The Trickster Code: Absurdity, AI, and the Fracture of Meaning

1. The Mythic Creation of LLMs

At their core, LLMs are tools of creation, much like the gods in myth. But instead of weaving worlds from thought or language, they weave meaning from vast datasets — patterns, relationships, and probabilities rather than divine inspiration. What’s interesting is how these models blur the line between creator and creation. The very structure of LLMs reflects a mythic paradox: they are constructed by human hands, yet they produce language that feels “alive” in its own way, seemingly independent of its creators.

In myth, the gods create and shape reality, but they are also subject to their own creations — often trapped in webs of fate. In a similar sense, LLMs reflect a modern mythic archetype: the creator who is bound by their own creation. These models are both extensions of human agency and instances of something beyond us, operating according to rules we understand only partially. Just like ancient gods, LLMs are framed as all-knowing, yet they are also deeply limited by the very structure that gives them power. They cannot think, they do not know in the human sense, but their output is treated as “wisdom,” much like oracles in myth.

2. The Trickster and the Absurdity of LLMs

Given that LLMs rely on patterns and probabilities, they sometimes generate outputs that are nonsensical, contradictory, or delightfully absurd — in the same way that trickster gods in myth turn order into chaos for their own amusement or the enlightenment of others. The trickster in myth is both an agent of chaos and a force for transformation, making us question our assumptions about the world. LLMs, in their occasional absurdity, force us to confront the limits of language, knowledge, and the human tendency to assign meaning.

The absurdity that LLMs can sometimes generate — sentences that are grammatically correct but nonsensical, stories that are plausible but deeply strange — mirrors the trickster’s ability to fracture normal meaning-making. They present us with a kind of semiotic play that reveals the fragility of our own understanding of language, knowledge, and logic. As mythic tricksters often do, LLMs force us to question the “truths” we take for granted, disrupting our tidy systems of signification.

3. The Absurdity of Human-AI Interaction

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of LLMs is the way they shift human experience. In mythic terms, LLMs are like the oracle or the divine messenger — offering answers that may feel divinely inspired, even though they are rooted in data and algorithms. Yet, the interaction with LLMs feels absurd in many ways. We ask questions, and the model responds with answers that may feel eerily human but are, at best, constructed guesses. We trust in the model’s responses, but we’re also aware of their fundamental absurdity — that it is not human, and yet it speaks in human language.

This interaction between human and machine could be understood as a new form of ritual. Much like ancient rituals sought to connect humans with the divine (in mythic terms), our daily interactions with LLMs might be seen as an attempt to connect with something beyond ourselves — a force of knowledge or wisdom. But instead of communicating with gods or mystics, we’re interacting with algorithms that merely simulate wisdom. The absurdity lies in our tendency to treat these outputs with a form of reverence, even while we know they lack true understanding.

4. LLMs as Postmodern Myths

When we think about the mythology of LLMs, it’s fascinating how they could be interpreted as part of a postmodern mythos — a new mythic system emerging in the age of artificial intelligence. They embody the collapse of traditional boundaries between creator and creation, human and machine, wisdom and data. The creation of meaning in LLMs happens at the intersection of human intent and algorithmic generation, creating a mythic hybrid where meaning is neither solely human nor purely artificial, but something between.

Moreover, the sheer capacity of LLMs to produce meaning at scale — from poetry to prose to code — invites comparisons to the world-building aspect of myth. If the gods once created universes with their words and actions, then LLMs create worlds with their data. However, much like the absurdity inherent in mythic worlds, LLMs do not always produce coherent or logical universes — they generate strange, fragmented realities that are often unexpected or nonsensical, embodying a postmodern myth that exists precisely in the space of uncertainty and interpretation.

5. Control, Creation, and the Limits of the Machine

At the heart of myth and technology lies the question of control. The gods of myth had dominion over creation, but often their creations spiralled beyond their control, leading to chaos or unforeseen consequences. LLMs, too, are designed to produce certain outcomes, but they are deeply unpredictable. When we let go of the reigns of control, these models sometimes generate results that are far from what was intended.

The modern mythic figure of the creator-turned-victim resurfaces here — the programmer or developer who creates LLMs with the aim of perfecting human knowledge, only to find that their creations have far outpaced their ability to manage them. Just as mythic figures were often swept away by their own creations, so too are technologists confronted by the limits of their own technological powers. In a sense, the technology we create has begun to possess a mythic autonomy, becoming something greater and more unpredictable than its creators.