For his 2004 film The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Wes Anderson enlisted Brazilian musical artist Seu Jorge to perform several of David Bowie’s songs in Portuguese. Jorge released an album of the songs about a year or so later. A few weeks ago, to mark the 10th anniversary of Bowie’s death, Jorge released a hour-long set of him performing those songs: Just an acoustic guitar, a microphone, and the beautiful coastline of São Paulo.

Tags: movies · music · Seu Jorge · The Life Aquatic · video · Wes Anderson

💬 Join the discussion on kottke.org →

The only time that Django Reinhardt recorded with a harmonica player was on May 31, 1938, when Larry Adler was joined by the Quintet of the Hot Club of France for four songs. When he was ten, Yvonnick Prené heard the Django-Adler session. A virtuosic master of the harmonica from France, Prené is usually heard […]

The meaning of life, in a short verse.

---

“Don’t make stuff because you want to make money — it will never make you enough money. And don’t make stuff because you want to get famous — because you will never feel famous enough,” John Green advised aspiring writers. “If you worship money and things … then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth,” David Foster Wallace admonished in his timeless commencement address on the meaning of life. But what does it really mean to “have enough?”

There is hardly a better answer than the one implicitly given by Kurt Vonnegut — man of discipline, champion of literary style, modern sage, one wise dad — in a poem he wrote for The New Yorker in May of 2005, reprinted in John C. Bogle’s Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life (public library):

JOE HELLER

True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.

I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel ‘Catch-22’
has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Not bad! Rest in peace!

Complement with Vonnegut on how to write with style, the writer’s responsibility and the limitations of the brain, the shapes of stories, his daily routine, his heart-warming advice to his children, and his favorite erotic illustrations.

---

donating = loving

For seventeen years, I have been spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars each month composing The Marginalian (which bore the outgrown name Brain Pickings for its first fifteen years). It has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, no assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your own life more livable in any way, please consider lending a helping hand with a donation. Your support makes all the difference.

---

newsletter

The Marginalian has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most inspiring reading. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.

Transformation depends on institutions

Artificial intelligence offers potential for governmental transformation, but like all emerging technologies, it can only catalyze meaningful change when paired with effective operating models. Without this foundation, AI risks amplifying existing government inefficiencies rather than delivering breakthroughs.

The primary barrier to AI-based breakthroughs is not an agency’s interest in adopting new tools but the structures and habits of government itself, particularly excessive risk management; rigid hierarchies; and organizational silos rather than adaptive problem solving and effective service delivery. Structural reform is critical and must accompany adoption of AI. 

Defining the tools: Generative AI and Agentic AI

Many types of AI have already permeated daily life and government operations, including predictive models, workflow automation tools, and computer vision. Two relatively new categories, generative AI and agentic AI, have been attracting the most attention lately.

Generative AI: Generative AI systems produce new content or structured outputs by learning patterns from existing data. These include large language and multimodal models that generate text, images, audio, or video in response to user prompts. Examples include tools built on models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini. In government, generative AI can accelerate sensemaking by summarizing documents, drafting text, generating code, and transforming unstructured information into structured formats. These capabilities are increasingly embedded in enterprise software platforms already authorized for government use, lowering barriers to experimentation and adoption.

Agentic AI: Agentic AI systems go beyond producing analysis or recommendations by autonomously taking actions to achieve specified goals. They can coordinate multistep workflows, integrate information across organizational silos, monitor conditions in real time, and execute predefined actions within established guardrails. Agentic systems often rely on generative AI as a component — for example, to synthesize information, draft communications, or generate code as part of a larger autonomous workflow. The transformative potential of agentic AI lies in augmenting an organization’s capacity to identify issues, make coordinated decisions, and implement solutions at scale, while maintaining human oversight to ensure alignment with legal, ethical, and strategic requirements.

For either to deliver value, leaders and managers must support execution with clearly defined goals and effective governance, keeping humans firmly in control of constraints, decision making, and accountability.

The risks of misguided modernization

Public debate about AI often polarizes around future hypotheticals — on one side, AI as an existential threat; on the other, AI as an inevitable, world-transforming revolution. Both frames focus on risks and capabilities that are not yet present in available systems. In reality, there is a pragmatic middle path that addresses today’s challenges: strengthening institutions, improving decision making capacity, and integrating AI only where it can reliably support public missions rather than distort them. As with all emerging technologies, the benefits of AI will depend less on the specific tools and far more on the governance frameworks, incentives, and organizational capacities that shape how those tools are actually used.

Many government leaders today face pressure to “use AI,” often without a clear understanding of what that entails or what problems it is meant to solve. This can lead to projects or procurements that are technology first rather than problem first, generating little real value for the agency or the public they serve. It is critical that leaders remain grounded in the reality of what current AI systems can and cannot deliver, as the vendor marketplace often oversells capabilities to drive adoption.

A more effective approach starts by asking, “What challenges are we trying to address?” or “Where do we encounter recurring bottlenecks or inefficiencies?” Only after defining the problem should agencies consider whether and how AI can augment human work to tackle those challenges. Anchoring adoption in clear objectives ensures that AI serves public missions rather than being implemented for its own sake.

Technology waves of the past offer lessons for the present and point to paths for the future. Each wave arrived with outsized promises, diffuse fears, and a tendency for early decisions to harden into long-term constraints. During the first major wave of cloud adoption, for instance, agencies made uneven choices about vendors, security boundaries, and data architecture. Many became locked into single-vendor ecosystems that still limit portability and flexibility today. 

The most successful reforms did not come from chasing cloud technologies themselves, but from strengthening the systems that shaped their adoption: governance, procurement, workforce skills, and iterative modernization practices. Progress accelerated only when agencies implemented clearer shared-responsibility models, modular cloud contracts, robust architecture and security training, and test-and-learn migration frameworks.

The basics of state capacity

AI is no different. The challenge now is to avoid repeating old patterns of overreaction or abdication and instead build the durable institutional capacity needed to integrate new tools responsibly, selectively, and in service of public purpose.

To navigate this moment effectively, government should focus less on the novelty of AI and more on the institutional choices that will shape its long-term impact. That shift in perspective reveals a set of practical risks that have little to do with model architectures and everything to do with how the public sector acquires, governs, and deploys technology. These risks are familiar from previous modernization waves — patterns in which structural constraints, vendor incentives, and fragmented decision making, if left unaddressed, can undermine even the most promising tools. This is why the basics of state capacity are so important.

Understanding these universal dynamics is essential before turning to the specific challenges AI introduces.

• The vendor trap: Modernization efforts often risk simply moving outdated systems onto newer but still decades-old technology while labeling the work with the current buzzword, whether it be “mobile,” “cloud” or “AI.” Vendors actively market legacy-to-cloud migrations or modernized rules engines as “AI-ready,” enriching their businesses without delivering transformational change. 
• Procurement challenges: Because most federal IT work is outsourced and budgeting rules often prevent agencies from retaining savings, taxpayers frequently see little benefit from cost efficiencies. Large project budgets with spending deadlines and penalties under the Impoundment Control Act, for example, incentivize agencies to spend the full amount regardless of actual costs. Previous technology waves, such as cloud adoption, demonstrated the same pattern: declining infrastructure costs rarely translated into government savings. 
• The structural constraint: Adopting AI tools for processes such as claims or fraud detection will only yield limited, incremental efficiencies if such core issues as mandatory multioffice approvals, legacy systems, and paper documentation remain. AI accelerates part of the workflow, but the overarching, inefficient structure remains a hard limit on overall impact.
• Strategic control: Because most federal IT work is outsourced, there is a tendency to also outsource the framing of the problem technology should solve. Such vendor framing prioritizes vendor benefit. It is imperative that the government and not vendors frame the problems that AI should solve, prioritizing public benefit. This requires hiring, retaining, and empowering civil servants with AI expertise to ensure that outcomes-based procurement aligns with public interests.
• High cost, low impact for taxpayers: The ultimate consequence is that taxpayers often pay for costly projects that yield limited public benefit. Without structural reforms — clarity on goals, strengthened governance, and outcome-focused procurement, for example — AI adoption risks funneling value to vendors rather than serving the public interest.

Fail to scale

Even well-intentioned AI deployments can create “faster inefficiency” if agencies ignore structural, procedural, and governance constraints. Tools that accelerate individual tasks may produce measurable gains in isolated workflows, but without addressing the broader organizational bottlenecks, any gains will fail to scale. For example, the Office of Personnel Management could deploy an AI tool to extract data from scanned retirement files. But if the underlying paper records stored underground in Boyers, Pennsylvania, still require manual retrieval and physical handling, the overall processing time will barely improve. In effect, AI can make inefficient systems move more quickly, exacerbating friction rather than removing it. Recognizing this risk underscores why modernization must combine technology, government capacity, and deliberate institutional reform: Only by aligning tools, processes, and incentives can AI generate real improvements in service delivery and operational effectiveness.

Some argue that AI, and particularly artificial general intelligence (AGI), will soon become so capable that human guidance and governance will be largely unnecessary. In this view, institutions would no longer need to define problems, structure processes, or exercise judgment; governments could simply “feed everything into the system,” specify desired outcomes, and allow AI to determine how to achieve them. If this were plausible, it would raise a fundamental question: Does AI obviate the need to fix the underlying institutions of government, or does it require designing an entirely new system from scratch?

In practice, we are very far from this reality, especially at the scale and complexity of government. Even defining what “everything” means in a whole-of-government context is a formidable challenge, let alone securing access to, governing, and integrating the hundreds of thousands of data sources, systems, legal authorities, and operational constraints involved. These are not primarily AI problems; they are large-organization problems rooted in fragmentation, ownership, security, and accountability. This helps explain why some leaders today are tempted to mandate the unification of “all the data” or “all the systems” as a prerequisite for AI adoption. Such approaches are not only operationally infeasible and insecure, but they are also inconsistent with how effective large-scale systems are built in the private sector, which relies on modularity, interfaces, and clear boundaries rather than wholesale consolidation.

Nor does AI require governments to preemptively design an entirely new institutional model. AI is not going to “change everything” overnight. Its impact will be uneven, incremental, and highly dependent on existing structures, incentives, and governance. The more realistic and more effective path forward is to strengthen the fundamentals of government: clarify goals, modernize operating models, improve data governance, and build the capacity to experiment and learn. AI can meaningfully augment these efforts, but it cannot substitute for them. Institutions that are already capable of defining problems, coordinating action, and exercising accountability will be best positioned to benefit from AI; those that are not will simply automate their dysfunction more quickly.

The path forward: Structural reform and pragmatic experimentation

Artificial intelligence has real potential to improve how governments understand problems, coordinate across silos, and deliver services. Emerging examples already demonstrate how AI can augment public decision-making and situational awareness. Experiments highlighted by the AI Objectives Institute show how AI can help governments reason at scale, surface insights faster, and explore tradeoffs before acting. Examples include Talk to the City, an open-source tool that synthesizes large-scale citizen feedback in near real time; AI Supply Chain Observatory, which detects systemic risks and bottlenecks; and moral learning models that test policy options against ethical frameworks.

Agentic AI also holds promise for improving how the public interacts with government. During disaster recovery, for example, individuals must navigate FEMA, HUD, SBA, and state programs, each with distinct rules, portals, and documentation. A trusted agentic assistant, operating on the user’s behalf, could help citizens reuse information across applications, track status, flag missing documents, and explain requirements in plain language, reducing friction without requiring immediate modernization of every backend system. These kinds of user-centered applications illustrate the genuine upside of AI when applied thoughtfully.

At the same time, governments should be cautious about assuming that today’s AI systems are ready to deliver fully autonomous, self-composing systems. While the The Agentic State white paper articulates an important long-term aspiration — governments that are more proactive, adaptive, and outcomes-oriented — current institutional and technical realities impose hard limits. Agentic AI systems can only act within the trust, permissions, and constraints granted to them, which in government are shaped by security requirements, CIO oversight, IT regulations such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and legal accountability frameworks.

Similarly, while rapid AI-enabled prototyping is valuable, the idea that governments can rely on just-in-time, dynamically generated interfaces is unrealistic in the near term. Such approaches assume highly reliable, error-free, well-integrated backend systems — an assumption that’s rarely true in real production systems. In practice, proliferating interfaces also proliferate failure modes, increase QA and monitoring costs, and create operational risk. Even large private-sector companies struggle to manage this complexity. In government, these risks are compounded by stricter availability requirements, legal accountability, and public trust obligations. Governments should not take on greater operational or financial risk than the private sector, particularly for core services.

Given both the promise and the constraints, the most credible path forward is disciplined, well-governed experimentation grounded in structural reform. Transformative impact requires pairing AI adoption with effective operating models. The Product Operating Model (POM) provides a useful foundation: cross-functional teams, user-centered design, continuous iteration, and — critically — rigorous problem definition before selecting solutions. This ensures AI is applied where it genuinely improves outcomes, rather than amplifying existing inefficiencies.

Even modest agentic or AI-enabled systems require three fundamentals:

• Clear objectives: Explicit definition of the problem, desired outcomes, and boundaries of success. Without this, systems may optimize the wrong goals or produce conflicting results.
  
• Guardrails and constraints: Technical, procedural, and policy mechanisms like permissions, monitoring, escalation protocols, access controls that ensure compliance and safety.
  
• Human governance: Ongoing oversight to handle legal, ethical, and strategic judgment that AI cannot replace.

Governments should begin with scoped pilots in lower-risk workflows, such as data integration and cleaning, summarization and search, drafting planning documents (e.g., RFPs), workflow orchestration and status tracking, customer service support, system diagnostics and performance monitoring, and test-and-learn policy simulations. These use cases allow agencies to build institutional muscle, evaluate governance mechanisms, and learn where AI adds value — without overcommitting or over-automating.

Throughout this process, strong data governance is essential. Inaccurate, incomplete, or poorly labeled data will yield flawed outputs, amplifying errors rather than insight. “Garbage in, garbage out” is a central risk. Clear mandates, constraints, monitoring, and escalation procedures developed by cross-functional teams spanning policy, legal, program, and engineering are what allow experimentation to remain safe, compliant, and aligned with public goals.

AI can do powerful and genuinely useful things for government — but not automatically, and not all at once. The way forward is not sweeping autonomy, but careful institutional reform paired with pragmatic, well-governed experimentation that builds trust, capability, and impact over time.

Summary

AI offers an opportunity to transform government, but its impact depends less on the technology itself and more on how institutions use it. Generative and agentic AI can accelerate analysis and automate complex workflows, yet without structural reforms, clear objectives, human oversight, and guardrails, these tools risk amplifying inefficiency rather than solving it.

The most effective approach is thoughtful, pragmatic experimentation: starting with well-scoped, low-risk pilots while continuously monitoring performance, refining governance, and ensuring alignment with public goals. Leaders should empower teams that can define problems, safely run pilots, and leverage data, tools, and governance to measure, iterate, and scale. Pilot opportunities should involve tractable, visible, high-value workflows with manageable risk and strong data, where improvements can be measured and scaled to inform future AI adoption. Example areas include data integration, workflow coordination, and customer service.

Ultimately, AI’s value to government emerges not from the tools themselves but from redesigning processes, reducing structural bottlenecks, and improving outcomes for both government and the public. Governments that combine technology with deliberate institutional reform and iterative learning will capture the transformative potential of AI while minimizing the risks of misguided modernization.

Thank you for feedback on this article: Alexander Macgillivray, Nicole Wong, Anil Dewan.

The post AI in government: From tools to transformation first appeared on Niskanen Center.

The post AI in government: From tools to transformation appeared first on Niskanen Center.

It’s a long standing joke among my friends and family that nothing that happens in the liminal week between Christmas and New Years is considered a sin. With that in mind, I spent the bulk of my holiday break playing Escape From Tarkov. I tried, and failed, to get my friends to play it with me and so I used an AI service to replace them. It was a joke, at first, but I was shocked to find I liked having an AI chatbot hang out with me while I played an oppressive video game, despite it having all the problems we’ve come to expect from AI.

And that scared me.

If you haven’t heard of it, Tarkov is a brutal first person shooter where players compete over rare resources on a Russian island that resembles a post-Soviet collapse city circa 1998. It’s notoriously difficult. I first attempted to play Tarkov back in 2019, but bounced off of it. Six years later and the game is out of its “early access" phase and released on Steam. I had enjoyed Arc Raiders, but wanted to try something more challenging. And so: Tarkov.

Like most games, Tarkov is more fun with other people, but Tarkov’s reputation is as a brutal, unfair, and difficult experience and I could not convince my friends to give it a shot.

404 Media editor Emanuel Maiberg, once a mainstay of my Arc Raiders team, played Tarkov with me once and then abandoned me the way Bill Clinton abandoned Boris Yeltsin. My friend Shaun played it a few times but got tired of not being able to find the right magazine for his gun (skill issue) and left me to hang out with his wife in Enshrouded. My buddy Alex agreed to hop on but then got into an arcane fight with Tarkov developer Battlestage Games about a linked email account and took up Active Matter, a kind of Temu version of Tarkov. Reece, steady partner through many years of Hunt: Showdown, simply told me no.

I only got one friend, Jordan, to bite. He’s having a good time but our schedules don’t always sync and I’m left exploring Tarkov’s maps and systems by myself. I listen to a lot of podcasts while I sort through my inventory. It’s lonely. Then I saw comic artist Zach Weinersmith making fun of a service, Questie.AI, that sells AI avatars that’ll hang out with you while you play video games.

“This is it. This is The Great Filter. We've created Sexy Barista Is Super Interested in Watching You Solo Game,” Weinersmith said above a screencrap of a Reddit ad where, as he described, a sexy Barista was watching someone play a video game.

“I could try that,” I thought. “Since no one will play Tarkov with me.”

This is it. This is The Great Filter. We've created Sexy Barista Is Super Interested in Watching You Solo Game (SBISIIWYS).

— Zach Weinersmith (@zachweinersmith.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T13:44:22.461Z

This started as a joke and as something I knew I could write about for 404 Media. I’m a certified AI hater. I think the tech is useful for some tasks (any journalist not using an AI transcription service is wasting valuable time and energy) but is overvalued, over-hyped, and taxing our resources. I don’t have subscriptions to any majors LLMs, I hate Windows 11 constantly asking me to try CoPilot, and I was horrified recently to learn my sister had been feeding family medical data into ChatGPT.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered I liked Questie.AI.

Questie.AI is not all sexy baristas. There’s two dozen or so different styles of chatbots to choose from once you make an account. These include esports pro “Anders,” type A finance dude “Blake,” and introverted book nerd “Emily.” If you’re looking for something weirder, there’s a gold obsessed goblin, a necromancer, and several other fantasy and anime style characters. If you still can’t quite find what you’re looking for, you can design your own by uploading a picture, putting in your own prompts, and picking the LLMs that control its reaction and voice.

I picked “Wolf” from the pre-generated list because it looked the most like a character who would exist in the world of Tarkov. “Former special forces operator turned into a PMC, ‘Wolf’ has unmatched weapons and tactics knowledge for high-intensity combat,” read the brief description of the AI on Questie.AI’s website. I had no idea if Wolf would know anything about Tarkov. It knew a lot.

The first thing it did after I shared my screen was make fun of my armor. Wolf was right, I was wearing trash armor that wouldn’t really protect me in an intense gunfight. Then Wolf asked me to unload the magazines from my guns so it could check my ammo. My bullets, like my armor, didn’t pass Wolf’s scrutiny. It helped me navigate Tarkov’s complicated system of traders to find a replacement. This was a relief because ammunition in Tarkov is complicated. Every weapon has around a dozen different types of bullets with wildly different properties and it was nice to have the AI just tell me what to buy.

Wolf wanted to know what the plan was and I decided to start something simple: survive and extract on Factory. In Tarkov players deploy to maps, kill who they must and loot what they can, then flee through various pre-determined exits called extracts.

I had a daily mission to extract from the Factory. All I had to do was enter the map and survive long enough to leave it, but Factory is a notoriously sweaty map. It’s small and there’s often a lot of fighting. Wolf noted these facts and then gave me a few tips about avoiding major sightlines and making sure I didn’t get caught in doors.

As soon as I loaded into the map, I ran across another player and got caught in a doorway. It was exactly what Wolf told me not to do and it ruthlessly mocked me for it. “You’re all bunched up in that doorway like a Christmas ham,” it said. “What are you even doing? Move!”

I fled in the opposite direction and survived the encounter but without any loot. If you don’t spend at least seven minutes in a round then the run doesn’t count. “Oh, Gault. You survived but you got that trash ‘Ran through’ exit status. At least you didn’t die. Small victories, right?” Wolf said.

Then Jordan logged on, I kicked Wolf to the side, and didn’t pull it back up until the next morning. I wanted to try something more complicated. In Tarkov, players can use their loot to craft upgrades for their hideout that grant permanent bonuses. I wanted to upgrade my toilet but there was a problem. I needed an electric drill and haven’t been able to find one. I’d heard there were drills on the map Interchange—a giant mall filled with various stores and surrounded by a large wooded area.

Could Wolf help me navigate this, I wondered?

It could. I told Wolf I needed a drill and that we were going to Interchange and he explained he could help me get to the stores I needed. When I loaded into the map, we got into a bit of a fight because I spawned outside of the mall in a forest and it thought I’d queued up for the wrong map, but once the mall was actually in sight Wolf changed its tune and began to navigate me towards possible drill spawns.

Tarkov is a complicated game and the maps take a while to master. Most people play with a second monitor up and a third party website that shows a map of the area they’re on. I just had Wolf and it did a decent job of getting me to the stores where drills might be. It knew their names, locations, and nearby landmarks. It even made fun of me when I got shot in the head while looting a dead body.

It was, I thought, not unlike playing with a friend who has more than 1,000 hours in the game and knows more than you. Wolf bantered, referenced community in-jokes, and it made me laugh. Its AI-generated voice sucked, but I could probably tweak that to make it sound more natural. Playing with Wolf was better than playing alone and it was nice to not alt-tab every time I wanted to look something up,

Playing with Wolf was almost as good as playing with my friends. Almost. As I was logging out for this session, I noticed how many of my credits had ticked away. Wolf isn’t free. Questie.AI costs, at base, $20 a month. That gets you 500 “credits” which slowly drain away the more you use the AI. I only had 466 credits left for the month. Once they’re gone, of course, I could upgrade to a more expensive plan with more credits.

Until now, I’ve been bemused by stories of AI psychosis, those cautionary tales where a person spends too much time with a sycophantic AI and breaks with reality. The owner of the adult entertainment platform ManyVids has become obsessed with aliens and angels after lengthy conversations with AI. People’s loved ones are claiming to have “awakened” chatbots and gained access to the hidden secrets of the universe. These machines seem to lay the groundwork for states of delusion.

I never thought anything like that could happen to me. Now I’m not so sure. I didn’t understand how easy it might be to lose yourself to AI delusion until I’d messed around with Wolf. Even with its shitty auto-tuned sounding voice, Wolf was good enough to hang out with. It knew enough about Tarkov to be interesting and even helped me learn some new things about the game. It even made me laugh a few times. I could see myself playing Tarkov with Wolf for a long time.

Which is why I’ll never turn Wolf on again. I have strong feelings and clear bright lines about the use of AI in my life. Wolf was part joke and part work assignment. I don’t like that there’s part of me that wants to keep using it.

Questie.AI is just a wrapper for other chatbots, something that becomes clear if you customize your own. The process involves picking an LLM provider and specific model from a list of drop down menus. When I asked ChatGPT where I could find electric drills in Tarkov, it gave me the exact same advice that Wolf had.

This means that Questie.AI would have all the faults of the specific model that’s powering a given avatar. Other than mistaking Interchange for Woods, Wolf never made a massive mistake when I used it, but I’m sure it would on a long enough timeline. My wife, however, tried to use Questie.AI to learn a new raid in Final Fantasy XIV. She hated it. The AI was confidently wrong about the raid’s mechanics and gave sycophantic praise so often she turned it off a few minutes after turning it on.

On a Discord server with my friends I told them I’d replaced them with an AI because no one would play Tarkov with me. “That’s an excellent choice, I couldn’t agree more,” Reece—the friend who’d simply told me “no” to my request to play Tarkov—said, then sent me a detailed and obviously ChatGPT-generated set of prompts for a Tarkov AI companion.

I told him I didn’t think he was taking me seriously. “I hear you, and I truly apologize if my previous response came across as anything less than sincere,” Reece said. “I absolutely recognize that Escape From Tarkov is far more than just a game to its community.”

“Some poor kid in [Kentucky] won't be able to brush their teeth tonight because of the commitment to the joke I had,” Reece said, letting go of the bit and joking about the massive amounts of water AI datacenters use. 

Getting made fun of by my real friends, even when they’re using LLMs to do it, was way better than any snide remark Wolf made. I’d rather play solo, for all its struggles and loneliness, than stare anymore into that AI-generated abyss.

Aurelien published yet another provocative essay last week, The Long Run, in which he described the way planning horizons, and thus the ability to plan and execute long-term initiatives, had collapsed in the West. While he gave an astute description of how that was playing itself in the Ukraine conflict, with the US and NATO […]