Mailbag #164
/Is AI going to destroy magic? With AI now able to generate convincing photos, videos, voices, predictions, is there a point where technology just flattens the mystery out of magic? I see so many videos online where I don’t know if what I’m seeing is real or not. I don’t see how magic thrives in this environment—IS
AI will destroy some magic. It will destroy magic online. But that was already destroyed, really. We haven't had magic online for a few years. We have exposure videos. The performers have to expose the trick. If they don't, people will just say, "That's AI" or "That's video editing." So the internet is dead as a platform for actual magic, but it's kinda been that way for a while.
Television is similarly dead. Will we ever see a Copperfield-style magic special again? (And by a "Copperfield-style" show, I don't mean Epstein in the front row clapping vigorously, I mean a large-scale magic special with pre-recorded tricks and illusions.) I kind of doubt it. Maybe if it was broadcast live you could generate some excitement.
But for those of us performing socially, I think the advent of AI content only helps us.
Why?
Think of 2010 (for example). At that time, the internet was a tool to expand human connection. You could talk to your friends all around the world. You could meet new people. Discover new communities. When you watched a video on YouTube, you knew you were getting to know a real person somewhere out there.
As the internet becomes more inhuman AI slop, it's becoming less useful as a source for connection.
An interactive, cooperative, human experience (which is what social magic is at its best) therefore becomes more valuable. It offers a type of connection that is now less accessible to us than it was 10 years ago when the internet was pervasive, but still mostly human.
Will there be some people who will be fully happy watching AI videos and jacking off to their AI girlfriend? Yeah, sure. But those aren’t the people I want to perform for anyway. The people I want to perform for are the ones who are actively seeking out human interactions. And the more artificial the online world becomes, the more that group will appreciate the experiences we can offer.
If Yigal Mesika can sue Craig Petty, then you definitely have a case against Magicfish and the Genii Forum for this shit.—MW
I'll save you a click. On the Genii Forum they're talking about Equivoque.
Someone linked to this post of mine as a style of Equivoque that they like.
Which garnered this response from "Magicfish."
Are we suppose to ignore the profane, vile allusion to explicit violent sexual self harm? Or is this part of what makes it your favourite? This - as well as his well documented other pedophilic, mysoginistic [sic], racist aggression have no place in entertaining the general public with magic. Shame on you for sharing it here.
What could he possibly be talking about? you ask.
Well, in the linked post on Equivoque, I talk about doing a Russian Roulette routine with one upright dildo in a series of paper bags that you plop your bare ass on one-by-one: Russian Poo-lette.
This is what he was referring to as "explicit violent sexual self harm."
So… wait… is he making a joke?
No, he's just a fucking imbecile trying to smear the site and reaching for whatever words feel dramatic enough.
You, dear reader, would probably hesitate before describing an obvious joke as a “vile allusion to explicit violent sexual self harm.” You might worry that anyone who actually read the post would conclude you lacked basic discernment. That’s because you have at least one functioning synapse in your brain.
To be clear, it doesn't seem like he has an issue if one were to put a spike through their hand. That's fine. But god forbid you put a dildo in your ass. That's SELF HARM. I'm guessing he would be shocked to learn millions of people "harm" themselves in this manner every day. And they manage to even derive some sick pleasure from it! I've heard of some people "harming" themselves in this way multiple times a night! Those poor tortured souls!
He follows this up by mentioning my "well documented other pedophilic, mysoginistic [sic], racist aggression."
Okay, sure.
Pedophilic? This one is almost refreshing. I’m more accustomed to criticism for spending too much time exposing pedophiles on this site. Is he suggesting I am one? Or that I’m too aggressive toward them? When an accusation is built entirely from bullshit, it’s hard to tell.
Mysoginistic [sic]? There are incels, like Magicfish, who have so little experience with women—and have such a distorted view of them—that they're completely incapable of understanding a fun, light-hearted, sexual relationship between adults. They fully don't understand flirting and banter. They don't have a healthy view of sex, so they see anything related to it as dirty and denigrating.
So if I write about a romantic encounter or hooking up with someone, the Magicfishes of the world assume there must have been something unseemly about it. They just don't have experiences with women where they didn’t feel unwanted or like the aggressor, so they can’t picture a playful interaction based on mutual attraction.
Similarly, if I parody a dumb chauvinist, he misses the parody. What we see as absurd, he sees as something uncomfortably close to his own worldview. So he lashes out thinking he’s a hero and not realizing he’s telling on himself for not recognizing the ridiculousness of what I’m saying.
It's okay. I don't expect a guy who removed the "gyn" from misogynist to have a great understanding of women.
Racist? This is where it fully collapses. You could say to yourself, "Well, Andy does occasionally talk shit about pedophiles. And I have read some posts where he talks about women." So you could maybe at least distort things I've said in your head to fit his interpretation. But the racist thing is pure invention.
To be fair, in my old blog I did go after racists. But I don't think he's distorting things I wrote 23 years ago. More likely, he simply added a third buzzword for dramatic symmetry.
That said, no, I won't be setting up a GoFundMe for my legal fees. Yes, it's blatant defamation. But whatever. It doesn’t really bother me.
As nice as it is when I hear of someone in magic that I respect who likes the site, I may like it even more when I hear about someone who doesn't like it and they turn out to be a total dullard.
In addition to not seeming super robust intellectually, he seems emotionally fragile too. "Shame on you for sharing it here." He says about someone sharing a link he willfully followed to a site he doesn’t like. Relax dude, it's going to be okay.
How could I, in good conscience, sue someone this delicate? I’d worry he might get overly distressed and commit some… self harm.
