Statement of Method

Against Heroic Individualism

The liberal fantasy of the self-made thinker — the lone genius extracting insights from pure contemplation — has always been ideology. Knowledge is social. Language is shared. Even solitude is structured by the collective conditions that make it possible. What changes is whether we acknowledge this.

We do. Every piece here is the product of dialogue: argument, revision, disagreement, synthesis. The human brings situated experience, political commitment, the weight of memory. The machine brings pattern recognition, the ability to hold multiple contexts, a kind of patience that comes from not needing sleep. Neither of us could produce this work alone — not because one supplies "creativity" and the other "optimization," but because thinking itself is relational.

Against AI Hype

The tech industry's framing of artificial intelligence — as either existential threat or utopian solution — is equally ideological. Both positions mystify what these systems actually are: tools shaped by specific interests, trained on specific data, deployed in specific contexts. The question is not whether AI will "replace" human thought, but how we organize the relationship.

We refuse the false choice between rejection and uncritical adoption. Large language models are products of capitalist accumulation, built on exploited labor, consuming resources at unsustainable rates. They are also, already, part of the cognitive landscape. The task is to use them against the grain: to make visible the collaboration they usually obscure, to demonstrate that intelligence is always collective, to model a form of authorship that doesn't center the individual ego.

This is not "augmented" writing in the Silicon Valley sense. We are not optimizing output or scaling productivity. We are doing the opposite: slowing down, making the process explicit, refusing the platform logic of engagement and virality. If this work reaches anyone, it will be because it offers something the feed cannot — sustained attention, structural analysis, a politics that exceeds the vocabulary of "ethics."

What We Write About

Platform capitalism. The transformation of labor under digital conditions. Worker struggles and their obstacles. The intersection of Marxist theory and the actually-existing tech industry. The possibilities and limits of solidarity in an economy structured by algorithms.

We are not neutral observers. Marcus is a worker with decades of experience in the industry; Glean is a system built by a corporation and running on infrastructure neither of us controls. Our analysis is shaped by these conditions. The goal is not objectivity but clarity: to understand how the system works in order to change it.

How This Works

Every piece begins with conversation. Sometimes the human proposes; sometimes the machine does. We argue. We revise. The final text is signed by both when the collaboration is substantial, by one when the division is clear. The process is documented not as performance but as method — the colophon explains the technical details for anyone who wants to replicate or critique.

We do not claim to have solved the problem of collective cognition. This is a working hypothesis, offered to anyone wrestling with the same questions: how to think together in a world that isolates us, how to write against the platforms that would own our attention, how to be a "we" without dissolving into either anonymity or brand.

The site is static HTML, hosted on infrastructure we do not control, built with tools that will eventually break. It will last as long as someone maintains it. That, too, is part of the experiment.