debate over whether AI-written or ghost-written op-eds gets to the aesthetics point I made in Tulsa and have been harping about on TMK and that others have made in one way or another. aesthetic and moral arguments against technology are pretty convincing and seductive in the moment, but sit at the lowest level of thinking about this technology. you have to articulate an opposition that will survive improvements in the technology. biometric surveillance opposition premised on racial bias was valid and made a lot of sense but the companies just went out and scanned faces of black & brown homeless to improve their capabilities and the argument fell to the wayside. what is the actual opposition? what is the opposition to what pervasive surveillance does to social relations and society at large? and what is the opposition to the proliferation of AI-generated text on a deeper level?