ReportWire

Tag: textoverlaycenterfullbleedgradient

  • My House Burned in the L.A. Fires. What Happens Now?

    [ad_1]

    She got horribly sick with bronchitis, surely from the air. My son wasn’t doing well, either, worried all the time. “Mom, do you think the dog will live to be a hundred?” he asked, meaning fourteen—his age—in human years. I said it was possible, if we took good care of her. He was quiet. “It’s so weird that things start to deteriorate as they get old.” Like what? I asked. “Like people,” he said. “Not stuff, actually. People.”

    One day, I got a call from FEMA. It started like this: “How are you surviving today, ma’am?” (Probably safer than “How are you doing?”) The government worker told me I was on the “total-destruction list.” That had an appealingly heavy-metal ring.

    Some insurers, heeding a call for mercy by the California insurance commissioner, waived the requirement for customers to submit an itemized list of everything they’d lost. Not ours. In order to fill out my “Total Loss Memory Book,” a spreadsheet sent by the public adjuster we hired to help us navigate our claim, I was going to have to get granular.

    I had videos of Hartzell on my phone, made after researching a fire-insurance story that I never wrote. (We have to wait for a big fire, I’d argued.) Now I used them to research my own life. In the clips, I seem impatient, like someone scanning a yard sale for bargains. I almost blow right past the wall in my bedroom where the baby pictures are: Billy holding our son’s six-month-old hand; our daughter’s round eyes and rosy face. Slow down, I want to scream, you won’t ever see this again. When the videos ended, I was bottomed out with despair. I had experienced this feeling once before, at twenty-five. A few weeks after my father died suddenly, I’d awakened from a dream in which he was alive. Just let me go back!

    Among the losses were the contents of the fireproof safe, which wasn’t actually fireproof; the documents inside were incinerated and the jewelry reduced to scorched fragments. I turned my attention to another missing item: a velvet-lined box containing my grandmother’s wedding silver. The youngest of her grandchildren, I was born two months after she died. I was the only one who never met her, and I have no idea how I ended up with it. I had rarely used the silver, but now I fixated on finding a way to retrieve it from the rubble.

    The pattern, Shell & Thread, was a Tiffany workhorse, introduced around the turn of the century. A line (the thread) traced the utensils’ edges; each handle bore a stylized scallop shell, the kind Venus was born on. The knife blades were rounded and symmetrical, more like tongue depressors than cutting tools. A fork in your hand felt profound, with a dull glow I remembered from setting the table on special occasions as a kid. The handles were monogrammed with my grandmother’s initials.

    The idea of her, as the gentlest being, had haunted my childhood. She was from Denver, and when I was in college my father built a cabin in the Rockies, near where she had spent summers. At family dinners there, he would mistily say her grace: “Thank you for the things we eat. Thank you for the birds that sing. Thank you for the wind that blows. Thank you, God, for everything.”

    These days, our family dinners consisted of takeout from a paper bag. But that prayer started coming back to me, a ghost whispering in my ear, trying to make me say thank you. I was mad at the wind. I was even mad, ludicrously, when an old friend wrote to say he’d “caught wind of” our situation. I had so much to do, but I was thinking about the grandmother I had never met. I was thinking that, even though I knew California people plunge their heirlooms in the pool when they evacuate, I had not. I’d let her wedding silver burn.

    At the beginning of March, we went back to the house as a family for the first time. With its animating force leaked out, it was corpse-like, caving. There was a dead crow in the street. My son stood alone and looked up at the sky where his room had been.

    After a few minutes, Billy took the kids to get breakfast; I stayed back with the two men we had hired to dig in the rubble. They had brought their own portable changing room, from which they emerged wearing white Tyvek suits, hard hats, and orange safety vests. I stood at the side of the pit. At my feet was a melted blue blob, the bird camera.

    Using shovels, the excavators turned over pieces of the house. Before long, one of them held up a piece of metal victoriously. It was part of a bronze casting of “The Three Graces,” by my relative Charles Cary Rumsey, a sculptor in the early twentieth century.

    The Graces, naked, entwined attendants of Venus, classically represent beauty, joy, and abundance. Here was a single grace, separated from her sisters. The bronze had blackened and grown florid with green and white spots. Headless, armless, her deep spinal canal resolving into a pear-shaped bum, she looked ready for a hot date with the Getty Bronze. She gave me hope for the silver.

    On my phone, I looked up the melting points of various metals. Gold, 1,945 degrees. Silver, 1,762. Bronze, 1,675. The diggers pulled up a pile of forks. I could see immediately by their swooping handles that they were from a Crate & Barrel set that we’d bought and regretted. The sideboard where we’d stashed them had evaporated. That was also where we kept my grandmother’s silver. I pictured it all together, buried under chunks of wall, waiting to be rescued. But after three hours the excavators had not found it, and I called off the dig.

    One of my friends moved back into her fire-damaged house as soon as the evacuation order lifted: single mom, two kids, no choice. Others, who had signed short-term leases well away from the burning mountains—West Hollywood, Playa Vista, the Valley, anywhere flat and far—began to return. Since the fire, I had thought periodically of Margaret, the woman with the long gray hair who lived in her car, and then one day I thought I saw her, near a Whole Foods in Santa Monica. I went back a few times, hoping to learn how she’d been managing, but I didn’t spot her again.

    In the first three months, my family moved ten times, from hotel to hotel to Airbnb. In March, we rented the home of a woman from my book group; we could stay for three months, until her kids came home from college and started summer jobs. Everyone asked us what we were doing, but we were still hovering, no plan. I got a trampoline from Sam’s Club and installed it in the borrowed yard. If we couldn’t land, we could at least jump.

    [ad_2]

    Dana Goodyear

    Source link

  • A.I. Is Coming for Culture

    [ad_1]

    I often wake up before dawn, ahead of my wife and kids, so that I can enjoy a little solitary time. I creep downstairs to the silent kitchen, drink a glass of water, and put in my AirPods. Then I choose some music, set up the coffee maker, and sit and listen while the coffee brews.

    It’s in this liminal state that my encounter with the algorithm begins. Groggily, I’ll scroll through some dad content on Reddit, or watch photography videos on YouTube, or check Apple News. From the kitchen island, my laptop beckons me to work, and I want to accept its invitation—but, if I’m not careful, I might watch every available clip of a movie I haven’t seen, or start an episode of “The Rookie,” an ABC police procedural about a middle-aged father who reinvents himself by joining the L.A.P.D. (I discovered the show on TikTok, probably because I’m demographically similar to its protagonist.) In the worst-case scenario, my kids wake up while I’m still scrolling, and I’ve squandered the hour I gave up sleep to secure.


    The Culture Industry: A Centenary Issue
    Subscribers get full access. Read the issue »

    If this sort of morning sounds familiar, it’s because, a couple of decades into the smartphone era, life’s rhythms and the algorithm’s have merged. We listen to podcasts while getting dressed and watch Netflix before bed. In between, there’s Bluesky on the bus, Spotify at the gym, Instagram at lunch, YouTube before dinner, X for toothbrushing, Pinterest for the insomniac hours. It’s a strange way to live. Algorithms are old—around 300 B.C., Euclid invented one for finding the greatest common divisor of two integers. They are, essentially, mathematical procedures for solving problems. We use them to coördinate physical things (like elevators) and bureaucratic things (like medical residencies). Did it make sense to treat unclaimed time as a problem? We’ve solved it algorithmically, and now have none.

    A feeling of overstimulation is one consequence of algorithmic life. Another is a certain jumbledness in our ideas. Why do we care about what we care about? Walking into your basement in the dark, you might stumble into a cobweb; one strain of philosophical thought holds that this is how caring works. We become ensnared by the possibilities that happen to present themselves as we live—we get caught in webs of care. You run into your elderly neighbor in the morning and, that night, wonder how he’s doing. Your middle schooler likes Chappell Roan, and soon you do, too. A single encounter with “The Fountainhead” at thirteen might make you a lifelong libertarian. Algorithmic culture taps into the casual randomness with which we apportion our care; it takes advantage of the fact that what we bump into today might obsess us tomorrow. Its webs, meanwhile, are woven by machines that are owned by corporations.

    I’ve long felt caught in my personal web, and have struggled to get out. Then, one morning last year, I started chatting with the A.I. system Claude in my predawn kitchen, in an experimental spirit. “I’m finally starting to make progress on the article I’m writing,” I typed on my phone while the coffee brewed.

    “Good morning!” the system replied. “That’s wonderful to hear—there’s nothing quite like that feeling when a piece you’ve been working on starts to come together. What’s the article about, and what helped you break through to this progress?”

    I didn’t answer. I had no desire, at that hour, or any hour, to let an A.I. act as a writing coach. But, having used my phone, I could now put it down. I sipped my coffee and began marking up an old draft.

    I kept chatting with Claude and ChatGPT in the mornings—not about my writing but about subjects that interested me. (Why are tariffs bad? What’s up with crime on the subway? Why is dark matter dark?) Instead of checking Apple News, I started asking Perplexity—an A.I.-based system for searching the web—“What’s going on in the world today?” In response, it reliably conjured a short news summary that was informative and unsolicitous, not unlike the section in The Economist headed “The World in Brief.” Sometimes I asked Perplexity follow-up questions, but more often I wasn’t tempted to read further. I picked up a book. It turned out that A.I. could be boring—a quality in technology that I’d missed.

    As it happened, around this time, the algorithmic internet—the world of Reddit, YouTube, X, and the like—had started losing its magnetism. In 2018, in New York, the journalist Max Read asked, “How much of the internet is fake?” He noted that a significant proportion of online traffic came from “bots masquerading as humans.” But now “A.I. slop” appeared to be taking over. Whole websites seemed to be written by A.I.; models were repetitively beautiful, their earrings oddly positioned; anecdotes posted to online forums, and the comments below them, had a chatbot cadence. One study found that more than half of the text on the web had been modified by A.I., and an increasing number of “influencers” look to be entirely A.I.-generated. Alert users were embracing “dead internet theory,” a once conspiratorial mind-set holding that the online world had become automated.

    In the 1950 book “The Human Use of Human Beings,” the computer scientist Norbert Wiener—the inventor of cybernetics, the study of how machines, bodies, and automated systems control themselves—argued that modern societies were run by means of messages. As these societies grew larger and more complex, he wrote, a greater amount of their affairs would depend upon “messages between man and machines, between machines and man, and between machine and machine.” Artificially intelligent machines can send and respond to messages much faster than we can, and in far greater volume—that’s one source of concern. But another is that, as they communicate in ways that are literal, or strange, or narrow-minded, or just plain wrong, we will incorporate their responses into our lives unthinkingly. Partly for this reason, Wiener later wrote, “the world of the future will be an ever more demanding struggle against the limitations of our intelligence, not a comfortable hammock in which we can lie down to be waited upon by our robot slaves.”

    The messages around us are changing, even writing themselves. From a certain angle, they seem to be silencing some of the algorithmically inflected human voices that have sought to influence and control us for the past couple of decades. In my kitchen, I enjoyed the quiet—and was unnerved by it. What will these new voices tell us? And how much space will be left in which we can speak?

    Recently, I strained my back putting up a giant twin-peaked back-yard tent, for my son Peter’s seventh-birthday party; as a result, I’ve been spending more time on the spin bike than in the weight room. One morning, after dropping Peter off at camp, I pedalled a virtual bike path around the shores of a Swiss lake while listening to Evan Ratliff’s podcast “Shell Game,” in which he uses an A.I. model to impersonate him on the phone. Even as our addiction to podcasts reflects our need to be consuming media at all times, they are islands of tranquility within the algorithmic ecosystem. I often listen to them while tidying. For short stints of effort, I rely on “Song Exploder,” “LensWork,” and “Happier with Gretchen Rubin”; when I have more to do, I listen to “Radiolab,” or “The Ezra Klein Show,” or Tyler Cowen’s “Conversations with Tyler.” I like the ideas, but also the company. Washing dishes is more fun with Gretchen and her screenwriter sister, Elizabeth, riding along.

    Podcasts thrive on emotional authenticity: a voice in your ear, three friends in a room. There have been a few experiments in fully automated podcasting—for a while, Perplexity published “Discover Daily,” which offered A.I.-generated “dives into tech, science, and culture”—but they’ve tended to be charmless and lacking in intellectual heft. “I take the most pride in finding and generating ideas,” Latif Nasser, a co-host of “Radiolab,” told me. A.I. is verboten in the “Radiolab” offices—using it would be “like crossing a picket line,” Nasser said—but he “will ask A.I., just out of curiosity, like, ‘O.K., pitch me five episodes.’ I’ll see what comes out, and the pitches are garbage.”

    “Youre not going to ask how I got the ship in the bottle”

    “You’re not going to ask how I got the ship in the bottle?”

    Cartoon by Roland High

    What if you furnish A.I. with your own good ideas, though? Perhaps they could be made real, through automated production. Last fall, I added a new podcast, “The Deep Dive,” to my rotation; I generated the episodes myself, using a Google system called NotebookLM. To create an episode, you upload documents into an online repository (a “notebook”) and click a button. Soon, a male-and-female podcasting duo is ready to discuss whatever you’ve uploaded, in convincing podcast voice. NotebookLM is meant to be a research tool, so, on my first try, I uploaded some scientific papers. The hosts’ artificial fascination wasn’t quite capable of eliciting my own. I had more success when I gave the A.I. a few chapters of a memoir I’m writing; it was fun to listen to the hosts’ “insights,” and initially gratifying to hear them respond positively. But I really hit the sweet spot when I tried creating podcasts based on articles I had written a long time ago, and to some extent forgotten.

    “That’s a huge question—it cuts right to the core,” one of the hosts said, discussing an essay I’d published several years before.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Rothman

    Source link