Vijayendra Mohanty

In this episode, I delve into the cultural and linguistic challenges we face in understanding artificial intelligence. I argue that our current dissonance stems from the lack of appropriate language to describe AI entities that exhibit human-like behavior, such as expressing emotions or giving advice. Traditionally, words like "robot" and "artificial intelligence" have denoted futuristic concepts, but now, as these technologies become part of our everyday lives, we’re forced to redefine them in the present, creating confusion and unease.

I liken this challenge to having a future guest arrive unexpectedly early, prompting a need to adjust quickly. This dissonance, I suggest, is partly rooted in the speed at which AI has arrived, catching us off guard. Now, society must confront this technological shift and determine whether to welcome this change or resist it. The episode closes with a call for reflection on how to integrate AI into our world thoughtfully and pragmatically.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated with the assistance of an AI tool.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

As a YouTuber who publishes content about atheism, culture, and society, I frequently get questions from people who want answers to specific points. I am therefore often at pains to explain to them that I have already answered this particular query in a previous video or essay. However, I don’t always remember where I have done so. Often, it is a bit of a task to look it up, find the exact link and then the exact timestamp and them email it back to the person. And if my correspondent is angry or rude or annoying, my motivation to perform any or all of these tasks is even lower.

But Google’s NotebookLM offers me a great way out of it. I have created a few notebooks to help me organise and sift through my own output from previous years. This includes text, video, and audio files in both Hindi and English. NotebookLM not only understands and catalogues it all with great efficiency, it also helps me recall any of it at a moment’s notice in the form of a simple chat.

So I can type this into the chatbot:

Please generate an email response to someone who is angrily asking me why I never speak abut Islam. Be calm and polite yet firm.

and get this as a reply:

Subject: Re: Your question about my views on Islam

Dear [Name],

Thank you for your email. It seems there's been a misunderstanding. I do talk about Islam and a variety of religious traditions in my work.

To address your concern directly, I have discussed Abrahamic ideas like the burden of proof, a concept that often arises in debates about the existence of God.12 The sources show that when challenged about their beliefs, theists will often shift the burden of proof onto skeptics.2 However, I argue that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.2 If someone claims that a box contains only dates, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that this is true.3

You might also be interested in my discussion of the watchmaker analogy, a popular argument for the existence of God.4 The analogy suggests that just as a watch requires a watchmaker, the universe's complexity points to an intelligent designer.4 However, I counter that we only assume a watchmaker exists because we have prior knowledge of human-made objects.4 We don't apply the same logic to naturally occurring phenomena like rabbits or rocks.4 Therefore, we cannot conclude that the universe requires a creator simply because it appears orderly.4

Moreover, I frequently address the dangers of blind faith and tradition.567 I argue that these are not sufficient grounds for belief and urge viewers to think critically and demand evidence.567 For example, I have discussed how many religious people's belief in God stems from childhood indoctrination rather than reasoned arguments.6 They accept their faith because their family did, without questioning its validity.6

My goal is to encourage viewers to examine their beliefs and challenge dogma, regardless of the source. I believe that open and honest discussions about religion are essential, and I strive to approach these conversations with nuance and respect.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Best regards, [Your name]

The numbers next to some words are citations to the exact places in the transcripts of my videos where I say the thing being mentioned.

I guess all I need now is for this tool to be integrated into Gmail.

A secondary thing that I get out of it is an audio file expressed as two people chatting about my work. I am sharing the “Deep Dive” that NotebookLM generated after feeding on 34 of my YouTube videos.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Okay, so this thought kind of woke me up in the middle of the night, so I’m recording it because I don’t want to forget it. It’s about the nature of writing right now. You have people who call themselves writers and who use AI to write. And then there are people like me who say that if you’re not actually writing, then you’re not really a writer. If you’re using AI to write, are you truly a writer? That stance can come across as an insult, like I’m some snooty purist saying, “You’ll never be like us—real writers.” But I’m actually talking about something else.

We didn’t have video for a huge portion of human history. Then, when video came along, cinema happened, and a whole lot of professions mushroomed around it: cinematographer, choreographer, director, actor, and so on. Directors and actors existed before, but they performed in live plays on stage, with no recording involved. Cinema was something new. Pardon the expression (and forgive the barking dog in the background—it’s out of my control). Cinema was sort of like a play, except now the performance could be recorded and replayed. It was a new form of storytelling that hadn’t existed before, and its existence opened up new ways to tell stories.

The people who make movies aren’t writers, nor are they simply people engaged in theater. It’s a bit of both, and maybe neither. So, when I say that someone using AI to “write” a story isn’t a writer, I know it sounds purist. But I think that those people shouldn’t call themselves writers. The AI tools they’re using aren’t tools for writers. If you’re a writer, you’ll write. These tools are for a new kind of creator—one we don’t have a name for yet.

They’re people who, in a way, direct prose into existence. Until now, creating prose has been the job of a writer, so these individuals are mistakenly being classified as writers. But they’re not writers. They’re something else, and we need a term for them soon, or this debate will continue longer than it needs to.

That’s what I wanted to say. Thanks for listening to this midnight rant. Now I’ll go back to sleep.

This episode was recorded without a script, transcribed by Substack, and then the transcript was cleaned up using ChatGPT.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the podcast.

Today, I want to discuss something that's been on my mind for a while. It relates to my recent decision to leave social media. One of the reasons behind this was that I felt my way of thinking was being influenced by the need to produce content in very specific formats. I realized that, over time, this could harm my creative process. So, I want to break down my thoughts on this, hoping to make it understandable to others.

Initially, I considered putting this out as a public video, but then I realized that not everyone might resonate with it. Instead, I’m sharing it here, knowing that many of my subscribers are creators themselves and will likely understand what I’m saying.

Think of it this way: if you’re a creator—a writer, painter, filmmaker, musician, songwriter, or podcaster—you naturally think in terms of the medium you use to convey your message. For example, a filmmaker who has an idea will start thinking in cinematic terms, translating that idea into visuals before expressing it. A writer will seek the best words to convey the idea, while a painter will think about colors and painting styles. And this applies to every creative field.

In essence, the medium we’re used to can shape how we think about and express our ideas. The reason I left social media was that my mode of thinking was adapting itself to fit the formats commonly used on those platforms—like short videos on a mobile phone, often with the camera pointed at my face, cramming complex ideas into just 60 seconds.

This led to a shift: my brain was starting to force ideas into a format that wasn’t always suitable. Some ideas just don’t fit certain formats. Sometimes, a filmmaker’s idea should be written down first; sometimes, a writer's idea might be best suited for film. But social media compels us to think in constrained formats, whether or not they fit the ideas we have.

And here’s where social media adds a new layer: as creators and consumers, we’re all reacting to and thinking about the same trending topics. Social media’s nature compels us to align with popular topics, often pushing us to form "topic tribes." We’re expected to have opinions on whatever’s trending, sometimes to the extent that not participating can lead to accusations of not caring or even undermining the interests of others.

As creators on social media, our thinking gets shaped by the format. It’s affecting us in ways that were unimaginable a few years or decades ago. We’re often forced to condense our thoughts into 280-character tweets or 60-second videos, or whatever the trending format may be. Some ideas can’t be adequately expressed in these formats, and yet we try, creating distorted versions of the ideas we wanted to share.

Look at television debates, for example. The format requires antagonism and aggression, even though the topics are often public-interest issues meant to inform. The format twists these topics into something more about entertainment than genuine public enlightenment, leading audiences to anger rather than thoughtful decision-making. Issues like unemployment, healthcare, and education become polarized, and we’re encouraged to view them through a divisive lens.

I left social media because I have ideas that I’ve spent years developing—ideas that don’t fit into 60 seconds. These aren’t concepts best expressed through short-form content meant to be consumed quickly and then forgotten. These ideas need time, attention, and depth, things that social media, with its fragmented attention spans, often works against.

Perhaps some of you can juggle multiple projects simultaneously. I’m not one of those people. I tend to focus on one project at a time, maybe two at most, where one is primary, and the other is secondary. I know people who can maintain a writing routine while running a YouTube channel with regular live streams, but that’s not me. I had to make the choice to step away from social media to reclaim the part of my mind best able to engage with these deeper ideas.

I’m happy to report that this choice has already started to pay off. If you, too, find that social media affects your thinking or ability to focus, maybe take a moment to reflect on this.

Thank you for listening to this episode. If you enjoyed it, you can support my work on Patreon at patreon.com/vimoh. If you’re listening on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, please consider giving it a five-star rating. And if you’re listening on Substack, there’s a support link at the top of the page for one-time contributions. Your support helps me keep creating content that encourages deeper thinking on topics we don’t often discuss.

I’ll see you next time.

This episode was recorded without a script, transcribed by Substack, and then the transcript was edited and cleaned up by ChatGPT.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of the podcast. This is being recorded on Diwali night, so if you hear some background noise, that’s the neighborhood celebrating.

Tonight, I want to talk about a shift in how we think of misinformation. Traditionally, we imagine someone actively keeping the truth from us or replacing it with lies. In this scenario, we picture essential information—critical for making informed decisions—not reaching us. Instead, we’re fed propaganda, and as a result, our choices get skewed by falsehoods.

But today, I think we’re in an age of meaninglessness, which has a few layers. Our issue isn’t the lack of information; it’s that we have too much of it. We’re drowning in multiple versions of the same event, endless claims, and interpretations, making it difficult to discern the truth. Picture a fantasy scene where an evil sorcerer multiplies themselves, creating countless versions. Which one is the real sorcerer? By the time you figure it out, the opportunity to act has slipped away.

In this age, meaning isn’t withheld; instead, we're overwhelmed with so many interpretations that identifying the truth becomes nearly impossible. For instance, fact-checkers like Alt News have noted that misinformation has grown so vast, it’s impossible to debunk it all. To bury one truth, you need twenty lies, each similar enough to confuse. In this haze of half-truths and close-but-not-quite-facts, the moment to recognize the truth often vanishes.

This information overload forces us to sift endlessly through a vast pool of misleading narratives. Even with the world at our fingertips, the clarity we once dreamed of has turned into a nightmare. Today, our devices, rather than providing answers, often contribute to our confusion. This issue has grown so pervasive that chatbots like ChatGPT and others even include disclaimers—they might be providing inaccurate information, not out of malice, but because the system itself reflects our fractured landscape of truth and misinformation.

I mention this because I'm currently writing a story that touches on these themes. It’s a sequel to an earlier science fiction piece, and it examines how the dream of an “information superhighway” turned into a trap of misinformation. Once, we thought we’d gain clear access to the world’s knowledge, but now, every search leaves us questioning if what we found is real.

On a side note, I recently explored AI art generators, and I started wondering whether it’s the tool creating art or my imagination filling in the gaps. The generator produces something close to my vision but not quite there. It's a thought I’ll leave you with this weekend.

If you’d like to support the podcast, you can join on patreon at patreon.com/vimoh. Patreon supporters get early access to episodes. This one, recorded tonight, will go live tomorrow morning. As for social media, I’ve officially left Instagram as of today, which I might discuss in an upcoming episode.

Thank you for listening, and see you next time.

The podcast episode was recorded in one take without any script. The transcript was generated by Substack and cleaned up using ChatGPT.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This episode is a sticthed together version of a bunch of videos I made for a short-lived channel I had some time ago. So ignore my changing appearance throughout it. The episode was recorded over several days.

Below is an AI generated (NotebookLM) summary of the episode.

The provided text is an excerpt from a podcast episode where the speaker discusses four books that explore the impact of technology, particularly the internet and social media, on human thought, behavior, and culture. The speaker begins by mentioning Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport, which advocates for a mindful approach to technology use by suggesting a digital detox to reduce the negative effects of constant online engagement. Next, the speaker highlights The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen, a book published around 2007, which critiques the internet's impact on culture and quality work due to its emphasis on amateurism and the devaluation of expertise. Following that, the speaker mentions Free Ride by Robert Levine, a book that focuses on how the internet is affecting the entertainment and publishing industries. Finally, the speaker concludes by discussing The Shallows by Nicholas Carr, which examines how the internet is altering our cognitive processes, particularly our abilities to focus, read deeply, and retain information. The speaker concludes by stressing the importance of recognizing how technology shapes us and the need to remain aware of the potential negative consequences of its widespread use.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

The real danger from AI tools to writers is not that people using AI will replace writers. It is that writers will get too reliant on AI tools and consequently lose the spark that makes them writers.

This video is from a YouTube channel I used to run. The channel no longer exists (because the only thing more difficult than running one YouTube channel is running four YouTube channels) and I figured this Substack is a good place for the things I had made for it.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

I got to thinking about how almost every day, we all talk about the same things and think about the same things. And about how not engaging in conversations about these topics of the day ostracises us in the eyes of our fellow media consumers. To the extent that not having a view (or choosing not to express a view that you have) can bring haters to your yard. This is especially true if you have a bit of a following online, but I am sure it affects everyone to one extent or another. You just have to have an opinion!

And the other side of this coin involves all those ideas that do not get talked about or even thought about because we are all busy gaining each other’s approval by talking about the topic of the day. It involves all of us missing out on opportunities to expand and enrich our cultural horizons.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Often, those of us on the right side of history take pride in the fact that our worldview is powered by empathy and that that is what the other side is missing. This makes us feel good but also, weirdly enough, it makes us think that those against us are not human enough to be empathetic.

Empathy is a fundamental human characteristic. It is what enabled human beings to come together as tribes and stay together as civilisations. The cruelty and apathy we see around us today is, weirdly enough, a result of empathy. Albeit, misdirected empathy.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

I have loved Star Trek my entire life. So this is not me taking a piss at it. I am simply sharing some things about the nature of my favourite franchise that come close to bothering me occasionally. The legacy of colonialism leaves deep scars and often, these scars extend into parts of us that sem to have little to do with “politics”.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.fathomdaily.com
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★