that thing looks like it could take a nasty bite out of you, and looks too clever by half

 --- Correspondent Matt Bell in New Scientist, responding to a back page's question, "Why do seals have such cute faces?" 

Excerpt

However, I think I’d also take issue with calling seals “cute”. They also have traits that many people find threatening, because they are also commonly associated with large predators (which is what they are). I certainly find they veer more to the “that thing looks like it could take a nasty bite out of you, and looks too clever by half” side, rather that the “aww, cute water doggy, can I cuddle it” side.

Your AI is not a tool. It is an environment, and you are in it. . . . AI [is] a denial-of-service attack on the human psyche.

 --- L. M. Sacasas, in Your AI Is Not a Tool, The Convivial Society, Jun 2026

Excerpts

Your AI is not a tool. It is an environment, and you are in it.

...

While there appears to have been a shift in the last 15 years or so in popular assumptions about the purported neutrality of technology toward at least the suspicion that our devices, etc. are not, in fact, merely neutral instruments at our command but rather frustrate, resist, or otherwise evade uncomplicated mastery by their users, such that their users might be properly said to be used in turn by their devices, it is nonetheless true that the myth of technological neutrality remains broadly entrenched.

...

I confess that I am astounded by how blithely some insist that it is all as simple as learning to use AI well, as if we had not just undergone a nearly 20-year, society-wide experiment showing that a so-called “tool,” say a smartphone or a social media platform, will (mal)form even the most vigilant and virtuous user into its own image and shape. This is the blindness at the heart of modern technological hubris. It is the firm but misguided conviction that our “tools” exist entirely outside of us and thus, if taken up with requisite skill, can be “safely” deployed.

But AI is not a tool in this sense, it is an environment which envelops the user and works on us from the inside out while we naively think that we remain unchanged by our use so long as we are using it carefully and intentionally. The care and intentionality is beside the point, and our confidence in such vigilance probably works against us in the long run.

...

I can pick up a tool and put it down, but the environment absorbs me into itself.

...

This is partially why I have been playing with the idea that one way of framing AI is as a denial-of-service attack on the human psyche.

...

I’ll draw things to a close by posing the following thesis for your consideration: the best response to emerging technologies, perhaps especially AI, is not media literacy in a cognitivist mode. Rather, what is required is the training of our perception in an ascetical mode.

Conspiracy theories are a sort of storytelling device. It’s a way of making sense of things that seem random and seem difficult to tie together.

 --- Mark Fenster, quoted in New testimony in Epstein case could address persistent conspiracy theories, CSMonitor, May 2026

Excerpt

Such beliefs often endure because they pull at threads of truth, says Mark Fenster, a professor at the University of Florida who studies conspiracy theories. He says Mr. Epstein fits a common narrative about prominent people who abuse their influence. Reports about others involved with Mr. Epstein could fit that narrative as well, he says. “Conspiracy theories are a sort of storytelling device. It’s a way of making sense of things that seem random and seem difficult to tie together.”

die hartseer wat nooit huil word nie

 Anneliese Burgess, in ’n Slordige muisvoël met geel oë in die tyd van Groot Moeilikheid, Binne+Land, Jun 2026

Excerpt

Hulle was altyd swart, sommige dae duideliker gevorm as ander. As ek wakker word in die oggend. As ek wakker lê in die nag. Dáár iewers, op ’n telefoondraad in my kop. Altyd. Daar. Oomblikke van verontrusting afgewissel met ’n metastatiese onafwendbaarheid in my murg.

Branders. In en uit. En op die draai van elke gety, die hartseer wat nooit huil word nie. 

. . .  .

Ek leer dat voëls, as wesens wat tussn die aarde en die lug beweeg, gereeld as simbole verskyn.

Woorde is miskien te presies en daarom praat die psige in argetipes wat ouer is as taal. In jungiaanse sielkunde is hulle skade-simbole soos die verstand neig na natuurbeelde wanneer die onderbewuste iets probeer sigbaar maak. In amper elke mitologie ter wêreld dra voëls boodskappe tussen wêrelde: tussen die lewendes en die dooies, tussen die aarde en iets groters as die aarde. 

. . . . 

In argetipiese sielkunde word beelde nie weggeredeneer of na vaste betekenisse vertaal nie. Hulle moet gevolg, versorg en toegelaat word om hul diepte te openbaar. 'n Beeld is nie bloot 'n prentjie in die kop nie, maar 'n manier van ervaar en 'n manier van ken.

She goes on to quote Emily Dickinson

"Hope” is the thing with feathers – That perches in the soul