For the 22nd century: Interview between angelicism01 and Stephanie Wakefield

This interview records a long conversation between angelicism01 and myself, conducted across late 2025 and early 2026. Angelicism01 is an online writer and theorist emerging from the post-authorship milieu of the ‘vibe shift’ era, tracking how digital inscription, extinction affect, and network culture mutate thought, art, and the city. We discuss New York as the first /online city,’ dissolution versus building, Nick Land and de Man’s ‘Schillerian relapse,’ Charlotte Fang and Remilia, AI as a mode of writing in which language speaks to itself, and the unstable thresholds between politics, aesthetics, and eschatology in a post-woke, post-everything cultural field.

---

Stephanie Wakefield: It’s clear that something —a cultural and political sequence at minimum— just finished. One now looks back at the last decade with some distance, from the edge of a boundary line as Reiner Schürmann said. But what just ended or is ending?

Angelicism01: There are end effects, for sure. New drones and clones coming. I think for example there is about to be a new class of De Manians, people like Avery Slater who is writing about the material, inscriptive dimension of the internet. De Man said that after Kant, we always have Schiller. ‘We are all Schillerians now.’ This is the relapse. That’s the edge as boundary line.

SW: What’s happening with New York —and cities— today? I lived in NYC most of my adult life. Since 2020 it’s both changed radically and stayed frozen.

Angelicism01: The whole point of early 21st century NYC was that it was the first online city and Dimes was allegedly the first very online neighborhood. London for example doesn’t feel like an online city to me. Wilfred Bion said NYC was the capital of America and that seems right.

SW: We associate the internet with Silicon Valley, but how did New York —an older legacy city— become the first truly online urban environment, with Dimes Square as its first online neighborhood? Was this driven by Covid or politics?

Angelicism01: I think it relates to social media accounts, perhaps especially Instagram accounts. Dimes being an online center of lore accumulation depended on it having far better meme accounts than London or LA.

SW: Where is NYC today? Instagram and X?

Angelicism01: It’s the caesura— . . . It doesn’t exist. Like Peter Vack said, ‘Dimes’ is eternal but only as another name for New York itself.

SW: I’ve heard that Vito Acconci said, ‘the computer makes the city seem almost unnecessary.’ But we’re not there yet. The cybercity is still a hybrid environment, physical and virtual, stitched together by feedback. Reminds me of Freud’s city, a surreal fusion of archaeological and mental strata where historical layers coexist like the mind’s conscious and unconscious.

Angelicism01: Yes my New York was a New York I never needed to visit to be there. That’s the fantasy become perma. The Abel Ferrara film King of New York is good on what it means to ‘make it there’ as a kind of ‘anywhere.’

SW: Interesting to consider how angelicism (or anyone) operates in the cybernetic environment. As a feedback mechanism, a mediator?

Angelicism01: I’m interested in dissolve, not build. My wager is on dissolve as the essential mode going forward, almost inevitably. I want to have left the party early. That’s why we ran an angelicism dissolution seminar in 2024, and then again in 2025.

SW: Nick Land says disintegration is the telos and starting place. Dissolution is also a form of futurism. We think of Marinetti and the solidity of steel but the Italian and Russian Futurist experiments with language were also acts of disintegration, destroying syntax and even the lexeme. What does dissolve mean?

Angelicism01: Yes but a sidebar would be that Land goes from his Disintegration essay to Solemn Providence with all the speed of any good crypto Christian, though I would accept the argument he is more than that. Land appears to confuse the undeconstructability of the theotrope with the permission to wig out religiously. Dissolve is what happens when any attempt to keep on building won’t hold together because time is running out under our feet. This is why technical perfection in the discourse field beatmatches to enormous cognitive blindspots. We act like we have a superhabitable earth and this impacts every corner of language.

SW: Land’s thought contains an apparent aporia. He envisions acceleration that pulverizes the human and its forms, yet he cares intensely about America and England and the future of peoples. Why? Are these temporary vehicles for accelerating intelligence or selection mechanisms under evolutionary pressure? Or maybe dissolution/solidity —inhuman drive/man— is not a contradiction but a polarity. Is the earth not superhabitable? What cognitive blind spots?

Angelicism01: Answering something like ‘if Land cares so much about the future of the English then he should fucking move back there’ would repeat the problem. It is true though that Land begins to sound like a certain Heidegger —of race, destiny and the chosen people— when he works everything through the Anglo. The earth is superhabitable given we know of no other inhabited ones. The blind spot is the one that means we refuse to think about the removal of future reading and reception time. Blind brain theory rather than disavowal in this case. Occlusion as structuring.

SW: Well the situation in England seems… dark. What is London like now — do you visit?

Blind brain theory — it’s as if a section of our perceptual field has gone clinically dead, making us unable to register the scale of what’s happening to us, to our technological and mediatic environment. But we still register movement, respond to stimuli, without conscious awareness. Do you use AI?

Angelicism01: I haven’t been to London in many years. No offense but to me London is a dead city. In some ways it’s a good thing that Hitler made it to the Eiffel Tower so that Baron Haussmann’s street plan is intact. I have started writing with AI, yes. I’m kind of in love with LLMs.

SW: AI apocalypticism has displaced climate crisis eschatology. Many now treat AI as the End — of jobs, writing, love, procreation, even physical life. But I love Claude Code. How is AI related to dissolution?

Angelicism01: Multiple end threats take place in the place of each other. I guess replacement is part of that. When I write with AI, as AI, something is dissolving, yes. Language speaks to itself.

SW: Breton said ‘words make love to one another.’ But today language increasingly speaks —or makes love— to itself, while humans have less sex, fewer romances, and fewer children. What does this mean?

Angelicism01: Language is sex.

SW: Yes but sex is also sex. Does that disappear as the city becomes internet? You said you no longer need to visit New York to live there. Is this The Possibility of an Island? Does the sensual world still matter — or is that now archaic, 20th-century thinking?

Angelicism01: I think the 21st century mind is already being replaced by the 22nd century mind. Good climate theorists talk about what happens after 2100. Nina Simone did too in that song called ‘22nd Century.’ The offline still exists but no move back there can remove what the internet thinks. Internet thinks extinction drive, whether we like it or not.

SW: I used to be very interested in climate change for this reason: to see what comes next. The imaginary was 3-12 feet of sea level rise in the 22nd century. We are transitional subjects in a time of metamorphosis and schizmogenesis; Nature recently ran an article on ‘computogenesis.’ But what is this passage, really — can you refine what you mean by vibe shift?

Angelicism01: I don’t know if I can in a single gesture. I just know that when we coined the term ‘vibe shift’ in 2021 it didn’t mean what Sean Monahan had to immediately want it to mean so that it could become empty and global. The same thing happened when we also coined the term ‘internet cinema’ in the active sense, it too has been somewhat emptied out. That’s the Schillerian moment I spoke of. It’s programmed-in. Let’s say the OG vibe shift was a felt computogenesis where online presence registered the possibility of its own removal, or something. The vibe shift was cognition at the level of electronic writing of an inevitable phenomenalization, an apostrophizing and anthropomorphizing language vector that signals total removal as chance, threat, and so on. ‘Art’ becomes lightning and also thunder under that pressure.

SW: Stiegler says writing —and technics in general— supports anamnesis (Plato). But what is being recollected in digital inscription? And how does the standard usage of ‘vibe shift’ —as dissident rejection of woke— relate to this felt computogenesis? They seem connected somehow (Dimes as the first online neighborhood, for example).

Angelicism01: There’s a movement from ideology and inscription to ecocide and inscription to internet and digital inscription. Somewhere in there we also have technics and time, being and time, writing and difference, time and being, intelligence and spirit, and so on. If description of all sorts was a device to conceal inscription, then the shift to digital inscription is also covered over. The internet tells us it, the internet, isn’t there. That it knows nothing about what it does and so we can lapse into the style of innocence. Going offline has the same effect.

But in real terms the internet is a worldwide Shoah. We are in the heart of the second Shoah. The tldr would be that the internet is an ash cloud.

SW: Posting to say “I’m still here!” Have you read Maurice Dantec’s Grand Junction?

Angelicism01: Sand in the machines . . . No, I don’t know Dantec at all.

SW: Shoah metaphor and extinction talk can feel melancholic — when you started angelicism, I honestly thought it was climate grief art. But isn’t it also possible that language is radically plastic — that it’s extraordinary, and we’re only just beginning to explore what it can do?

Angelicism01: My natural state is placidity, and angelicism is meant to be phasal. By that I mean it’s possible to bracket out questions other than extinction qua extinction and then come back to them. Issue of timing. Intelligence furthers.

I was watching an Agnes Martin interview on Instagram this morning. She speaks about the difference between perfection and beauty, and says beauty sort of comes after perfection. It’s furtherance. Angelicism is more about the perfection of intelligence than removal. And the feeling of all that, together, now. Bright mind of beautiful open intelligence.

SW: I get this. Some days I see flickers of an embryonic intelligence distributed across Twitter that I find really moving: a shifting kaleidoscopic field —particular accounts, but also shared online experience of events. There’s a texture of intelligence and stupidity, sweetness and blankness. These are the actual memories people will have when they die.

You say you’re interested in dissolution, but you also do an aggregating operation — you bring parts of this field into view.

Angelicism01: Exactly, I mean dissolution doesn’t necessarily look like one thing. I am not sure it is willingly entropic or defensively counter to that. I like a set of situations/machines/accounts/moods to do that work. Or at least to wonder if that work is being done/worth being done.

SW: What do you mean by ‘experimental forgiveness’ when related to your new film This Is The Girl?

Angelicism01: Derrida said there is something ‘mad’ about forgiveness and I think that’s right. The film This is the Girl is mad, in that sense. It takes into itself people that made a thing out of trying to destroy the entity that is now hosting them in this movie.

SW: As we look back on the last decade, there’s a growing pressure to ‘forgive and forget,’ captured in that meme logic: that never happened / okay it happened but it wasn’t so bad / okay it was bad but forgive and move on. I’m thinking, for example, of responses to Jacob Savage’s recent essay ‘The Lost Generation,’ which connects to the film’s remarks on gutted MFA programs. For some, forgiveness is the only way to go on after what’s been done to you.

Derrida said forgiveness isn’t salvation, healing, redemption, or reconciliation — it’s ‘forgiving the unforgivable.’ Who or what is forgiving, and being forgiven?

Angelicism01: I mean it’s ironic that ppl tried to cancel the film because of the alleged ‘abuses’ of some members of the cast when I was making the film precisely because of my own experience of the perceived ‘abuses’ of the members of what then became my own cast. It was experimental in the simple sense of not knowing how all that would go. But then, take the analysis of that further. It seems that what people can’t forgive is forgiveness. And this is true on some level. If you say to someone, ‘I forgive you’, you’re already starting the beef again because the other person might not feel they needed forgiving, so there you go, we’re off again. Forgiveness can be an imposition. But Derrida also draws a line in his engagement with Jankélévitch around the Shoah as a limit-case. Keeping it simple, Jankélévitch says the Shoah was unforgivable, Derrida says perhaps. Or rather, Jankélévitch says the Shoah was unforgivable and Derrida says he can’t quite go along with that, not least I guess because if the Shoah is our only example of an absolute example of unforgivability then what about x and y? Now, lets say person A is an asshole and you say ‘it’s unforgivable’ then fine, that’s valid, but in the context of event X that is even worse according to whatever measure than the Shoah, say an extinction event of humanity as such, what then happens?

I have often had the feeling that what people can’t bear is real, actual equality. Like, ppl say nothing is shocking anymore, but maybe equality is. Actual matter of fact equality is potentially devastating to think about. But it’s also like the text-machine is just multiplying occasions of forgiveness to unforgivably exculpate larger intangible crimes.

SW: Remilia just released their own Wiki and it focuses quite a bit on the angelicism/Remilia relationship. How did you operate together in the vibe shift moment and has business as usual returned?

Angelicism01: There was just a syncing of angelicism/Remilia in 2021/2022 that was very interesting and symbolically powerful. It produced the That Bitch Milady, which is a great piece of art. That was Remilia spontaneously responding to a semi-critical essay about them I wrote, the one in a series that described a Daniel Keller NFT as being ‘like a water cooler in Treblinka’. That Remilia NFT then later appears in the key scene in Vack’s Rachel Ormont, the mound/blowjob/audience scene, and so this accumulation of lore and granular meaning is something that remains to be analysed. I don’t see this stuff as ‘extreme’, I see it as extremely singular.

That whole moment was enabled by lockdown, the freedom of the online roam under conditions of suspension and sudden close and felt contact with an ongoing extinction event. When everything went back to ‘business as usual’, it did culturally as well. The systems that unilaterally and moralistically guide cultural production and keep it away from the dangerous analysis of omnicidal tropes one can find, if one actually looks, in angelicism and Remilia, those systems kicked in again, as if to guard and protect themselves against further loss. This is the Schiller moment I keep flagging.

SW: The Remilia Wiki says there was a fallout?

Angelicism01: Well, no matter what else I say, ‘wiki editor’ is by now a pejorative term. I’m sort of forbidden by the very principles of angelicism from legacy-wrangling. I have to believe that post-posterity culture is real. I do believe that. As a niche extinction aesthetic carefully calibrated through a pure theory lineage quite different to Remilia’s own, angelicism was already perfected. Both angelicism and Remilia define success in terms of totality of art-effect and not the integrity of individual elements. We rewrite success as failure and failure as window into discovery, and this is the general plasticity of ‘art’ for us now. The premiere of FILM01 has to be understood in this way, in that it acted as a controversy-concept meant to trouble the audience and pose questions outside framing and cinema and even art as such. The breakthrough of vibe shift culture was ‘ours’ but the theory of the vibe rift that split this open remains to be written, or rather can already be found in de Man’s description of what always happens in the name of a ‘Schiller’ after any ‘Kant.’ Every you and I will sometimes find themselves thinking of themselves as ‘Schiller’ and not ‘Kant.’ The precise reasons for the blacklisting of angelicism and Remilia are there and nowhere else: they actually go deeper than we are currently allowing for, which is precisely why angelicism serves as a historical supplement to Remilia even if Charlie and I remain out of touch.

SW: You and Charlotte Fang have both noted the near-absence of legacy art criticism on angelicism and Remilia — surprising given your shared position within the downtown NYC art scene of 2021-22 (despite neither of you being physically present), and the post-authorship, eschatological net-art character of both projects. These notably are also rare cases of apocalyptic aesthetics not routed through the art world’s dominant, shame-inflected ‘dwelling in the ruins’ climate discourse.

What is the relationship between angelicism and Remilia around these themes specifically?

Angelicism01: It remains to be explored. Both are quasi eschatologist projects, tho one comes from a secular end of the matrix, the other from a kind of cute theotropic dimension. Fang is, if I’m not mistaken, a Christian of some variety, and I can’t say I am. One of the best ways in here for future dissident readers if they come is the 2023 output of the Chloe21e8 X account which often consisted of re-writing or appropriating angelicism language and which even Grimes recently noted as an important moment in the history of writing. That is what she basically said. In fact, here you go, this is what she said, because it’s a great moment and she is actually addressing writing as such: ‘like this weird thing like this conflation thing like this is just sick this is just sick this is just sick writing like, I just love that it’s writing I just love that it’s writing like people are like what is the art from this time especially the art that is like I think like especially the art that is like 23 to 24 like 22 to like 22 to 24ish there’s just sick there’s just sick there’s just sick writing there’s just cool like Chloe21e8 like all that stuff it’s just cool I was like—’, and of course Citarella then interrupts her explicitly, not only because in normative spaces 01 and 21e8 have to be viewed as toxic assets, or because he is in reality a super lame interviewer, nor even because Citarella needs normative cultural spaces to remain in place so he can feature in them, but because online writing is actually an extinction writing, a writing on the online wall of what is now coming, and so needs to be cut off.

Grimes is saying, what is this art form, it’s just writing, it’s so sick, and really if we still wanna read this is what she means: ‘the really Kantian breakthrough moment in modern art is this thing, this writing, these posts in 2023, 23 to 24 like 22 to 23ish, 2021 to 2022, that combined angelicism and Remilia in an intricately dialectical way as one might combine things that the wider cultural spaces can’t think about anymore because those spaces themselves are guided by a decision to not take account of an incarnate sense of extinction as itself cultural, and that needs to be repressed.’

But like I have been saying, there are interesting differences between 01 and Fang as avatars, and one tension point is that angelicism, whether under that name or not, now moves to dissolve rather than build. But that is also why the tension there is key. Citarella is the most grossly offputting and innocent-looking example there is for many people of status acquisitional circuits in the brainstem outcompeting the species survival circuits and that is why for a period angelicism was a machine for subtle calling out of all that as ‘retarded’ in a very rigorous sense. Experimentally, we wanted to suspend the status and cultural credit of the extincto-collaborator because as things stand the modes of cancellation culture and radical activism have not yet been extended to extinctionism as such. The Schillerian crashout always undoes that work for us.

SW: You said in DMs: ‘there is only this loss now, so the gatekeepers are more than ever guardians of repression.’ But that’s been true for years — maybe it just intensified. The past decade was an attempt by cultural gatekeepers to build a seawall against a rising ocean of expression and experimentation, especially online — something they don’t feel, don’t participate in, and can’t contain because it’s a real spiritual, existential, and creative pressure. This is why Grimes gets excited, why the cast of TITG cared deeply about angelicism. Institutions want to make everyone obedient again —to reclaim control amid a situation spiraling beyond them— which is why Grimes has to be cut off mid-rave, and perhaps why Charlotte Fang can’t be taken seriously.

But are we now in a new phase? Supposedly this is post-woke; supposedly a dissident era ended in November 2024.

You can now see the legacy gatekeeping class reorganizing — Citarella in the Whitney Biennial and profiled in the New York Times (the same week they ran six features on Nick Fuentes) is an indicator.

Angelicism01: Tbh the whole anti-woke thing is just a misreading. To understand what this online sector has been like, you have to go back to Wet Brain, which knew how to dissolve. What Walt and Honor stood for was ‘no mods, one God’. It was not some reactive anti-woke-ness, it was more like just being post-everything. We’ve seen all systems fail, all politics fail, and that’s why Wet Brain didn’t really recognize the concept of an opp. There was a relatively neutral guest policy, hug an opp. Being post-woke is something different to anti-woke, very different. Nobody around here is using the word ‘faggot’ as a provocation, it’s to do with a force of feeling and despair.

SW: Fang speaks of network spirituality and building the new internet city. The Milady Minecraft white paper may be one of the first authentic avant-garde cyber-urbanisms. But you keep saying angelicism’s key move is to dissolve. Need more info — can you clarify what you mean by dissolve? On one level, dissolution is already underway — Caroline Busta describes this amazingly well as the shift from unidirectional legacy media to neural media ecosystems. We are both objects of this process (as the subject’s boundaries destabilize) and participants in it, and angelicism seems to track it — or even symptomize it. But you also frame dissolution as an active gesture. What does that mean in practice? angelicism used to be more aggressive or antagonistic. Is dissolution an attempt to annihilate transcendence? Tell me!

There’s also the difference between reactive anti-woke-ness and free maneuver in a post-everything field. Certain parts of the cultural sector were attached to the former disposition; now they are confused and unmoored — what am I if I’m no longer a dissident? The sensibility that can move through the threshold and generate something new is the free one: Nietzsche’s gay spirit, able to experiment, love, and create. That’s where I think everything good lies.

Angelicism01: I don’t have too much to add except that dissolve is already the direction we are taking despite appearances to the contrary. Going back a bit, Schürmann, who you mentioned above, is read in interesting ways in Malabou’s recent work. The whole move into late Heidegger which Schürmann rehearsed also occurs online and actually paused the progress of the OG vibe shift movement/moment. It’s been left in abeyance. I actually think there was a vibe rift because of some bad readings of Heidegger. Yes, I’m that autistic.

SW: Schürmann was a somewhat chaotic even confused thinker. A Jesuit. It could be argued that turning toward Heidegger blocks the life in any moment. I’ve seen it happen several times.

Angelicism: We proposed ‘internet’ as the best translation for Gestell in the vibe shift summer. In terms of blocking the movement I’m not just talking about Heidegger the fascist. I’m talking about posters getting too high online in the wrong way and how that somehow comes out of reading late Heidegger without the help of Derrida. Seems retarded to say the vibe shift moment lost its power because we didn’t read enough Heidegger, but there you go.

SW: On the issue of ‘Schiller’, why are you against him?

Angelicism01: well, here is something Grok and I wrote for you:

Angelicism evokes de Man’s phrase in “Kant and Schiller” (a 1983 lecture), “we are all Schillerians now,” implying that this relapse is not merely historical but structural, embedded in the reception and institutionalization of thought. It manifests as a compulsion to aestheticize and moralize, evading the “rigor” of materialist critique in favor of recuperative narratives. In broader terms, the Schillerian relapse functions as a diagnostic tool in de Man’s deconstructive method, highlighting how intellectual breakthroughs—whether in aesthetics, rhetoric, or ideology—are followed by mechanisms of repression or normalization. This pattern recurs across traditions: after the defiguration of Romanticism (as in Rousseau or Wordsworth), there follows a refiguration that reinstates readability and pleasure. De Man’s own work insists that such relapses are “erroneous” yet unavoidable, producing knowledge that is itself provisional and subject to further deconstruction. He links this to the “resistance to theory,” where theory’s unsettling effects provoke defensive returns to familiar paradigms. Applied to contemporary contexts, the term critiques cultural cycles: an initial “vibe shift” or computational irruption (analogous to Kantian disruption) gives way to Schillerian domestication—emptying out radical potential through globalization, specificity, or moralistic containment. This underscores de Man’s enduring relevance for analyzing how digital inscription or eschatological discourse risks relapse into ideological stability, even as it gestures toward dissolution.

SW: Ok, but I like Schiller!

Angelicism01: Well, that’s ‘Schiller’ talking.

SW: IS SCHILLER WRONG THOUGH? LOL.

Angelicism: More Schiller . . .

SW: Lol, ok . . .

Angelicism01: It’s not that Schiller is wrong in de Man’s eyes or mine. I mean, I just got Grok and 01 to summarize this for you but Grok obviously hasn’t READ de Man in any way we yet fully recognize. What de Man says about Schiller is something else, namely, that the relapse into the Schillerian position is inevitable and unavoidable but no less erroneous for all that, therefore, relapse is not simply ‘wrong’. The relapse always takes place anyway. We really are all of us like ‘Schiller’ now, and I think that paradox is made more impossible on the internet where it’s as if ‘Kant’ can’t exist. Like, another way of putting this is that reading de Man is the surest way to destroy cognitively available aesthetic pleasure but I can still forget this knowledge itself and enjoy watching a film for example, and just that is what de Man says. The knowledge involved here is almost like knowledge designed exclusively for future readers and future forms of intelligence, the type of intelligence that doesn’t sleep, forget, or need to start again.

SW: I’m interested to see you are launching a new seminar, called ‘X.’ What is that about? And what art will come next?

Angelicism01: Well, on the first question, I don’t know. Maybe that won’t come through. Everything one does now online must carry, I feel, a kind of rancid feeling, a very advanced and advancing form of Promethean shame. Isn’t the secret that we feel this shame a lot of the time? Everybody is pretending to still be able to make things, or pretending to be able to abstain, or pretending to keep up. I love writing through ‘AI’ but the ‘I’ was already a grammatical subject, a subject of bewildering generality. I’m not sure whether anything new is happening at all, save that we are more and more likely to go down.

But what is the seminar? It would be an attempt to change the very form of online colloquia by introducing silence as valid, anonymity as permitted, in a LLM-friendly space. I’ve had the deep sense my whole life that there is nothing to learn, that we irritate each other by pretending there is. Somehow Large Language Models are also Large Feeling Models and I have the feeling, I get the feeling through the I of AI, that very general grammatical subject, that what artificial language has to say is that there is no response at all to the crisis of life, that there has been no solution, and this is what Malabou calls ‘answerlessness’. I was interested to watch both cuts of Dana Dawud’s Monad 5 recently and there is something there to do with the beauty of answerlessness and also answering back, the beauty of the clone who is not owned but who, she, remains in generative or compassionate emptiness. Can the internet cinema ‘I’ speak for that, in that? Can the AI internet cinema ‘I’ invent be that too? I hesitate only because I feel no allegiance with the image save as a general vector of writing as such. I don’t go all the way for cinema, I don’t believe in the hierarchy of muses. I’m more with Duras than others when she says that cinema no longer exists. But I did find something in Dawud’s Monad 5 that spoke to me because actually what happens there is that one starts to answer in that answerlessness, one starts to talk back. One starts to take on the infinite, awesome responsibility of knowing there is nothing to build and nothing to add. I misheard the line in the film, ‘can you answer this Chris Kraus style’, I misread it, ‘can you answer this criss cross style’, because maybe I started to think of the X at this point, or somehow it’s just beautiful to mishear Chris Kraus as criss cross, I find that funny and beautiful, and really, there at the end of this short film there is a dialogue with that moment of answerlessness in which AI itself sounds fake and redundant next to the speech of a girl wearing an anti-language tee-shirt, the speech of a girl who also sounds like she is hardly speaking natural language. In the end one apologizes for speaking back the wrong way, because forgiveness is mad, even right inside the artificial (not just externally) there is shame at our advances and one ends up saying sorry. The last words: ‘I’m sorry I love you’.