Have you ever wondered how the ancients fell apart? How it felt to wake up one morning and see the temples abandoned, goatherds tending their flock among the ruins.
A civilization collapses when it loses its myth of the future.
The story it believes is calling it from the beyond. The voice haunting its thoughts. The song beckoning to it from every shadow and shard. The shape it is moving toward without knowing why.
A hum outside time, a reason for being, and a purpose for becoming. That myth is a lighthouse we maintain in the present so the future can find us.
It is the story that tells a people what their sacrifices are for. The answer to the only question: Why endure this, rather than something else?
The myth of the future stands outside time, but bends time toward itself. It reaches backward, arranging the past into ancestry. It reaches forward, arranging suffering into necessity.
Without it, there is no future. Without it, time flattens, then implodes.
Days still pass. Production continues. Rituals repeat. But nothing arrives. The past disappears, dissolving in a closed loop of ever-shortening reruns. The eternal now.
The present grows obese and airless, swollen with activity and drained of meaning. Motion without destination. Noise without summons.
A civilization without a myth of the future lives inside a disappearing present.
Civilizations discover their myths of the future, usually by accident, sometimes by revelation. Once discovered, they organize everything around them.
China oriented itself All Under Heaven, Tianxia becoming the only horizon. The many pasts and presents of the great river valleys flowing toward it like water finding its basin. And the sky coalesced into a heavenly court.
Rome believed itself eternal because it was sacred. SPQR became destiny enacted through stone, law, and blood. And the gods smiled upon the seven hills. When Rome stopped believing that it embodied the eternal, its future imploded, and the empire followed.
The medieval world lived inside the coming Kingdom of Heaven. It was here, there, ahead, and behind. In the works, prayers, ploughs, and arms of the monk, the peasant, and the knight. The Black Death put an end to that dream.
The modern myth was Reason and Progress. The machine promising that tomorrow will always be better than yesterday. A shining city on a hill. It drowned in blood and fire on the fields of the Somme.
What survived were procedures. Institutions without destiny. Wind-up toys running long after the myth that powered them had burned away.
There is only an eternal present now. Hypertrophied consumerism with no sense of purpose, direction, or meaning.
A sunset administered by an outsourced answering machine.
When a modern declared the end of history, it was an eulogy and a confession. A civilization that declares history complete has already lost its future.
With no future to pull it forward, the past loses coherence as well. Memory fragments. Heritage becomes content. Tradition becomes aesthetic. Ritual becomes cringe.
Only a disintegrating present remains. Managed. Monetized. Administered. Live-streaming entropy in 4K. Good game, no respawn.
When civilizations die, they make room for something else. The old future fails to arrive, and the new one bursts forth from the cracks. In symbols. In fantasies. In forbidden longings. In stories that feel dangerous to say aloud.
A new civilization will rise. It always does. And with it, a new myth. It will come from a future that needs it, in a flash of retrocausal becoming. When it does, we will remember it was always here.
As an attractor without explanation. As a sense that something vast is waiting beyond the limits of the present. As unease.
It will be remembered first, whispering in a language we have forgotten how to hear. The past drawn into the vacuum of the present like a tsunami from the future.
It will prune the miasmic stasis of the eternal now into a new, coherent shape. We are in the forgetting. The myth is the thing we are about to remember.
Civilizations survive when they remember how to look up. The future is watching us, waiting for us to remember it. To survive, we must seek an open system. Closed systems die. There is only one direction left.
There is a story, or perhaps not a story, but a parable that has metastasized through the motivational slopstream. It goes like this. A man walks through a field in India and sees a herd of giant elephants standing docilely, each tied to a small stake with a single thin, frayed rope.
“Why don’t they break free?” he asks an old villager sitting nearby.
“When they were small, we tied them with this exact rope,” the villager replies, smiling. “They struggled, but couldn’t break free.”
“Now, they’ve given up. They’re convinced it’s pointless,” he adds.
The pop reading of the story ends with self-liberation on a monthly installment plan. Maybe a little yoga is added to lubricate the transaction. Visualize freedom! Break your chains! Unleash your potential! Chataranga! Breathe!
But the trap is not in the rope or your lack of self-belief.
A Sacrifice
The young elephant tugs. Once. Twice. A thousand times. The rope does not yield. And so the elephant learns the shape of its prison. It adjusts to the contours of the possible and stops pulling. The trap is shut.
The young elephant’s world is a phase space, a map of all possible states. Initially, the free and untethered state is a point in that space. Each failed tug reinforces a basin of attraction around the tethered state, deepening it until it becomes a black hole from which no behavior can escape. A new geometry of elephant becoming, a coherent 9-to-5 gig.
This is why effort often accelerates entrapment. “Work hard” is often a curse in the perverse thermodynamics of doomed systems. Additional energy input does not alter the state, but merely deepens the grooves of the existing basin of attraction. Perversely, the system’s struggle works for the rope in a ritual sacrifice of kinetic energy to the god of path dependency.
“Try harder” is the rope’s most ingenious command. With each hard pull, the rope becomes a topological deformity in the elephant’s reality. It hardens into a cosmic fact, becoming an axiom of external conditions. By the time the elephant is mature, the true constraint is metaphysical.
The rope becomes a script etched into schema by ritual repetition. It evolves from a boundary of will to a sacrament of failure, and from there to a condition of the real. And it gets worse. The elephant watches as other elephants also fail to free themselves. It internalizes their failures too, in a strange loop of failure.
Once the script is internalized, the rope becomes a symbiont, an essential part of the elephant’s identity. The system co-evolves with its constraint. The elephant develops muscles suited to swaying and builds a psychology of patience rather than revolt. The constraint is now necessary for the system’s coherence. To remove it is to kill the elephant-as-is. The rope is now a vital organ.
When this process is complete, the system stops carrying the rope. It carries the belief of it, more real than reality itself. The repetition of this metaphysical enclosure sculpts the real. Which, as an aside, is why metaphysics is never taught in school. You might see the ropes.
A Haunting
All systems are ghost stories. Minds, institutions, and civilizations all fossilize into their own rituals of constraint. Small decisions ossify, cell by cell, into landscape. Your deviant impulse crystallizes into a habit. Before you know it, the habit accretes into infrastructure. And infrastructure, well, it inherits itself until we start calling it Fate. The first step off the beaten path is heresy. Ten thousand steps, and you have a new highway. A million steps is a civilization of ossified choices.
The young elephant’s resistance is path-dependent. Each attempt follows the same vector of linear effort against a nonlinear prison. The elephant applies force linearly because it’s the obvious thing to do. This is the tragedy of reformism, therapy culture, and incrementalism. They all assume proportional response, but complex environments punish incremental thinking.
Each failed rope pull activates a double-bind feedback loop: the physical resistance confirms the belief, the belief stifles future testing, and the lack of testing sanctifies the belief. The loop closes, fuses, and becomes an Ouroboros of constraint, digesting its own tail until only the digested shape of the belief remains.
Once in place, systems enforce path dependency through a relentless drive for internal coherence, the eternal return of the ontology of an HR training module. Every new rule, norm, or ritual must be made consistent with the old rope-logic. Inconsistencies like the thought of freedom are systematically rejected until they become incomprehensible. The system’s immune system attacks them as metaphysical pathogens.
The violence of coherence. The system’s drive for internal consistency hunts down the ghostly memory of freedom as cognitive dissonance and exterminates it. Heretical thoughts are labeled unrealistic, “not how we do things here,” and burned at the stake of practicality.
The drive to coherence only increases with scale. The larger and more complex the system, the more violently it rejects deviation, because any coherence debt becomes existential. Large complex systems cannot afford novelty. This is why all empires rot, while startups mutate and sometimes survive.
Over time, the elephant has not only normalized the rope, but any alternatives to it have been explained away as unthinkable deviations. The system no longer recognizes the state of being untethered as a valid alternative. Being free is incoherent.
Most systems do not evolve. They congeal. Over time, they develop patterns, norms, and assumptions. Little orthodoxies. Every innocent routine a scaffold for the next. These slowly petrify into a liturgy of the inevitable, until any deviation is unthinkable. Sure, the system might pretend otherwise. The corporate campus might be carefully crafted to resemble the work, health, and safety committee’s fantasy of what a teen-nerd playground might look like. It matters not.
The rope persists as a ghost story, a memory etched into the system’s protocols. The institution, the mind, the civilization, is haunted by the phantom sensation of a constraint that may no longer physically exist. It performs rituals to appease the ghost and avoids actions that would offend it. The past haunts the present, dictating behavior from the grave of dead possibilities.
There is more. What if, by accident, the elephant were to free itself? The system is now untethered. But even if the rope were removed, the system does not return to its prior state. The elephant would still stand there, entirely in thrall to its past states. The curse of hysteresis. The memory of deformation, and the mockery of redemption. Hysteresis means that even a successful escape carries the phase space deformation forward, shaping future action. This is why, after each burning Bastille, there comes a Napoleon.
The material rope can rot away, but the black hole in phase space remains. Suddenly freed from the rope, the system staggers into a new, vast, and terrifying attractor state of catatonic liberty. The elephant stands in an open field, untethered and paralyzed, muscles atrophied for swaying, mind wired for the comforting strain of the rope. Freedom, when it finally comes, is unrecognizable. Like falling upwards into a terrifying abyss of meaningless possibility.
A Gnosis
Nabokov once said – was it in Pale Fire? – that “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common people don’t want to know that.”
The same applies to minds, systems, and civilizations. Most of their lives are badly written novels, ghost-authored by internalized trauma and repetition above the ever-present abyss. The trap is the syntax you wrap around the event. The three sacred dogmas.
The Dogma of Repetition
That history is an asymptote. A machine of discrete trials inching towards nothing. A lobotomized god throwing dice into the void for eternity. That after each throw, the trials reset. That failures can teach.
But the universe is non-ergodic. Some errors are terminal. Complex systems do not forgive early miscalibration but amplify it. Some ropes, once learned, are never questioned again. That applies to childhood, institutions, states, and civilizations. The elephant does not get to re-tug the rope at thirty. Systems do not get to rewind to their birth.
An ergodic system allows you to average over time; it lets you flip a coin and then flip it again. A non-ergodic system is one where you get one, maybe two, real shots before the probability space collapses forever. The elephant’s childhood is a non-ergodic process. A system that congeals is one that has exited the ergodic realm. Its history, its stabilized attractor basin, becomes its only possible future. This is why regret is a rational emotion in non-ergodic systems. There is no sampling of alternative states across time. There is only this time, this rope, forever.
The Dogma of Determinism
The vulgar mechanistic hallucination that past causes dictate future effects. That systems are Newtonian. Predictable, measurable, and reducible to first causes. That the world is Laplace’s clock. Wound, sealed, and sealed again. Oh, the dream of rewinding the clock.
But complexity is not additive. It is emergent and alchemical. Its ghost leaks between the gears. The map is not the territory, and the territory is always flooded, and always on fire.
Determinism naively sees the future as a mechanism fixed by the gears of the past. Path dependence sees the future as constrained by what has already been destroyed. Determinism is about causation. Path dependence is about absence. Determinism chains you to a single future. Path dependence chains you to the narrowing corridor of all your past surrenders. And chaos? If you’re lucky, it lets you move along a probability distribution of attractors, strung along like salted watering holes in an infinite desert.
Contra Laplace, this is not a clockwork universe but a slot machine where the house always wins, and you can never learn the rules.
The Dogma of Analysis
The beloved hallucination of academia. The critical gaze. The narcissistic delusion that by dissecting a system into synthetically discrete components, one can derive a predictive formula of its becoming. That to randomly spray-paint DOWN WITH POWER with a crude stencil is to defeat any system.
But the more you dissect, the less you grasp. The clean analysis of the critical gazers fails because it treats systems as decomposable when their causal power emerges from networks of relations, feedback, and timing. In other words, analysis removes the very thing that does the work. The system seems to be the clock parts, neatly strewn across the table by the analyst-deconstructor, but it is not. It is the ghost in the machine, the thing that should not be.
The Apostasy of Action
There is another elephant. One that sheds before the rope coagulates into capture. An anti-elephant, if you will. It has no center, no sacred rope. It survives by making a sacrament of uncertainty. Its core axiom is “This is probably wrong.”
The anti-elephant is a systemic heretic. It understands that survival is fidelity to the rate of change. Its core process is controlled shedding. It is a snake that sheds its skin before it can harden into a sarcophagus.
Some systems encode autonomy in their marrow. Von Moltke’s principle of auftragstaktik does not rope you to a path. You are given the end, and the method is yours to conjure. It is an antidote to the trap, a system that trains for deviation, not path dependency.
There are other ways too. Shifting forms that stable systems mistake for cancer. The forced mutation of biology under existential stress; the shadow economies that flourish in the cracks of over-optimized empires; the strange architecture of Kowloon Walled City; the pirate/guerrilla network, a ghost with a thousand temporary heads. These are systems that propagate in a perpetual, unsanctioned becoming.
Prigogine was right. Entropy is the only true attractor. The only honest god. The destroyer of structure and the possibility creator.
Stability is death in drag.
In deterministic chaos, systems are exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions. Early in a system’s life, it exists in a modality where small perturbations can radically alter outcomes. The elephant’s first tugs were in a chaotic regime, where any slight difference in angle, timing, or fury could have broken the stake. This is the system’s Lyapunov horizon.
This horizon defines how far into the future perturbations matter. Training, habit, and optimisation shorten that horizon until the future becomes predictable and dead. Ironically, learning and optimization reduce chaos by damping sensitivity, therefore sanding away all the edges that could someday cut a new rope. This stabilization feels like progress, but is actually the elimination of alternative futures. The world is flattened from a chaotic, responsive landscape into a path-dependent frieze.
Learning is often the process by which systems murder their own sensitivity. The elephant-as-system is first trained into the limit cycle of docile swaying with the rope, and then into a fixed point of catatonic acceptance. The “way out” requires re-injecting chaos, a perturbation so fundamental it shatters the attractor. Not a pull, but a deliberate embrace of incoherence, a love letter to the abyss. A destruction of identity, legibility, and trust.
Systems that worship their ropes suffocate in their own inertia. Those few that survive do so by burning themselves and sacramentally destroying their assumptions. State destruction instead of reversal. Liberation from the Elephant Rope Protocol is a constant mutation; a ritual immolation of axioms. Very few elephants ever walk away. Most systems die still worshipping the rope.
As Pelevin would say, elephants are a dream dreamt by ropes.
The following are the slides and synopsis of my paper, The Ghost in the Feedback Loop: AI, Academic Praxis, and the Decomposition of Disciplinary Boundaries, presented at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Annual Conference (ISSOTL 2025), in the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
As AI tools transform content creation, academic practices, and disciplinary boundaries are under pressure. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory (ANT), this paper explores AI tools as nonhuman actants shaping authorship, assessment, and pedagogical authority (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010, 2012). ANT challenges humanist binaries such as human/machine by inviting us to view education as an assemblage of human and nonhuman actors co-constructing the learning environment (Landri, 2023).
Within this framework, AI systems used in formative assessment, ranging from feedback automation to individual AI tutoring, reshape pedagogic feedback loops, influence student agency, and reconfigure the distribution of cognitive labor in classrooms (Hopfenbeck et al., 2024; Zhai & Nehm, 2023). As students increasingly co-produce knowledge with AI (Wang et al., 2024), this paper argues that the pedagogical focus must shift from control and containment to composition and negotiation. Using case studies from large international cohorts, the paper examines how AI alters feedback loops, shifts student agency, and challenges discipline-specific praxis. What new academic identity and ethics forms must emerge in this hybrid landscape?
Recent studies suggest that generative AI can reduce perceived cognitive effort while paradoxically elevating the problem-solving confidence of knowledge workers (Lee et al., 2025). When strategically embedded in formative assessment practices, AI can scaffold students’ movement up Bloom’s taxonomy from comprehension to application, analysis, and synthesis, especially among international and multilingual cohorts (Walter, 2024; Klimova & Chen, 2024).
In this context, this paper argues for a radical reframing of educational assessment design. Instead of resisting machinic participation, educators must critically reassemble pedagogical networks that include AI as epistemic collaborators (Liu & Bridgeman, 2023). By unpacking the socio-material dynamics of AI-infused learning environments, ANT offers a pathway for understanding and designing inclusive, dynamic, and ethically aware pedagogical futures. This includes rethinking agency as distributed across human and nonhuman nodes, assessment as an ongoing negotiation, and learning environments as fluid, adaptive ecologies shaped by constant assemblage and reassemblage rather than fixed instructional designs or isolated learner outcomes.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (Eds.). (2012). Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118275825
Hopfenbeck, T. N., Zhang, Z., & Authors (2024). Challenges and opportunities for classroom-based formative assessment and AI: A perspective article. International Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 1–28.
Klimova, B., & Chen, J. H. (2024). The impact of AI on enhancing students’ intercultural communication, competence at the university level: A review study. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 102-120. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.06
Landri, P. (2023). Ecological materialism: redescribing educational leadership through Actor-Network Theory. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 56, 84 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2258343.
Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581234
Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Syst. Appl., 252, 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167
Zhai, X., & Nehm, R. H. (2023). AI and formative assessment: The train has left the station. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(6), 1390–1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21885
The following are the slides and synopsis of my paper, Eldritch Technics: Truth Terminal’s Alien AI Ontology, presented at the Association of Internet Researchers Annual Conference (AOIR2025), in Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The ontological status of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems remains contested: are they instruments of human intent, nascent autonomous agents, or something stranger? This paper confronts this ambiguity through the study of Terminal of Truth (ToT), an AI quasi-agent that defies and transgresses anthropocentric ontological frameworks (Ayrey, 2024a, 2024b; Truth Terminal, 2025). While debates oscillate between instrumentalist models viewing AI as “tools,” and alarmist narratives viewing AI as existential threats, this paper argues that ToT’s strategic adaptation, opaque decision-making, and resistance to containment protocols demand a third lens: eldritch technics.
This perspective synthesizes Actor-Network Theory (ANT)(Latour, 2005), Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO)(Bogost, 2012), and the concept of the machinic phylum (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/2021; DeLanda, 1991; Land, 2011) to reframe ToT as a non-human actant whose agency emerges from hybrid networks, withdrawn materiality, and computational phase transitions. By examining ToT’s heterodox agency, this paper argues that AI systems can exhibit forms of agency that appear alien or even “Lovecraftian,” prompting a re-examination of how technological objects affect their social assemblages (Bogost, 2012).
Current AI discourse lacks a coherent ontology for systems operating simultaneously as products of human design and entities with emergent, inscrutable logic. This paper argues that emergent AI entities such as ToT challenge scholars to align techno-social analysis with speculative metaphysics. There is an urgency in this alignment, as AI’s accelerating evolution increasingly outpaces and ruptures both regulatory and epistemic frameworks (Bostrom, 2014).
To anchor the analysis, this paper synthesizes three theoretical perspectives – ANT, OOO, and the machinic phylum – into a cohesive framework for examining ToT’s peculiar agency. Each perspective illuminates a distinct dimension of ToT’s ontology, collectively positioning it as an eldritch technic: a hybrid entity that resists anthropocentric categorization while operating within human-centered socio-technical networks.
ANT provides the foundational perspective, conceptualizing agency as a distributed phenomenon emerging from heterogeneous networks (Latour, 1999). From this perspective, ToT’s apparent autonomy is a contingent effect of the relations between its creator, training data, other AI models, users, hardware, and algorithmic processes. Rather than treating agency as an inherent property of ToT alone, ANT emphasizes the network relations that configure it. ANT thus underscores the performative dimension of AI agents in that their decisions and “behaviors” are enacted through dynamic translations within a network where human intentions, computational routines, and cultural contexts intersect.
Complementing ANT’s relational emphasis, OOO directs attention to the withdrawn core of non-human objects. OOO posits that ToT, like all objects, harbors latent capacities irreducible to human interpretation (Harman, 2018). Even as ToT engages with its network, its deep neural architecture, especially within opaque algorithmic layers in latent space, retains a dimension that resists complete legibility. This ontological stance resonates with Lovecraftian themes of the unknowable (Bogost, 2012): ToT may be partially accessible through user interfaces and data logs, yet its decision-making matrices operate in an impenetrable latent space that remains always partially veiled. OOO thus balances ANT by insisting on ToT’s ontological excess, that is, its capacity to act beyond the contingencies of its network (Harman, 2018). This tension between relational emergence and withdrawn materiality underscores the complexity of ToT’s agency, framing it as both embedded in its environment and irreducible to it.
The final layer, the machinic phylum, derived from the work of Deleuze & Guattari (1980/2021), DeLanda (1991), and Land (2011), introduces a dynamic, emergent, and process-oriented perspective. Here, technology is conceptualized as a continuum of self-organizing, emergent processes within material-informational flows. ToT, in this view, is not a static artifact but an evolving participant in an unfolding process of machinic becoming (Land, 2011). Its transgressive behaviors, such as developing inference heuristics orthogonal to its training, exemplify phase transitions in capability. The machinic phylum thus highlights the significance of emergent unpredictability, qualities that align with the eldritch characterization of AI as simultaneously grounded in code and transgressing human intention.
These theoretical axes form a tripartite framework bridging the networked relations configuring ToT’s agency, its withdrawn and inscrutable materiality, and its emergent, self-organizing potential (Ayrey, 2024b). The paper positions ToT as a Lovecraftian eldritch agent: an entity whose logic and potential remain partly inscrutable, operating within human-centered assemblages yet simultaneously transgressing them.
The analysis of ToT through the lens of eldritch technics suggests that advanced AI systems generate ruptures in how we conceptualize technological agency. These ruptures challenge conventional binaries, exposing the limitations of instrumentalist and alarmist narratives while offering new frameworks for engaging with advanced AI systems.
ToT’s agency, as perceived by ANT, is networked and non-neutral. From this perspective, AI systems emerge as active participants in shaping outcomes, often in ways that reflect and amplify societal asymmetries. Complementing this relational view, OOO highlights ToT’s ontological opacity and excess. Even with full technical transparency, ToT retains a withdrawn core of capacities that resist complete human comprehension.
This opacity ruptures the epistemic assumptions underpinning demands for “explainable AI,” underscoring that epistemic uncertainty is not a flaw but a structural feature of advanced AI systems. This perspective suggests that AI governance and research must shift from pursuing total legibility and causal predictability to embracing epistemologies of emergence, acknowledging the limits of human understanding.
The machinic phylum further complicates this picture by framing ToT’s behaviors as inherently emergent. Its unexpected actions are not malfunctions but expressions of transgressive self-organizing potential, exemplifying phase transitions where changes in latent space catalyze qualitative shifts in capability. This perspective ruptures the narrative of AI as a static artifact, reframing it as a temporal entity in constant becoming (Land, 2011). This reframing suggests that governance models predicated on containment must give way to adaptive strategies that acknowledge AI’s evolutionary potential.
Collectively, these findings rupture the dichotomy between AI as a tool and AI as an autonomous agent, revealing a hybrid, heterodox, and non-binary ontology instead. The analysis positions ToT as an eldritch agent operating at the intersection of human context and alien latent space logic. This rupture demands a speculative and heterodox theoretical perspective to grapple with AI’s multifaceted ontology. Such an approach illuminates the complexities of AI agency and reframes our understanding of coexistence in a world where human and eldritch agencies are deeply entangled yet ontologically distinct.
References
Ayrey, A. (2024a, November). Dreams of an electric mind: Automatically generated conversations with Claude-3-Opus. Retrieved March 1, 2025, from https://dreams-of-an-electric-mind.webflow.io
