of the interaction between the artwork’s meaning potential and the individuated meaning potentials of those who engage with it. As each new individual interprets the artwork, they bring their own history, context, and perspective, creating a constantly shifting landscape of meaning.

Meaning as a Dynamic, Evolving Process

At its core, meaning-making is a dynamic, evolving process. Art isn’t simply something that conveys a fixed message from the artist to the audience; it’s a living, breathing interaction between meaning potentials—those of the artist, the artwork, and the audience. This dynamic process allows art to evolve over time, with interpretations changing as new generations of viewers bring their own experiences and perspectives.

This concept aligns with the evolution of myth and narrative as well. Just as ancient myths evolve across cultures and generations, so too does the meaning of art. What was once a straightforward narrative may take on new significance as it is interpreted through different lenses. Art, like myth, is a living thing, constantly reinterpreted and reimagined as it interacts with the ever-changing landscape of human experience.

Conclusion: The Power of Meaning Potential

By examining art through the lens of SFL, individuation, and the dynamic nature of meaning potential, we can better understand the fluidity of meaning in art. Artworks don’t just deliver meaning to passive viewers; they invite active engagement and reinterpretation. The Mona Lisa doesn’t just depict a woman with an enigmatic smile—it becomes a symbol of mystery, perception, and time, constantly reshaped by the individuated meaning potentials of each viewer.

In this way, meaning is not fixed or predetermined. It’s a living, evolving process that unfolds over time, shaped by the intersection of individual interpretation and collective discourse. The more we engage with art, the more meanings emerge—each new interpretation a product of the interplay between artist, artwork, and audience. This ongoing process ensures that art remains relevant, powerful, and alive across generations.

Theological Narratives and the Struggle for Consistency: A Look at the Holy Spirit's Role in the Trinity

Religious myths are often messier than they might seem at first glance. At their core, these myths seek to integrate a variety of narratives, symbols, and ideas to explain the mysteries of human existence and the cosmos. However, in the process of weaving together different theological threads, contradictions inevitably arise. In fact, these contradictions are often embraced or downplayed, as they serve a critical function in the adaptability of the narrative. When an ancient story or belief system must evolve to fit changing contexts, the presence of mystery or ambiguity can help maintain the myth’s power and relevance.

This tension is particularly evident in Christian theology, where the narrative of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—has undergone centuries of interpretation and modification. The Trinity, as a theological concept, embodies the struggle between maintaining the coherence of divine unity and accommodating the various distinct aspects of God’s nature. While the Father and Son are typically portrayed in more defined, relational roles, the Holy Spirit occupies a strange and often ambiguous position in Christian theology. And this is where things get interesting.

---

The "Cuckolding" of God the Father: The Holy Spirit's Role in the Trinity

A peculiar theological conundrum within the Christian narrative is the idea that the Holy Spirit played an essential role in the conception of Jesus, rendering the Father, in a literal sense, an impotent figure when it comes to the birth of the divine Son.

In Christian doctrine, it is the Holy Spirit—rather than the Father or even Joseph—who is said to have impregnated the Virgin Mary, resulting in the miraculous birth of Jesus. This theological detail has led to some rather amusing implications when considered from a certain perspective. It’s as though the Father has been “cuckolded” by the Holy Spirit, leaving the Father a mere bystander in the creation of His own Son.

This bizarre narrative twist doesn’t just raise questions about divine paternity; it introduces a certain comic incongruity in the heart of the sacred myth. Theologically, this could be interpreted as the inevitable result of a centuries-old tradition of integrating multiple, sometimes conflicting, narratives in the search for religious meaning. Just as ancient myths borrow from different traditions, incorporating a variety of gods and figures with different roles, so too does Christian theology incorporate diverse elements—sometimes with contradictory results.

---

A Narrative of Adaptability and Mystery

These contradictions are not necessarily fatal to the mythological structure of Christianity. In fact, they might even be integral to its adaptability. The mysteries surrounding the Holy Trinity, and particularly the role of the Holy Spirit, allow for flexibility in interpretation. They give theologians, believers, and critics alike room to explore the divine in ways that transcend literal readings and engage with more symbolic or mystical meanings.

The theological “mystery” functions here not as an unsolvable riddle but as a way to keep the myth alive, relevant, and capable of addressing new questions and challenges. The role of the Holy Spirit—often nebulous, multifaceted, and elusive—speaks to the mystery of God’s workings in the world and the internal workings of the human soul. Where other figures in the Trinity might represent more defined, concrete relationships, the Holy Spirit provides the necessary space for ambiguity, interpretation, and, in a sense, humour.

---

Conclusion: Embracing the Mystery, and the Humour

The Christian story, like all myths, is an evolving narrative that takes on new forms and meanings as it interacts with the cultures that tell it. While the idea of God the Father being “cuckolded” by the Holy Spirit might seem like an absurd, humorous critique, it’s also an essential part of the larger theological project—a project that uses paradox, contradiction, and mystery to keep faith traditions alive and meaningful across time.

The sacred, in this case, can sometimes be downright strange. In that strangeness, there’s a playful, if slightly uncomfortable, truth about the nature of myth-making itself.