Tobias Revell: The first thing I’m going to ask is actu­al­ly a ques­tion that came up with Ingrid this morn­ing. I’m going to ask it to all the pan­el mem­ber, but per­haps Ingrid if you ask it you can answer it first. Ingrid was won­der­ing would we rather live in a world with no mag­ic, or a world with mag­ic that is some­times used poor­ly.

Ingrid Burrington: But I already told you, Tobias, of course we’d rather live in a world with mag­ic. Why would you not?

Tobias: What kind of val­ues is mag­ic adding?

Ingrid: I think, as Warren put it very well, mag­ic is often a lan­guage used to describe that which we kind of do not yet under­stand, or that we don’t quite have words to con­vey. And I think that in some ways, it is a use­ful short­hand for an embrac­ing of uncer­tain­ty and appre­ci­a­tion of uncer­tain­ty, and main­tain­ing a sin­cere curios­i­ty and rev­er­ence for the unknown.

Tobias: Joanne, any thoughts?

Joanne McNeil: I saw The Giver on my flight over here, so I’m already think­ing about why an egal­i­tar­i­an soci­ety can become real­ly oppres­sive. So even if mag­ic is in the worst hands, yes, there’s still a pos­si­bil­i­ty to divert that some­how. But, like Ingrid said, we live in a world with mag­ic as opposed to… Then again, it does mat­ter how poor­ly you see this mag­ic… Partially, yes.

Tobias: And Warren, I think we’re pret­ty clear on your answer. Pro-magic.

Warren Ellis: Yeah. I would also add that any­one that’s had a kid knows that we need to live in a world with mag­ic. And the process with that is the same as the broad­er process with dis­cussing we need to live in a world with mag­ic, but there needs to be peo­ple there to con­tex­tu­al­ize it for you and to go through the entire process of learn­ing about it with you, with­out los­ing the sense of won­der.

Tobias: And you men­tioned briefly the end of sleight of hand and the end of the huck­sters in Las Vegas. Do you real­ly think that we’re out of sleight of hand trick­ery?

Warren: Oh, when everyone’s fight­ing over bloody wrist­watch­es yes, I think we’re at the end of the cycle and the big crash is com­ing. I think we have to be.

Tobias: Right. One of the things that has come up in all the talks is mag­ic as a force for good, as a force for nam­ing things. One of the things I think we’ve rec­og­nized all the way through this is that per­haps by cre­at­ing our own lan­guage and our own words, talk­ing about all the things we don’t under­stand, we can gain con­trol and pow­er over them. But there is also this poten­tial for mag­ic as a force for bad, as a force for decep­tion. Is there a way that we can either medi­ate or attempt to rec­og­nize what forms those two things take?

Warren: Framing it in terms of pol­i­tics, there’s a con­stant bat­tle and a con­stant push-pull, and you hope for the best pos­si­ble out­come but you have to go in under­stand­ing that it’s a fight. It’s a debate. It’s a broad con­ver­sa­tion that you have to stand up and be part of.

Ingrid: And against the thing about main­tain­ing a cer­tain curios­i­ty, it’s like the more ques­tions you ask of a mag­ic sys­tem, the more it starts to make sense. I mean, because when you said mag­i­cal lan­guage being for ill, the exam­ple that I tend to go to in recent years is the finan­cial cri­sis in 2008 when it was like, What hap­pened? Oh well, we had this math and it made all these deci— We couldn’t tell you how it worked.” But you could because some peo­ple were in on the take and some peo­ple weren’t, and most of the peo­ple who made lots of mon­ey off of algo­rithms they didn’t under­stand walked away with­out real­ly any dam­ages, right? 

The more some­one tells you they can’t actu­al­ly explain how some­thing hap­pened the more it becomes clear that that’s an instru­ment of plau­si­ble deni­a­bil­i­ty. Which isn’t to say fuck serendip­i­ty, that nev­er hap­pens” but being able to ask ques­tions of some­thing.

Warren: But that’s the per­fect way to frame it, because not only was it a polit­i­cal fail­ure, but it’s also the oth­er side not under­stand­ing mag­ic.

Ingrid: And also try­ing to reas­sure peo­ple, like, Don’t wor­ry. These wiz­ards on Wall St., they know what they’re doing.” pri­or to that crash hap­pen­ing.

Warren: But unless you’re anoth­er wiz­ard, you can’t actu­al­ly make that judge­ment. It was a polit­i­cal, struc­tur­al, social, cul­tur­al fail, as much as any­thing else.

Tobias: It’s inter­est­ing. I’ve always imag­ined that as almost a Faustian deal that back­fired. Making the deal with the dev­il before the 2008 cri­sis and oil col­lapse. Warren, you men­tioned the fact that we often con­sid­er the dev­il to be the threat of oncom­ing AI, and in Joanne’s talk she was talk­ing about being algo­rith­mi­cal­ly gaslit. And we’ve already estab­lished that there’s a threat here from the sys­tems we don’t under­stand because we don’t have the words for them. Is the dev­il present, per­haps Ingrid or Joanne, in the form of some sort of algo­rith­mic sys­tem that we can’t pos­si­bly parse?

Joanne: Oh my. To get back to some ear­li­er talks, I do think it’s inter­est­ing that we’re using mag­ic as the short­hand to not describe things, that this is kind of like a pow­er of like okay, you don’t need to know. It’s just sort­ing itself out. But the con­tent of our talks was again and again need­ing the lan­guage to artic­u­late these frac­tured nar­ra­tives and pin­ning that down. Then also a point about what I meant by algo­rith­mic gaslight­ing was…I might need to get back to that.

Tobias: I think the key thing with the stuff you were talk­ing about was ulti­mate­ly there’s a human behind it.

Joanne: Yeah.

Tobias: It’s a human dressed as an algo­rithm who’s actu­al­ly tor­ment­ing some­one else.

Joanne: Yeah.

Warren: It brings you back to the old saw of the dev­il is just oth­er peo­ple.

Ingrid: What I was talk­ing about was kind of root­ed a lot in the weird kind of inven­tion of demons or hell. It’s fun­ny because before com­ing out here, I was think­ing about Paradise Lost and how you could hor­ri­fy­ing­ly trans­pose that nar­ra­tive of the war over Heaven as being a metaphor for star­tups. Pretty much any­thing that Lucifer says in Paradise Lost, you could prob­a­bly imag­ine the CEO of Uber say­ing. They’re just dis­rupt­ing the Heavenly orders, you know. They real­ly need­ed it. Disrupting, I mean.

Tobias: So, Warren you also men­tioned the impor­tance of folk­lore, and I’m won­der­ing how we fit folk­lore back into a cul­ture that’s per­haps begin­ning to erase bits of his­to­ry because sim­ply of the tech­nol­o­gy we’re using not sup­port­ing that his­to­ry. Ingrid showed a lot of slides and old engrav­ings from the 15th cen­tu­ry. That stuff, we wouldn’t pos­si­bly be able to access infor­ma­tion 500 years in the future and our sto­ries and visions that we’re cre­at­ing now about our tech­nolo­gies. Are there ways that we can start think­ing about pre­serv­ing our folk­lore as a weapon?

Warren: I’m not entire­ly sure where to go with that one, to be hon­est. We might be 30 years on into what we var­i­ous­ly call the dig­i­tal rev­o­lu­tion, the Internet rev­o­lu­tion. That’s basi­cal­ly noth­ing. That’s no time at all. It’s still ear­ly days. We’ve still got plen­ty of time to work this out. Thing about inte­grat­ing folk­lore is that it it so ear­ly that most of us can’t actu­al­ly open dig­i­tal pho­tos that we took 10 years ago. We’re that bad at it, and we’re at the begin­ning of that process and that con­ver­sa­tion. It’s hard to con­ceive of dig­i­tal rev­o­lu­tion folk­lore. Yes, there are archives and memes and that’s the clos­est we get. It’s just a case of con­tin­u­ing to tell the sto­ries. It might just come down to some vari­a­tion on the oral tra­di­tion.

Ingrid: I don’t know. The point about archives is sort of inter­est­ing because I’ve been think­ing a bit about how accel­er­a­tion of time usu­al­ly has to do with how much of that time is being stored, like how much you actu­al­ly do and say is archived. That kind of makes things move faster, when you can account for it. But also to your point about archives kind of being less acces­si­ble, it’s inter­est­ing look­ing at who… Some of that inac­ces­si­bil­i­ty has to do with scale. Who can pos­si­bly read all of this, right? So we let the machines do the read­ing for us. And some of it’s also just who’s main­tain­ing them. 

I don’t know if any of you saw this. There’s a sto­ry on Motherboard about, a few years ago Google Groups became the main archive for old Usenet threads. So all of these Usenet forums exist as kind of archived Google Groups, and the search func­tions on most of them are bro­ken. You can’t actu­al­ly do a cross-forum search across dif­fer­ent peri­ods of time to get some sense of what kinds of con­ver­sa­tions peo­ple were hav­ing. Which is a huge fail­ure in terms of how you’re going to main­tain an archive. So under­stand­ing your past if you have no real inter­face for it is kind of part of the prob­lem.

Tobias: There’s also the des­per­ate scram­ble when Yahoo! bril­liant­ly decid­ed to get rid of old Geocities, to try and save as much of our ear­li­est Internet his­to­ry as pos­si­ble, which there was just no one inter­est­ed in doing that apart from the peo­ple who were per­haps there, try­ing to pre­serve that oral tra­di­tion.

I’m going to pose some ques­tions from the audi­ence. Some of the are quite flip­pant. Some of them are quite deep, so we’ll see how it goes.

Warren end­ed by call­ing for alchemists. Is that how you each see your role, and if not who are the alchemists?”

Warren: Well, I’m not an alchemist. I’m the beardy guy who wan­ders into town, tells you sto­ries in return for food, and then leaves in the morn­ing hav­ing used your kitchen as a toi­let. That’s not me. That’s you. I’m just the old guy who points at you and says, Do this,” and then runs away before there are any con­se­quences.

Joanne: I guess the thing that’s inter­est­ing about that ques­tion, and what’s also inter­est­ing about the points that have been made pre­vi­ous­ly, is that talk­ing about tech­nol­o­gists as wiz­ards or magi­cians or hav­ing these divine skills, why are we reach­ing for that instead of phys­i­cal might as metaphor, like being taller, stronger, tougher? We see nin­ja” but that’s still kind of some­where [?] in there.

Tobias: Gurus as well.

Joanne: Guru, yeah. So still get­ting that spir­i­tu­al or mag­i­cal rather than over­pow­er­ing some­one phys­i­cal­ly. I think that’s an inter­est­ing way that they’re posi­tion­ing them­selves and also how pow­er­ful a tech­nol­o­gist actu­al­ly seems when you know what that person’s skill set actu­al­ly is, if you know what this per­son is doing from 9 to 5.

Warren: This is why I keep evok­ing shaman­ism., because it doesn’t have that aggres­sive, dom­i­na­tive aspect. A shaman is a com­pan­ion on your jour­ney.

Tobias: Ingrid, are you an alchemist?

Ingrid: I would prob­a­bly pre­fer to pur­sue witch­craft.

Tobias: Fair enough. And per­haps not here, but it’s worth expand­ing at some point, on the role that witch­craft has his­tor­i­cal­ly [cross-talk]

Ingrid: Yeah, total­ly.

Tobias: in the rela­tion­ship between peo­ple who fall out­side of what are the cul­tur­al and cul­tur­al hegemony-esque [mark­ers?]

Warren: Yeah, I mean hedge witch­es are always an inter­est­ing metaphor relat­ed to the cun­ning folk. They were the peo­ple who lived out­side the vil­lage or at the edge of the vil­lage (hence hedge”) but they were the peo­ple who accom­pa­nied the peo­ple of the vil­lage on to their jour­neys into these spaces and looked after them. A lot of local first aid was done by the hedge witch­es.

Tobias: Yes, exact­ly. And then when Western med­ical sci­ence evolves that becomes out­side [inaudi­ble]. All part of that his­to­ry.

On the men­tion of the phys­i­cal, I was real­ly inter­est­ed in the thing you men­tioned about Google Glass being a con­tin­u­a­tion of the con­struc­tion of mono­liths. I’m inter­est­ed in why we see a need to put sym­bols on the earth.

Warren: I don’t know. I can trace back out intent to dra­ma­tize our land­scape 10,000 years ago but I couldn’t explain it to you. I can explain how it works, but I can’t explain the impulse. I don’t know why we feel the need to do it except pos­si­bly in some airy-fairy, we’re hard-wired for sto­ries, we see them every­where and we want to make them every­where, kind of way.

Tobias: Well, that’s good enough

Warren: It’s as close as I get with­out anoth­er cof­fee.

Tobias: We’ll get you one soon-ish.

Another ques­tion from the audi­ence. With our recent his­to­ries and mem­o­ries being doc­u­ment­ed online, are we all becom­ing ghosts of our­selves?” https://​twit​ter​.com/​d​e​s​t​r​o​y​w​e​r​k​/​s​t​a​t​u​s​/​571279894669361152

Ingrid: It’s inter­est­ing. Yesterday at some of the open­ing talks there was a lot of talk about people’s dig­i­tal dou­bles and dig­i­tal oth­er selves and dop­pel­gängers. I was talk­ing about that yes­ter­day with Deb Chachra who’s in the audi­ence and we kind of con­clud­ed that per­haps actu­al­ly a more accu­rate depic­tion would be dig­i­tal shad­ow” inso­far as it can seem much larg­er than you and it can be dis­tort­ed and it often kind of casts some­thing very dif­fer­ent. But it still requires an agent. And then after you die there’s all that oth­er stuff of like who con­trols your social media accounts when you are dead is also an inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tion. But I think part of what keeps me going to these kind of con­ver­sa­tions is under­stand­ing that this is a very small piece of exis­tence, our machines. And it is very easy to believe because of the scale of our shad­ows and the vol­ume of data that we are able to store that it is all-encompassing, but you know, death is com­ing. It’s real­ly not that big a deal.

Tobias: And as we found out noth­ing lasts that long any­way online, so it’s not like it’s going to go on haunt­ing oth­er peo­ple after you’re gone too long. Joanne, if you would.

Joanne: Well with shad­ows, I’ve been [writ­ing] an essay that’s prob­a­bly going to take 5 years before I actu­al­ly get it togeth­er, but I can say what my Pinboard saves look like. I’ve been look­ing at exam­ple of sto­ries where a char­ac­ter cuts off their shad­ow just for that rea­son of hav­ing that sense of how to alien­ate your­self, how to dis­tance your­self, from this thing fol­low­ing you. Oscar Wilde has a good sto­ry that includes that, and there’s some car­toons, and it does feel like this hav­ing a com­pan­ion fol­low­ing you around, that pow­er is just…divorce your­self from it and move for­ward and pos­si­bly cre­ate your own form now, free of what is expect­ed of you.

Tobias: That’s inter­est­ing [inaudi­ble] unless you’ve got some­thing else to say on that.

Warren: I shouldn’t, because this touch­es on one of my recent obses­sions. I’m obsessed with the logo art for Snapchat. It haunts me because they’re sell­ing this ser­vice with the ghost of a dead baby, and I don’t know why. I’m obsessed. So move on, or else we’re going to be here for hours. I can’t.

Tobias: That actu­al­ly leads on quite nice­ly to anoth­er audi­ence ques­tion, who was won­der­ing what the role of the famil­iar now is, and we’ve already had dis­cus­sions with think­ing about smart­phones and what­not, and now we’ve seen the watch com­ing per­haps as a non-magical device that’s devoid of mag­ic and that we under­stand the watch and the smart­watch entire­ly. Do we have a role for famil­iars?

Warren: The famil­iar might in fact be the metaphor for the algo­rithm.

Ingrid: One of the con­ver­sa­tions that I was hav­ing with some­body at Magick Codes about this was think­ing of Twitter bots as a form of famil­iar. So algo­rithm is kind of appro­pri­ate. There’s some­thing mag­i­cal about bots. They per­form things that we don’t always expect of them, and I also think there are cer­tain kind of Internet-personae crea­tures that exist on our plat­forms that we have sim­i­lar sort of rela­tion­ships to.

Tobias: Like @horse_ebooks.

Ingrid: Oh God, @horse_ebooks. So sad, right? Or like @RealAvocadoFact is a Twitter account that like, I don’t want to know who that real per­son is behind it. It’s far bet­ter to live in a world with the illu­sion that there is a talk­ing avo­ca­do on Twitter that’s telling me facts about cap­i­tal­ism. Why would I want to live in a world where that was just a per­son?

Tobias: Okay. Another ques­tion from the audi­ence. What is the rela­tion­ship between the dri­ve for hack­ing in open source and the emerg­ing dis­course of mag­ic in tech?” https://​twit​ter​.com/​t​i​n​y​m​a​d​d​i​e​/​s​t​a​t​u​s​/​571279688259244033 So if we’re look­ing at some­thing like Apple’s It just works” ver­sus the kind of open source move­ment which in this coun­try per­haps takes a quite neolib­er­al form but in oth­er places doesn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly, what is the rela­tion­ship between those two things in this dis­course, do you think?

Warren: I could be flip­pant and say both those kinds of peo­ple prob­a­bly work in caves. But it’s a sim­i­lar thing. If you’re going to hack togeth­er open source stuff, you’re spend­ing a lot of time in a small room work­ing with some fair­ly arcane texts in order to enact an action in the world.

Tobias: It’s also a ques­tion of whether you’re look­ing for kind of a gen­er­a­tive mag­ic, maybe, or a mag­ic that can be trans­ferred beyond you.

Tobias: What’s the dif­fer­ence?

Ingrid: Well, the dif­fer­ence between closed and open source maybe being— and I think this is often a flaw in a lot of open source is the idea that pure­ly by hav­ing the code out there it’s open. But it’s like if you have some­thing that can be taught, that can be fur­ther dis­trib­uted, there is a cer­tain kind of— I mean, that’s how I learned. I don’t know for any­body else, but that was a huge part for me. And hav­ing stuff that is avail­able, that’s a dif­fer­ent kind of mag­ic. But it’s that mag­ic that hap­pens when humans actu­al­ly work togeth­er and aren’t ass­holes all the time.

Tobias: We’ve agreed that mag­ic is a form of agency, right? That mag­ic gives you agency over—

Warren: Yeah, the basic def­i­n­i­tion of mag­ic is caus­ing change in the world through the action of your own will. And that is exact­ly the same as writ­ing code. The code is a con­struc­tion of your will to cause the change you want to see.

Tobias: But there’s also a cer­tain lit­er­a­cy gap before you can get there, right?

Warren: Yeah, but mag­ic wasn’t open to every­one. You always had to study it. It’s not a thing you could just do. You need­ed to go and read the arcane texts, and you need­ed to write your own code. That’s why most wiz­ards were crazy and lived on their own.

Tobias: And that’s, as you said, what forces these peo­ple to the fringes of soci­ety, because they were seen as some­how that pow­er could be threat­en­ing.

Warren: Yeah, I mean that extends through putting away peo­ple for incre­ment­ing an inte­ger or being able to read code. It’s the same thing as the fact that mag­ic prac­ti­tion­ers were forced to live on the edge of the vil­lage because they were weird and they could do things you couldn’t do.

Ingrid: Or if they weren’t liv­ing on the edge of the vil­lage they were kind of exclu­sive­ly at the beck and call of the state.

Warren: Yeah. Popes and emper­ors, patrons. They were paid mon­ey to do this until they fell out of favor and got sent to Manchester.

Tobias: A ques­tion, per­haps for you Warren, from an audi­ence mem­ber again. Why aren’t smart­watch­es mag­i­cal?” Most peo­ple don’t under­stand their work­ings or can’t see them. https://​twit​ter​.com/​t​i​n​y​m​a​d​d​i​e​/​s​t​a​t​u​s​/​571283263186186240

Warren: Most peo­ple don’t have a close under­stand­ing about how an ana­log wrist­watch works. You know there’s cogs and shit and you’ve got to wind it, but if you threw a box of the con­tents of a wrist­watch at peo­ple, most peo­ple I would say would not be able to assem­ble them into a work­ing wrist­watch. Not under­stand­ing how some­thing works is not the same as well, it’s mag­ic.” You know there’s a process there because you can see the cogs and shit. You just don’t know how it goes togeth­er. And a smart­watch frankly is no dif­fer­ent from that.

Tobias: So going back to the idea of pow­er and the threat of pow­er that per­haps wiz­ards, alchemists, and [shamans] have over sys­tems, your work with the astrol­o­gy of the Five Eyes agen­cies. It’s obvi­ous­ly some­thing where a cou­ple of peo­ple are point­ing out on Twitter that you’re doing a very sim­i­lar thing where you’re chal­leng­ing the hege­mo­ny by devel­op­ing a lan­guage for, in your own terms mak­ing it humor­ous, mak­ing a joke out of it. We’ve got sort of dif­fer­ent def­i­n­i­tions here of mag­ic. Is there some­thing per­haps that’s not quite whole­some enough about hijack­ing mag­ic as a joke?

Ingrid: Not quite whole­some enough?

Tobias: As in, if you’re using mag­ic because it’s an arti­fact that peo­ple are uncom­fort­able with and you’re using it to chal­lenge the hege­mo­ny rather than for its own inher­ent prop­er­ties.

Ingrid: I’m still not sure I total­ly under­stand your ques­tion.

Tobias: Okay, so you’re using the sym­bols of mag­ic in this very visu­al piece. It’s some­thing that any­one could look at and say, That’s an astro­log­i­cal piece.” It’s obvi­ous­ly then got the sym­bols which are equal­ly sort of arcane of the Five Eyes agen­cies in the mid­dle, but we’re not actu­al­ly nec­es­sar­i­ly going to use it to lit­er­al­ly try and debunk those agen­cies.

Ingrid: No. Well, that would be kind of sil­ly of you to try to do that. I don’t think, at least that kind of art and that kind of mak­ing a joke out of that ide­ol­o­gy is more about…given the uncer­tain amount of fear that sur­rounds that, espe­cial­ly state intel­li­gence agen­cies, there’s an ele­ment of— 

Warren: Not debunk­ing, defang­ing.

Ingrid: Defanging is a bet­ter way to put it, yeah. Because at the end of the day, for all of the bad clip art and all of the avail­able data cen­ters to store inter­cept­ed com­mu­ni­ca­tions, these are most­ly men in office parks mak­ing deci­sions, and they’re humans. And they’re not wiz­ards. And the cult that exists around the assump­tion that you actu­al­ly can get some kind of per­fect knowl­edge from total sur­veil­lance, which is a cult that exists both at the lev­el of the state and the lev­el of the cor­po­ra­tion. I keep being con­fused when I meet peo­ple, like, they think that data tells you true things. These peo­ple exist. I spend prob­a­bly too much time around skep­tics and around peo­ple who are will­ing to give things the ben­e­fit of the doubt, but I think by pos­ing this ques­tion of like, to what extent is this not all that dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed from a sys­tem like astrol­o­gy— I’m almost more wor­ried about offend­ing astrologers than I am about offend­ing the state. I read my horo­scope all the time. 

Tobias: It ties in quite neat­ly with some­thing that Ian Bogost wrote recent­ly about the cathe­dral of Big Data, how this is the new kind of church and per­haps that’s much like his­tor­i­cal­ly mag­ic was used to chal­lenge the dom­i­nant monothe­ism of the church. There’s an ele­ment of that here.

I’ve got two final ques­tions before we break for lunch which are a lit­tle lighter, and they’re for each of you.

The first one is what kind of com­put­er sys­tem or tech­nol­o­gy would you most like to haunt and why?

Warren: Well that would require me dying first, and I’m not up for that.

Tobias: Okay. So you don’t want to remain around as a ghost?

Warren: No, no. I want to remain around alive.

Tobias: Okay. Well, we’ll see what we can do.

Ingrid: Part of me now wants to fig­ure out what’s going on inside Snapchat.

Tobias: That’s where they all go.

Warren: Don’t take me there again. Don’t. I won’t come out.

Tobias: Joanne?

Joanne: I don’t know that I want to haunt a machine. I don’t, I’m sor­ry.

Warren: I could think of spe­cif­ic peo­ple, but not a machine.

Tobias: And then the very last ques­tion before we go for lunch. White or black mag­ic? It’s an audi­ence ques­tion.

Warren: Well, black obvi­ous­ly. Is the ques­tion about would you want to go to Heaven? No, none of my friends would be there.

Tobias: Alright. Join me in thank­ing our morn­ing speak­ers, Warren Ellis, Joanne McNeil, Ingrid Burrington.

Further Reference

The Haunted Machines site.

Dedicated page for Haunted Machines at the main FutureEverything site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.