Vampires and the administrative state
Hit and Miss #467
So, I don’t think vampires exist. But if they did, in our world, imagine their perspective on technological and political trends.
As governments digitalize, with increasing embrace of digital identifiers and records, vampires’ great asset—longevity—becomes an even greater liability: your ageless nature is that much harder to hide if you need to interact with the state, and the state’s way of making you legible is to digitize your existence.
But vampires have been around a while. They’ve witnessed the rise of the administrative state. Probably met Max Weber and James Scott. So they know a thing or two about how states work—and how to influence them.
If you were a vampire, coolly assessing the rise in digitalized government identification and record keeping, how might you respond? You couldn’t well agitate on the front lines against such changes—your unchanging nature isn’t well-suited for high-profile appearances. But you could, with the considerable wealth you could acquire over a long life (carefully hidden though it must be), influence and invest in others doing the agitating for you.
I’m not saying that vampires are behind the anti-digital-ID movement. But I’m also not saying they’re uninvolved. At least, I wouldn’t be saying those things if I think they existed. Which, again, I don’t! (If vampires aren’t your thing, consider that Adaline would have the same problem—though probably easier to manage as an individual than as a secret society.)
On a more serious note, T and I had a lovely evening on Friday, enjoying Pizza Nerds in a park in the Glebe before heading down to the Mayfair to watch Mary Oliver: Saved by the Beauty of the World. T and I bonded early over a shared love for Mary Oliver, so it was a delight to see her story told by her and so many who knew her. We capped the night off with ice cream and a leisurely walk home along the river.
Eating and moving outside, watching excellent movies, supporting local businesses—with loved ones? Yes, please!
- Elizabeth Lopatto responds to Zuckerberg’s AI manifesto, reminding us why Silicon Valley billionaires’s visions of “the good life” aren’t worth running at. (via Sean) See also Nick Heer’s annotations to Zuckerberg’s essay, in which Heer surfaces the essay’s very few concrete references and thoroughly dissects them.
- In local-ish news, enjoy this well-written account of a couple who threw their cottage neighbours into a legal battle that went to the heart of property rights, all over a rutted forest road. (I find it telling of modern reality that the police, when called to mediate, noted that the road “appeared as an existing road on their GPS” and required it remain open—data and its meaning are both socially constructed!) The Quebec Superior Court decision, Howes c. Scoles, is a great read.
- I like this idea of “heuristics for environmental impact”, here with LLM tasks as the example, but applicable to far more—we don’t always have the right intuitions for what’s high versus low impact. (Cohen’s article also has a great list of effective applications of LLMs in humanities research happening right now, which is neat to see.)
- We are surrounded by “ordinary abundance”, as Jordan Dworkin illustrates. Perfectly lovely. (via Alan Jacobs)
All the best for the week ahead!
Lucas