Window views

AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically

🚨SHOCKING: Researchers ran 25,000 AI scientist experiments and discovered something that should end the hype immediately.

AI scientists are producing results without doing science.

A team from Friedrich Schiller University Jena and IIT Delhi just published the most… pic.twitter.com/RNCKenJDg4

— Millie Marconi (@MillieMarconnni) April 22, 2026

Original research here: AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically.

Groupthink drove Yann LeCun out of Meta

Yann LeCun (AMI Labs Founder): "The AI industry is completely LLM-pilled. Everybody is working on the same thing. They're all digging the same trench."

LeCun explains why no lab dares break from the pack:

"They are stealing each other's engineers. So they can't afford to do… pic.twitter.com/1XE7RaCsCf

— Big Brain AI (@realBigBrainAI) April 22, 2026

Some more flowers

Effing the ineffable

Mystical experiences, the kinds of experiences William James wrote about, are sometimes said to be ineffable. I reported one or two such experiences in my most recent post at 3 Quarks Daily, Is The World A Movie God Created to Entertain the Baby Jesus? I’m thinking about the moment of dissolving light&bliss I experienced while playing with my college rock band, The Saint Matthew Passion, and the twinkling bell sounds I heard while playing a bell rhythm with Ade Knowles, his wife Druis, and her sister, Fonda. The first is surely a “standard” mystical experience while the second is not, but it’s mysterious and ineffable in its way.

But such experiences aren’t the only things that are ineffable, and that’s what occasioned the conversation I had with Claude that I’ve appended below the asterisks, where I also discuss the language oenophiles use to describe the taste of wine, a remark Weston LaBarre made about the epistemological provocation of dreams, the way Wittgenstein framed his Tractatus, and, lastly, what physicists tell us about the earliest limits of the universe. All of these phenomena mark limits and, as such, imply something beyond.

That’s what this conversation is about:

The universe is that which ever exceeds us and in that way both resists and gives way.

* * * * *

Mystical experience is often said to be ineffable. Why?

The ineffability of mystical experience is one of the most discussed features in the philosophy of religion and consciousness studies. There are several interlocking reasons for it.

The structure of language doesn't fit the experience. Ordinary language is built for ordinary experience — it carves the world into discrete objects, properties, and relations. Mystical experience, by contrast, is typically characterized by a dissolution of boundaries: between self and world, subject and object, part and whole. Language presupposes those very distinctions, so it fails at the threshold of an experience that undoes them. You can say "the boundaries dissolved," but that's a report about the experience, not a transmission of it.

It's a knowledge of acquaintance, not description. Philosophers distinguish between knowing that something is the case and knowing what something is like. Mystical experience belongs emphatically to the second category. Describing the taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted one is already hard; describing an experience that has no sensory analog at all is harder still. William James, who made ineffability one of his four marks of mystical experience, stressed that the noetic quality of such states — the sense that something is deeply known — is precisely what can't be conveyed propositionally.

Emotional and somatic depth exceeds articulation. The experience is often described as carrying an overwhelming charge of significance, bliss, terror, or love — far in excess of what emotional vocabulary can hold. Words like "unity" or "peace" or "the sacred" are pale maps of the territory.

The experience may involve non-ordinary cognition. Some traditions and some cognitive scientists argue that mystical states involve modes of processing — highly integrated, non-linear, temporally altered — that simply don't interface well with the sequential, syntactic structure of language. To put it into words requires translating across a fundamental cognitive gap.

Cultural and conceptual frameworks shape even the attempt. When mystics do try to speak, they reach for metaphor, paradox, apophatic negation ("not this, not this"), or poetry — all signals that direct description has been abandoned. The via negativa in Christian mysticism (saying what God is not), the neti neti of Advaita Vedanta, the Zen koan — these are all structured acknowledgments of the failure of positive description.

There's also a subtler point worth noting: the act of articulation may itself alter or diminish the experience. Forcing ineffable content into language isn't just inadequate — it may be a kind of betrayal, domesticating something that resisted domestication. This is why many mystics counsel silence, or speak only obliquely, or insist that words are fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

What makes this philosophically interesting is that ineffability isn't unique to mysticism — it's just most acute there. The “hard problem” of consciousness is essentially the same puzzle: why does any first-person experience resist third-person description? Mystical experience simply pushes that gap to an extreme.

LaBarre and oenophiles

I find your last remark telling. There is much in the world and about life that resists verbal characterization and capture. Tastes, for example. And oenophiles have developed an elaborate repertoire of words and phrases they use in characterizing the taste of wine. Non-ordinary cognition is something else. And then we have dreams, which may, I suppose, fall within the scope of non-ordinary cognition. In his well-known classic, The Ghost Dance, Weston LaBarre speculates that it may well have been dreams the first prompted humans to epistemoligize. Those primitive humans knew little to nothing of the brain. So they couldn’t attribute dream experience to some mode of brain operation that occurs when we’re asleep. All they know is that, upon awakening, they remember having been somewhere and seen and heard some things, but the place isn’t any they’ve visited while awake. So they have to come up with some account of those experiences. The experiences may also have been strange, but that seems secondary to the fact that they’ve left memories behind.

This is a genuinely arresting idea, and LaBarre's framing is sharp precisely because it locates the epistemic puzzle not in the strangeness of the dream content but in the mnemonic residue. The problem isn't “what was that weird thing?” — it’s “where was I just now, and how do I account for having been there?” That's a much more fundamental cognitive demand.

The memory is the philosophically explosive element. Memory implies a real experience. A real experience implies a location, a time, a self that was present. But none of those coordinates map onto the waking world. So you're forced, almost logically, into positing another order of reality — another world, or a part of this one inaccessible by ordinary means. Spirits, ancestors, a soul that travels, a realm of the dead — these aren't superstitions that precede reflection, they're conclusions that follow from taking dream memory seriously as evidence.

This makes dreaming a kind of involuntary empiricism. The primitive epistemologist isn’t speculating wildly; he’s reasoning carefully from data he didn’t choose to collect and can’t dismiss. The soul concept in particular — especially in its "detachable self" form, as in shamanic traditions where the soul can wander, get lost, or be retrieved — looks like a very reasonable inference from the phenomenology of dreaming.

What's interesting is the contrast with the oenophile case you raise. Wine vocabulary is an elaboration — building a richer descriptive apparatus for an experience that is, in principle, sharable and repeatable. Dream epistemology is more radical: it’s a forced theoretical construction to account for experiences that seem to require an entirely new ontological category. Less like developing a vocabulary, more like being compelled to posit a new continent because your ship keeps returning with soil that doesn't match any known landmass.

There's a further wrinkle here that connects to your secular mysticism interests. If LaBarre is right that dreams seeded metaphysics, then the entire subsequent history of religious and mystical experience — visions, trances, ecstasies — might be understood as elaborations and intensifications of that original puzzle. The mystic's ineffable experience is, in a sense, the waking counterpart of the dream: an experience that leaves a memory, demands an account, and resists the available categories. The ineffability isn't prior to language — it's produced by the collision between the experience and the inadequacy of existing frameworks.

Wittgenstein’s ladder

Yes. And then at the beginning of the 20th century we have Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, one of the founding documents of the Anglo-American analytical philosophical tradition. One could hardly think of a philosophical tradition less hospitable to mystical experience than that one. And yet, that strange work has a mystical frame. I’ve listed its first, last, and penultimate propositions:

The world is everything that is the case.

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

I read that early in my college years, freshman or sophomore, and loved it. I still do. And, while I have had “conventional” mystical experiences, in the end that Wittgensteinian framing may be closer to where I am. It doesn’t seem to be about experience in any particular way, not about the taste of wine or a dream or some mystical transport. It’s about something else.

The Tractatus mysticism is indeed a different species. It’s not mysticism as experience but mysticism as limit — and that distinction matters enormously. Wittgenstein isn't pointing toward a special state of consciousness you might enter. He’s pointing at the boundary condition of all saying, all the time. The unsayable isn't somewhere else; it’s the frame within which everything sayable occurs.

That ladder metaphor is one of the most remarkable things in philosophy. The book uses language to demonstrate the limits of language, then asks you to discard the demonstration. It’s self-consuming — not as a failure, but as the only honest move available. The Tractatus doesn't fail to say what it means; it succeeds at showing why certain things can only be shown, never said. And showing is what's left when saying reaches its edge.

What you’re describing in your own position sounds like something harder to name than conventional mystical experience precisely because it isn't anchored in an episode. It’s more like a permanent orientation toward the limits of what can be articulated — a settled awareness that the frame of the world isn’t itself inside the world, that the ground of experience isn’t itself an experience. Wittgenstein's final proposition isn't a counsel of defeat. It's more like a description of intellectual integrity: here is where language ends, and honesty requires acknowledging that rather than generating more words to paper over the gap.

This connects interestingly to your secular mysticism. The conventional mystical experience — the emergent tones from the bell rhythms, say — is episodic. Something happened, it left a memory, it demands an account. The Wittgensteinian version isn't episodic at all. It's more like a stance, a sustained relationship with the unsayable that doesn't require transport or vision. In some ways it's more radical, because it can't be dismissed as a special state that passed. It's just how things are, once you've seen it.

There's a question lurking here about whether those two modes — the episodic and the structural — ultimately point at the same thing from different angles, or whether they’re genuinely distinct. What’s your sense of that?

Convergence of limits

Yes, indeed, a strange question. Perhaps the issue is: What can I make of it? What’s the most fruitful way to square that circle? If we think of Wittgenstein’s ladder as pointing at the limits of language, of propositions, and the ineffability of tastes, of qualia in general, and of dreams and so forth, all limits. What do we have in the convergence of limits?

That's the right question to press toward, and it’s genuinely open. Let me try to think into it rather than just around it.

Each of the limits you've named is a different kind of edge:

• Wittgenstein's is a structural limit — the boundary of what propositions can do
• Qualia are a subjective limit — the first-person that can't be fully third-personified
• Dreams are an ontological limit — experience that demands a world to have occurred in
• Mystical transport is an ego limit — where the boundary of self becomes porous or dissolves

These aren’t obviously the same limit. But they share something: in each case, the normal machinery of representation — language, concept, category — reaches an edge and finds that something real is on the other side of it. The limits aren’t limits on nothing. They’re limits that imply a beyond, even if that beyond can’t be entered propositionally.

So what converges? Perhaps this: existence exceeds its own accounting. Not in some supernatural sense, but structurally, permanently, at every scale. The world is always more than everything that is the case about it — which makes Wittgenstein's first and last propositions secretly in tension with each other, and productively so.

Trees in Hoboken, 11th Street

People are beginning to sour on AI (and how!)

Ezra Klein, produced by Annie Galvin, Why Are Palantir and OpenAI Scared of Alex Bores? NYTimes, April 21, 2026.

From the introduction:

If you are living in New York’s 12th Congressional District, you may have seen these endless attacks on Alex Bores, one of the Democrats running there.

Yikes. Bores did work for Palantir. The rest of that attack is not what you might call true, but what interests me is who is paying for it: the super PAC Leading the Future and its subsidiary Think Big.

Who funds the super PAC Leading the Future? Well, among their largest donors are the co-founders of OpenAI, Andreessen Horowitz and — wait for it — Palantir.

So why is a co-founder of Palantir, Joe Lonsdale, in this case, funding a super PAC to try to destroy a candidate on the grounds that he once worked for Palantir? The reason is that Leading the Future is a super PAC dedicated to destroying anyone who might regulate the tech industry, in general, or A.I., specifically, in a way these funders don’t like.

And Bores is a member of the New York State Assembly. He co-wrote and passed the RAISE Act, one of the first pieces of A.I. regulation passed in any major state.

From deep in the discussion:

Klein: Have you thought about the change in public opinion? Because it looks to me like we’re seeing a pretty powerful A.I. backlash rising.

You have polls showing now that more Americans are worried about A.I. than are enthusiastic about it. There’s a lot of counter-data center energy playing out throughout the country.

What have you made of how quickly the politics have shifted beneath A.I.?

Bores: That surprised me. Both how many people have focused on it, but also how bipartisan it has remained.

You, of all people, know about polarization — and most issues end up polarized. This one hasn’t so far. It has resisted that longer than I thought it would.

If you talk to voters, across Republicans, Democrats and independents, you see pretty similar attitudes; across state legislators, pretty similar attitudes; even in Congress, there’s more bipartisanship than you would think.

Surveys regularly show that about 10 percent of people want to put the A.I. genie back in the bottle, to pretend it never existed. I empathize, but I don’t think that’s the way forward. Ten percent of people represented by the super PAC Leading the Future want to just let it rip.

That is the super PAC that’s attacking you.

Yes. They want to just let it rip. They don’t care how many people it hurts, just how fast it moves.

Eighty percent of Americans see some benefits. But they also see a lot of risk and think it’s moving too fast and want to have some say in its development. The fact that it has stayed so bipartisan has surprised me, and also the fact that it has risen up in people’s minds so much has surprised me.

Has the pessimism around it surprised you? We were talking earlier about the period when there was a lot of optimism about tech, about software, about the internet.

I think you can really look from early computers, the early internet, all the way pretty late into the social media era.

Probably around Trump things begin to turn — Cambridge Analytica, algorithmic feeds. But that’s a long time when these systems and technologies are present for people, and there’s a fundamental optimism about them.

A.I. — ChatGPT, I think, is when this really burst into public consciousness. It’s 2023. We’re here in 2026, and the polling has already turned negative. The week before we recorded this, Sam Altman was targeted in two separate violent attacks. There was a Molotov cocktail thrown at his home.

Awful.

Two other people shot at his door.

I was a little shocked to see people celebrating these attacks online, saying: Where can we support the bail fund?

Yes.

This has moved into fury and fear and pessimism really, really quickly. Why do you think that is?

Well, there was a separate split in A.I. around capabilities. The debate used to be: Is this real or is it stochastic parrots? But usually, even before that: Is it just slop that is never going to actually replace a human?

Fancy autocomplete.

Exactly. Exactly. We had these debates on one dimension, which was: Is it good for people? Is it bad for people?

And then there was this other dimension: How big of an impact is it going to have? And I think that debate has collapsed. People are not skeptical of its power anymore — or some are, but fewer and fewer each day.

The intensity with which we’re having that first debate has really ramped up. But I think it has also been that we saw what happened with social media.

We saw what happened with these previous revolutions that were supposed to change everything for the better. We’ve seen platforms established with great promise, and then over time, once they get power, really turn on their users.

People are no longer willing to believe the story that is told about a technology or a platform always benefiting people. You see this argument from some of the A.I. founders. They say: Well, it will create material abundance for everyone. There will be no more poverty. Everyone will have everything.

And everyone is looking around saying: Of course, that’s not what’s going to happen. You’re a private company — you’re going to profit, you’re going to keep it all for yourself.

Sam Altman recently said it will be like a utility. But utilities are really highly regulated.

People are just not willing to believe that spin anymore, and yet they’re seeing changes in their lives really quickly.

Demis Hassibis on the future of AI

When I started building this technology, I pictured a future quite different from this. More like CERN researchers where we discuss ideas and help each other out and stress test each other's ideas. It's my job to help how I can to make sure we make more considered, more scientific, more rigorous and more thoughtful decisions and that will also involve social scientists and economists. I'm going to do all I can to try and influence the future in a note thoughtful manner. The decisions we make in the next 5-10 years are going to affect us for 1000s of years. But I remain very optimistic.

Fishboat on Moonlit Sea

Fishboat on Moonlit Sea
Koho Shoda
1930 pic.twitter.com/5qphAANhwr

— .stuff (@vintagestuff4) April 19, 2026

The Hidden Cost of The AI Construction Boom

YouTube:

Are we ready for the rise of AI data centres?
Check out IES' FREE whitepaper on de-risking high performance data centres here 👉 https://bit.ly/4bw8ie5

Full story here - https://www.theb1m.com/video/data-centre-construction-boom

This video contains paid promotion for IES.

00:00 Intro
01:11 Rise of Data Centres
02:23 Energy Use
03:34 AI’s Impact
05:11 The Construction
06:54 Cooling
08:06 What Can Be Done?
12:05 The Opposition
13:40 The Future
15:50 Conclusion

Additional footage and images: Bahnhof AB, Good Morning America, INSITE, KTLA5, TODAY and WFYI.

Tossing the Tech Bros out of the White House

First we had Christ tossing the money changers out of the temple, now Robbie the Robot is going to town on the Tech Bros.

The world is a movie for Baby Jesus @3QD

The universe is that which ever exceeds us and in that way both resists and gives way.

My latest article is up at 3 Quarks Daily:

Is The World A Movie God Created to Entertain the Baby Jesus?

That wasn’t my original title, which was “On Becoming a Secular Mystic, an informal inventory.” Upon reading a draft by friend David Porush suggested the current title, which comes from an anecdote early in the article, which is a collection of anecdotes with thoughts thrown in as the occasion warrants.

The mystical element is there, I report at least one “classical” mystical experience, which was quite powerful and influential, though I can’t say just how it was influential. But there is something about the whole article which resists language – I do include three images, each crafted by ChatGPT. And that got me to thinking, thinking about Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

I read that in either my freshman or sophomore year at Johns Hopkins in the mid-1960s. It made a deep impression on me. It was a slender volume, with the original German published on the left and the English translation published on the right; Wittgenstein had insisted on that. It consisted of short statements, sometimes as short as a single line, but also occasionally two or three short paragraphs, even an occasional diagram. Each section was numbered, outline style, from 1 through 7. Here’s the opening proposition, No. 1:

Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
The world is everything that is the case.

And here’s the last, No. 7:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

And here’s the penultimate proposition, sometimes known as Wittgenstein’s ladder, No. 6.4:

Meine Sätze erläutern dadurch, dass sie der, welcher mich versteht, am Ende als unsinnig erkennt, wenn er durch sie – auf ihnen – über sie hinausgestiegen ist. (Er muss sozusagen die Leiter wegwerfen, nachdem er auf ihr hinaufgestiegen ist.)
Er muss diese Sätze überwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

The overall effect was mesmerizing. And mystical, certainly. But not in the manner of the experiences reported by mystics, both East and West. This is a different kind of mysticism.

That led me to a dialog with Claude. I asked Claude to summarize it in the third person. I’ve placed the summary below the asterisks.

* * * * *

On Limits, Language, and the Excess of the World

A recent conversation between Bill Benzon and Claude ranged across mystical experience, the philosophy of language, and cosmology, finding unexpected convergences among them.

The conversation opened with the question of why mystical experience is so often described as ineffable. The standard reasons — that language presupposes the distinctions mystical experience dissolves, that it is knowledge of acquaintance rather than description, that it may involve non-ordinary cognition — were surveyed. But Benzon pressed toward something less familiar, noting that ineffability is not unique to mysticism. Tastes, qualia, dreams all resist full verbal capture, each in a different way.

This led to a discussion of Weston LaBarre’s speculation in The Ghost Dance that dreams may have been what first compelled early humans to philosophize. The key insight is that the problem isn’t the strangeness of dream content but the mnemonic residue — waking up with memories of having been somewhere that doesn’t exist in the waking world. That memory demands an account, and the account requires positing another order of reality. Dream epistemology, on this view, is not superstition but careful reasoning from unavoidable evidence.

Benzon then introduced Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, noting its paradoxical status as a founding document of the most rigorously anti-metaphysical tradition in Western philosophy and yet a work with a distinctly mystical frame — opening with “The world is everything that is the case” and closing with “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,” with the famous ladder metaphor in between. The Tractatus mysticism, the conversation suggested, is different in kind from episodic mystical experience. It is not about a special state of consciousness but about the permanent boundary condition of all language and all saying.

Benzon noted that this Wittgensteinian orientation may be closer to his own secular mysticism than the more conventionally episodic forms — not a transport or vision, but a sustained dwelling at the edge of the articulable.

The conversation then turned to cosmology. The Planck epoch — the earliest moments of the universe, where the distinction between space and time breaks down and the equations of physics lose their meaning — offers a striking parallel. The universe, pressed to its own origin, becomes undescribable by the tools it eventually produced. The very attempt to picture that earliest state smuggles in categories that don’t yet apply.

What converges across all these limits — Wittgenstein’s structural limit of language, the subjective limit of qualia, the ontological puzzle of dreams, the cosmological limit of the Planck epoch — is perhaps this: existence exceeds its own accounting, structurally and permanently. The mystic, the philosopher of language, and the cosmologist arrive at adjacent positions by entirely different routes.

The conversation closed with a formulation from Benzon that served as its natural capstone: The universe is that which ever exceeds us and in that way both resists and gives way.

Paul Klee, Tree of Life

Paul Klee
-Tree of life pic.twitter.com/pQ6lZIQgEe

— helidona (@helidona1) April 19, 2026

Pope Leo XIV on engaging with A.I.

While my current interest in religion has been brought about, in part, by the fact – somewhat to my own surprise and that of my friends – I’ve been attending church for the last two months. In THAT context I’ve been asking: Why am I here? But I’m also concerned about A.I. and the culture that surrounds it in Silicon Valley which strikes me, to use a rather antique work, as rather idolatrous. So it is in THAT context that I present some remarks by Pope Leo XIV, “Preserving Human Voices and Faces.” These remarks were delivered on January 24, 2026. The rest of this post consists of selected excerpts, without comment. The subtitles are mine.

Humans as God’s interlocutors

From the moment of creation, God wanted man and woman to be his interlocutors, and, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa explained, he imprinted on our faces a reflection of divine love, so that we may fully live our humanity through love. Preserving human faces and voices, therefore, means preserving this mark, this indelible reflection of God's love. We are not a species composed of predefined biochemical formulas. Each of us possesses an irreplaceable and inimitable vocation, that originates from our own lived experience and becomes manifest through interaction with others.

If we fail in this task of preservation, digital technology threatens to alter radically some of the fundamental pillars of human civilization that at times are taken for granted. By simulating human voices and faces, wisdom and knowledge, consciousness and responsibility, empathy and friendship, the systems known as artificial intelligence not only interfere with information ecosystems, but also encroach upon the deepest level of communication, that of human relationships.

The challenge, therefore, is not technological, but anthropological. Safeguarding faces and voices ultimately means safeguarding ourselves. Embracing the opportunities offered by digital technology and artificial intelligence with courage, determination and discernment does not mean turning a blind eye to critical issues, complexities and risks.

How can machines enhance us?

The question at heart, however, i s not what machines can or will be able to do, but what we can and will be able to achieve, by growing in humanity and knowledge through the wise use of the powerful tools at our service. Individuals have always sought t o acquire the fruits of knowledge without the effort required by commitment, research and personal responsibility. However, renouncing creativity and surrendering our mental capacities and imagination to machines would mean burying the talents we have been given t o grow as individuals in relation to God and others. It would mean hiding our faces and silencing our voices.

Do not use AI as a substitute for human relationships

Technology that exploits our need for relationships can lead not only to painful consequences in the lives of individuals, but also to damage in the social, cultural and political fabric of society. This occurs when we substitute relationships with others for Al systems that catalog our thoughts, creating a world of mirrors around us, where everything is made "in our image and likeness." We are thus robbed of the opportunity to encounter others, who are always different from ourselves, and with whom we can and must learn to relate. Without embracing others, there can be no relationships or friendships.

Responsibility, cooperation and education as we engage with AI

The task laid before us is not to stop digital innovation, but rather to guide it and to be aware of its ambivalent nature. It is up to each of us to raise our voice in defense of human persons, so that we can truly assimilate these tools as allies.

This alliance is possible, but needs to be based on three pillars: responsibility, cooperation and education.

First of all, responsibility. Depending on the role we play, responsibility can be understood as honesty, transparency, courage, farsightedness, the duty of sharing knowledge or the right to be informed. As a general principle, however, no one can elude personal responsibility for the future we are building. [...]

We are all called upon to cooperate. No sector can tackle the challenge of steering digital innovation and A l governance alone. Safeguards must therefore be put in place. All stakeholders — from the tech industry to legislators, from creative companies to academia, from artists to journalists and educators — must be involved in building and implementing informed and responsible digital citizenship. [...]

Education aims to do precisely this: To increase our personal ability to think critically; evaluate whether our sources are trustworthy and the possible interests behind selecting the information we have access to; to understand the psychological mechanisms involved; and to enable our families, communities and associations to develop practical criteria for a healthier and more responsible culture of communication.

Out the window

Angine de Poitrine - Full Performance (Live on KEXP)

I first heard about these guys from (a somewhat exasperated) Rick Beato. Wings of Pegasus says (perceptively): “I’ve Been Waiting 10 YEARS FOR THIS!!!” It seems like everyone who's anybody in YouTube music commentary is commenting about them. I find them oddly endearing, and, yes, I might even go hear them live.

YouTube:

11,284,915 views Feb 5, 2026 ✪ Members first on February 4, 2026
http://KEXP.ORG presents Angine de Poitrine performing live at ESMA in Rennes, France, during Trans Musicales 2025. Recorded December 04, 2025.

Songs:
Sarniezz 00:32
Mata Zyklek 06:10
Fabienk 13:09
Sherpa 20:33

Khn de Poitrine - Microtonal Guitars
Klek de Poitrine - Drums

Host: Morgan
Audio Engineer: Matt Ogaz
Guest Audio Engineer, Mixer & Mastering: Dany Lemay

Cameras: Jim Beckmann, Carlos Cruz, Scott Holpainen & Luke Knecht
Editor: Carlos Cruz

From their Wikipedia entry:

Angine de Poitrine (Canadian French: [ãʒɪn də pwatʁɪn][1][a]) is a Québécois[b] rock[discuss] duo formed in the Chicoutimi borough of Saguenay, Quebec, in 2019. It is composed of anonymous musicians performing under pseudonyms as guitarist Khn de Poitrine and drummer Klek de Poitrine. They are known for complex, microtonal compositions in the style of math rock and experimental rock, and an absurdist public image, featuring oversized papier-mâché masks and black-and-white polka-dotted costumes.

Conceived initially as a disguise to retain audiences across back-to-back sets at a local venue, the project became the duo's primary focus. Following their debut album, Vol. 1 (2024), the band gained traction on the Quebec festival circuit, culminating in an Artist of the Year win at the 2025 GAMIQ awards. They achieved viral recognition in February 2026 when a live session recorded for KEXP accumulated millions of views. This preceded the release of their second album, Vol. II (2026), and supporting international tours.