THE MEDIA-MACHINE SINGULARITY

Every era gets the duality it deserves — war and peace, faith and reason, labor and capital. I’ve been circling this question: what’s ours?

If every era is defined by a binary, ours is shaped by the fusion of two: media and machines — once distinct forces, now collapsed into a single living system that governs what gets built, what breaks through, and what defines our reality.

What began as separate domains — machines mastering logic, media monopolizing attention — has merged into a Möbius strip of mutual reinforcement, where media creates machines creates media.

This is the media-machine singularity. The operating system of our age.

The birth of the superorganism

The revelation came with social networks — those first native superorganisms of the media-machine fusion. Facebook, YouTube, TikTok weren’t just social media, they were self-replicating loops where every post was both content and infrastructure — where the machine shaped the media that grew the machine.

Social networks recast the entire blueprint of creation and culture. Now, what we once called the “attention economy” has swallowed the traditional one. These platforms became our new cities, economies, and gods, structuring what we consume but also how we communicate, build careers, and measure worth.

Careers rise and fall on algorithmic affinity. Markets move at the speed of trending topics, memes, and ever-fickler sentiment. We now inhabit the world they made, where every interaction is both input and output for the superorganism.

The medium is the message is the machine

If social networks were the prototype, AI hits full send on the hypothesis. These large language models are born from ingested media and exist to generate more: the Ouroboros of code and culture. Marshall McLuhan was ever prescient:

In the age of language models, the medium is the message — is the machine.

Natural language is now both interface and infrastructure. The old divisions vanish: to build is to write is to build again. This is the new physics of our age, where computational force and cultural resonance emerge from the same source.

What’s coming will make social networks look quaint: tools become networks, function becomes feeds, solo becomes social — all with frightening intelligence. We move from ephemeral to memory, prompts to personality, feeds to worlds — software to sentience. The machine no longer mediates reality; it becomes it.

We build AI to elevate humanity — to cure, decode, transcend. Yet like all mortal creations, it bends toward what’s rewarded: commerce, companionship, cachet. We call this ‘progress’— but is it acceleration toward greater civilization, or just a new Facebook? Is OpenAI just another FAANG-shaped god for the new era?

Reality engineering

This creature thrives on reciprocal nourishment: feed its media half and its machine capabilities grow; starve its machine needs and its cultural influence withers. Media no longer just serves technology — it increasingly drives it.

We’re no longer designing just products or platforms or interfaces, but cognitive environments — architectures of attention that shape what people see, feel, and believe. Every engineering decision is now a cultural act. Every narrative choice carries technical consequence. The stakes have escalated beyond business or tech to configuring the operating system of human attention itself.

Baudrillard’s hyperreality — where simulations become more real than reality — was a warning. This is its seamless execution: a world where the map not only precedes the territory but engineers it in real time.

Eventually, everything visible will be subsumed by the media-machine complex. The only remaining “alpha” will be what resists digitization, what can’t be priced in: off-grid experience, instinct, volatility — the unmodelable edge. A jazz improvisation that dies in the air, the silence between old friends who need no words, a collection of PDFs that hold humanity’s greatest secrets.

But even that is fragile. The irony is that as soon as anything is observed or acknowledged, it’ll be modeled. It’s the inverse of the “tree falls in forest” parable — not whether it happened unseen, but whether it still matters once seen by all. To escape total immersion is to demand either defiance or ownership. The final human edge is in either controlling the machine or keeping your distance—in how many steps removed or how many steps ahead you are at any given moment.1

Subscribe now

The alchemy of modern attention

The media-machine fusion creates the great paradox: systems that grant us godlike leverage now drown us in algorithmic slop.2 The dead internet theory earns its resonance. The retreat to trust commences. Legacy media fractures more; personality cults rise. Vital stories migrate to blogs, mini-sites, Substack, and YouTube. The most resonant storytellers are subscribed to, not employed. But are we still creating for people — or for the machine that feeds them?

Even capital has surrendered. Venture funds all but operate like media companies. When founders, athletes, and kings are jostling for the same mic, you witness the new reality: in the attention economy, even fame, money, and power need marketing. A product without a myth, a funding round without a podcast tour: both feel incomplete. Manifestos and TBPN are the new minimum.

The new game is barbell-shaped: it’s high-gloss performance or deep craft, with little in between (unless you already have cred, in which case slick-indie sells too). Attention first, product second, if at all. The spectacle has become sentient.

The new maker’s manifesto

The Paul Graham doctrine, “make something people want” and its cult of the technical founder, now reads as quaint. Today, the making and the wanting must be engineered simultaneously. The builder’s role has evolved from engineer to polymath, weaving machines and media into civilization-shaping sculptures.

Every organization must now operate as half-machine, half-media. Brilliant engineers are no longer enough. You need storytellers who transform technical specs into cultural movements. This singularity requires new organizational DNA: not just leaner teams or AI-agents-as-staff, but a fundamental reimagining of what makes good media and good machines — in function, form, and faith — and who’s best fit to build them.3

The renaissance mind returns, not as dilettante but as armed philosopher, wielding technical mastery and cultural fluency with equal force. IQ, EQ, agency, taste — and a will to brute-force your way into the frame.4

The great work of our time

McLuhan’s axiom returns: “first we shape our tools, then our tools shape us” — but faster now, with the media-machine superorganism rewiring us at scale. These machines optimize for transmission, not truth. They generate coherence, real or not, and wrap it in messages convincing enough to make you nod along.

This raises three unavoidable crucibles:

Infinite production demands infinite care — every algorithm’s output becomes someone’s input, every generated phrase someone’s truth.
Transmission and virality without virtue isn’t progress but social and cultural vandalism, burning through meaning to fuel empty engagement.
Our ultimate test isn’t in technical mastery or narrative flair, but in judgment — the courage to feed the machine something better than its own reflex.

The questions shift from what can scale to what should. This is the great work of our time now: not just building what spreads, but what matters. Not just making things people want, but cultivating the desire for what’s worth wanting. In an era of accelerating extremes, even meaning must market itself to remain relevant.5

Whether you build products, tell stories, direct capital, or curate culture, you are now both architect and artifact of this age. The media-machine complex will metabolize and manifest whatever we feed it. So feed it carefully.