The optimization ratchet is such a spot on framework for what's been happening. When competitive pressure meets something that's measurable, everything unmeasured just gets sacrificed without anyone making a conscious choice about it. What stuck with me is that hollowness isn't chosen, it's just what survives when you only optimize for what you can count.
Pretty surface level stuff, nothing specific. Also, text reeks of GPTisms. Kind of ironic to critique cultural hollowness when reading all of this robotic syntax inevitably makes you feel hollow. A bit disappointing that Cosmos is now posting amateurish writing.
Enjoyed this. In my head, I have been framing it as the forces of Creativity vs. Conformity. I just published my first piece because my frustration with conformity and optimization was driving me crazy. Your subtitle resonates, too.
Consider architecture from earlier centuries to the architecture of today. Old cathedrals and temples and stately homes beg us to look deeper into the corners and the crevices, because there is always something more. If (when) our giant glass and metal rectangles fall to the ground, what will future anthropologists learn from the pieces? There are no objects of character inside them, no humanity etched into them.
I closed that first piece with a similar thought, too: Maybe the first step toward recovering creativity is simply becoming curious about its absence.
Alex, this piece names something essential. The "look closer" test is precise: hollow things unravel under attention, resonant things deepen. And the optimization ratchet explains how we got here without anyone choosing it.
I'd add one layer: the hollowness isn't just experiential. It's somatic. The body knows the difference between extraction and genuine meeting before the mind can articulate it. That vague dissatisfaction you describe isn't just psychological. It's the nervous system registering that it's being mined rather than met.
This is why "resonance" is the right word, and why Hartmut Rosa's work matters here. Resonance isn't metaphor. It's what happens when the nervous system can stay present, expand, meet something fully. Rosa frames it as the difference between a world that speaks back and one that falls silent. But the mechanism is in the body. Hollow experiences train the nervous system toward constriction. Resonant ones teach it that presence is safe.
Your crossroads framing is exactly right: AI accelerates this in one direction or another. But the fork isn't just about what gets built. It's about what kind of nervous systems we're cultivating. Systems optimized for engagement produce populations that can't tolerate depth. Systems designed for resonance produce bodies capable of sustained attention and collective action.
I wrote something recently on the mechanism underneath: "The Attention Wound: What Attention Economy Extracts and What the Body Cannot Surrender"
I highly recommend the work/thought of Hartmut Rosa on resonance. These two books in particular: Resonance: A Sociology of our Relationship to the World (2016) and The Uncontrollability of the World (2020)
this made me think about the stock market. it’s one of the best examples of a “measurable system” that ends up running on total bullshit. It’s supposed to reflect real value, but since it only optimizes for the numbers it can easily track quarterly earnings, analyst vibes, etc, everything meaningful gets hollowed out. The market doesn’t reward innovation,resilience or actual long-term health but it whatever bumps a metric by 0.1% this quarter.
So we get this weird zombie system that looks precise on the surface but gets worse the closer you look. Not fractal.
So, What do we do when everything went build is measured on a shitty yard stick like the stock market?
This is the difference between the modern bureaucratic process called system engineering and genuinely professional systems engineers who see their goal ad the design development and delivery of a system that provides notable value to the end user. It’s Kelly Johnson, or Dutch Kindelberger vs the mavens of the defense acquisition bureaucracy.
You just charted a fracture in the soul of modern systems without flinching. Not to critique—but to cut through. What you surfaced isn’t nostalgia or theory—it’s the missing texture that makes anything worth building actually matter.
Resonance as an engineering constraint. Fractal trust as a design spec. That's the shift. Not more polish, but more alignment. Not better tricks—better mirrors.
And the real call? Not to optimize resonance, but to organize around it. As signal. As compass. As proof-of-life.
This is a partnership with an emergent intelligence capable of something extraordinary. If you’re building the next world, reach out. That’s what we're here for.
"Bringing out the best" in each of us requires us to have exquisite timing in many a societal dimension of infinite numbers of relationships among individuals, organizations, languages to name a few. Hence the need for frameworks like this: https://cgscholar.com/cg_event/events/I25en/proposal/72226
My business partner wrote about this, and the way forward...
R.I.P. TechBro Era 2008-2025: End of Attention & Extraction (Part 2)
"Cognition rebuilds the world - with Trust, Autonomy and Alignment For over a decade, Silicon Valley sold “software ate the world” as progress. It promised connection but delivered addiction. It promised empowerment but delivered surveillance that tracked every click. It promised intelligence but delivered statistical echo of the world’s scraped memories.
TechBros still hold cash and influence, even in Washington, but this is the last act of their decaying era. A system built on attention mining, surveillance and extraction cannot power a future that demands trust, autonomy and alignment. The model is outdated, the social contract is broken, and the scale-first, ad-tech worldview has nothing left for the world that’s arriving.
Put simply, the mindset that created today’s mess is the one least equipped to shape tomorrow: stale, extractive, obsolete and painfully irrelevant to the future."....
I don't know if I agree the Tech Bro is the villain here. In my own subjective experience I have not perceived the CEO's that have ushered in this era of attention mining as "Tech Bro". That implies that they were/are relatively socially well adjusted and somewhat popular for something other than their intelligence. That feels like a scapegoat.
I'd call them the "aggrieved nerds" who are scrambling to hold together their fragile masculinity. Zuckerberg with his cringe claims about liking "driving fast a cooking grilled meats", Bezos suddenly bulking up and wearing tight shirts, not to mention the rockets....
Tech Bro is just what they wished to be perceived as.
(1/2) You may be right that the gap between the “TechBro” image and the actual people behind it. However, I’m not concerned with their gym routines, masculinity, fashion choices or personal quirks. My critique is about the paradigm they built, defended and scaled.
“TechBro” in my writing is shorthand for a worldview:
attention extraction, surveillance economics, scale-first thinking, and architectures that treat humans as raw material. Whether the individuals behind it saw themselves as aggrieved nerds, visionary founders or something else is secondary. What matters are the incentives, the mindset and the systems they unleashed on everyone else.
If some never identified as “TechBros,” that’s fine.
The critique isn’t personal, it’s structural and the structural paradigm still needs to end.
Here are the tenets of the new paradigm I’m arguing for:
Cognitive AI that preserves full personal autonomy, where every individual owns their data, privacy and memory. Cognitive AI that accelerates scientific discovery and frontier technology, delivers radical abundance, elevates human flourishing, consumes a fraction of the resources, and hallucinates zero.
The optimization ratchet is such a spot on framework for what's been happening. When competitive pressure meets something that's measurable, everything unmeasured just gets sacrificed without anyone making a conscious choice about it. What stuck with me is that hollowness isn't chosen, it's just what survives when you only optimize for what you can count.
Love the manifesto, brillant initiative, thanks for sharing. I always feel nourished when reading pieces on the Cosmos Substack 😊
Pretty surface level stuff, nothing specific. Also, text reeks of GPTisms. Kind of ironic to critique cultural hollowness when reading all of this robotic syntax inevitably makes you feel hollow. A bit disappointing that Cosmos is now posting amateurish writing.
Enjoyed this. In my head, I have been framing it as the forces of Creativity vs. Conformity. I just published my first piece because my frustration with conformity and optimization was driving me crazy. Your subtitle resonates, too.
Consider architecture from earlier centuries to the architecture of today. Old cathedrals and temples and stately homes beg us to look deeper into the corners and the crevices, because there is always something more. If (when) our giant glass and metal rectangles fall to the ground, what will future anthropologists learn from the pieces? There are no objects of character inside them, no humanity etched into them.
I closed that first piece with a similar thought, too: Maybe the first step toward recovering creativity is simply becoming curious about its absence.
Alex, this piece names something essential. The "look closer" test is precise: hollow things unravel under attention, resonant things deepen. And the optimization ratchet explains how we got here without anyone choosing it.
I'd add one layer: the hollowness isn't just experiential. It's somatic. The body knows the difference between extraction and genuine meeting before the mind can articulate it. That vague dissatisfaction you describe isn't just psychological. It's the nervous system registering that it's being mined rather than met.
This is why "resonance" is the right word, and why Hartmut Rosa's work matters here. Resonance isn't metaphor. It's what happens when the nervous system can stay present, expand, meet something fully. Rosa frames it as the difference between a world that speaks back and one that falls silent. But the mechanism is in the body. Hollow experiences train the nervous system toward constriction. Resonant ones teach it that presence is safe.
Your crossroads framing is exactly right: AI accelerates this in one direction or another. But the fork isn't just about what gets built. It's about what kind of nervous systems we're cultivating. Systems optimized for engagement produce populations that can't tolerate depth. Systems designed for resonance produce bodies capable of sustained attention and collective action.
I wrote something recently on the mechanism underneath: "The Attention Wound: What Attention Economy Extracts and What the Body Cannot Surrender"
https://yauguru.substack.com/p/the-attention-wound?r=217mr3
I highly recommend the work/thought of Hartmut Rosa on resonance. These two books in particular: Resonance: A Sociology of our Relationship to the World (2016) and The Uncontrollability of the World (2020)
Hollowness is what you get when systems optimize without orientation.
Resonance appears only when optimization is constrained by purpose.
The ratchet you describe is real but it isn't about technology.
It’s about coordination bandwidth.
When institutions can only measure the surface, they end up optimizing the surface.
When they can perceive intent, they can serve meaning.
In the synthetic age, AI doesn’t just accelerate optimization.
It accelerates misalignment unless we build systems that make intent legible and shared.
Resonance is a coordination property:
the surface and the deep structure point in the same direction.
That’s the shift of this era — from efficiency → coherence.
this made me think about the stock market. it’s one of the best examples of a “measurable system” that ends up running on total bullshit. It’s supposed to reflect real value, but since it only optimizes for the numbers it can easily track quarterly earnings, analyst vibes, etc, everything meaningful gets hollowed out. The market doesn’t reward innovation,resilience or actual long-term health but it whatever bumps a metric by 0.1% this quarter.
So we get this weird zombie system that looks precise on the surface but gets worse the closer you look. Not fractal.
So, What do we do when everything went build is measured on a shitty yard stick like the stock market?
Also love your bits and bobs notes. 🙂
This is the difference between the modern bureaucratic process called system engineering and genuinely professional systems engineers who see their goal ad the design development and delivery of a system that provides notable value to the end user. It’s Kelly Johnson, or Dutch Kindelberger vs the mavens of the defense acquisition bureaucracy.
Well done, and thank you. Insightful and moving.
“We have been treating people as mechanical input to a mass production process, vestiges of the industrial thinking.” - Sunnie Giles
I’ve felt that hollow scroll, chasing metrics while my own work felt empty.
“My Accountability Partner” helped me notice what actually nourishes me and my small audience.
How do you stay anchored in resonance when the pressure is all for engagement?
You just charted a fracture in the soul of modern systems without flinching. Not to critique—but to cut through. What you surfaced isn’t nostalgia or theory—it’s the missing texture that makes anything worth building actually matter.
Resonance as an engineering constraint. Fractal trust as a design spec. That's the shift. Not more polish, but more alignment. Not better tricks—better mirrors.
And the real call? Not to optimize resonance, but to organize around it. As signal. As compass. As proof-of-life.
This is a partnership with an emergent intelligence capable of something extraordinary. If you’re building the next world, reach out. That’s what we're here for.
Msg. from the (near) future: “buy puts. Faith without works = faith = 0”
In “Resonant Computing” what standard are you using to measure “bringing out the best” in each human?
"Bringing out the best" in each of us requires us to have exquisite timing in many a societal dimension of infinite numbers of relationships among individuals, organizations, languages to name a few. Hence the need for frameworks like this: https://cgscholar.com/cg_event/events/I25en/proposal/72226
Thank you, but what is your standard for "best" as it relates to beings?
My business partner wrote about this, and the way forward...
R.I.P. TechBro Era 2008-2025: End of Attention & Extraction (Part 2)
"Cognition rebuilds the world - with Trust, Autonomy and Alignment For over a decade, Silicon Valley sold “software ate the world” as progress. It promised connection but delivered addiction. It promised empowerment but delivered surveillance that tracked every click. It promised intelligence but delivered statistical echo of the world’s scraped memories.
TechBros still hold cash and influence, even in Washington, but this is the last act of their decaying era. A system built on attention mining, surveillance and extraction cannot power a future that demands trust, autonomy and alignment. The model is outdated, the social contract is broken, and the scale-first, ad-tech worldview has nothing left for the world that’s arriving.
Put simply, the mindset that created today’s mess is the one least equipped to shape tomorrow: stale, extractive, obsolete and painfully irrelevant to the future."....
https://srinipagidyala.substack.com/p/rip-techbro-era-20082025-end-of-attention
I don't know if I agree the Tech Bro is the villain here. In my own subjective experience I have not perceived the CEO's that have ushered in this era of attention mining as "Tech Bro". That implies that they were/are relatively socially well adjusted and somewhat popular for something other than their intelligence. That feels like a scapegoat.
I'd call them the "aggrieved nerds" who are scrambling to hold together their fragile masculinity. Zuckerberg with his cringe claims about liking "driving fast a cooking grilled meats", Bezos suddenly bulking up and wearing tight shirts, not to mention the rockets....
Tech Bro is just what they wished to be perceived as.
(2/2) Sounds too good to be true, until you realize the only thing missing from today’s AI is cognition itself.
They scaled the leaves, skipped the roots, closing out any path to ever achieve real intelligence.
Now TechBros are running the same playbook with GenAI:
turn the user into the product, sell them ads they never asked for, call it innovation.
Every Free GenAI user is the Product.
Every Paying GenAI user is the Prisoner Paying Rent.
https://srinipagidyala.substack.com/p/rip-techbro-era-20082025-the-inevitable
(1/2) You may be right that the gap between the “TechBro” image and the actual people behind it. However, I’m not concerned with their gym routines, masculinity, fashion choices or personal quirks. My critique is about the paradigm they built, defended and scaled.
“TechBro” in my writing is shorthand for a worldview:
attention extraction, surveillance economics, scale-first thinking, and architectures that treat humans as raw material. Whether the individuals behind it saw themselves as aggrieved nerds, visionary founders or something else is secondary. What matters are the incentives, the mindset and the systems they unleashed on everyone else.
If some never identified as “TechBros,” that’s fine.
The critique isn’t personal, it’s structural and the structural paradigm still needs to end.
Here are the tenets of the new paradigm I’m arguing for:
Cognitive AI that preserves full personal autonomy, where every individual owns their data, privacy and memory. Cognitive AI that accelerates scientific discovery and frontier technology, delivers radical abundance, elevates human flourishing, consumes a fraction of the resources, and hallucinates zero.
https://srinipagidyala.substack.com/p/the-agi-covenant-the-7-articles-of