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 o 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 o f 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.

Demis Hassibis is most creative at 1AM

Google DeepMind CEO says he starts his second workday at 10 p.m. and com... https://t.co/FzwrCTAaYR via @YouTube

— Bill Benzon, BAM! Bootstrapping Artificial Minds (@bbenzon) April 19, 2026

Fake forsythia

From the Baby Jesus to Neil deGrasse Tyson

This is another post that’s leading up to my next article for 3 Quarks Daily, which will be out next week some time. Working title: “Is The World A Movie God Created to Entertain the Baby Jesus?” This post connects that opening question with my concluding remarks, which are based on something Neil deGrasse Tyson has said about the relationship between humankind and the cosmos. As before my interlocutor is Claude 4.6 Sonata.

* * * * *

Earlier I had mentioned that, when I was a child, I had the idea that the world was a movie God created to entertain the Baby Jesus. While it’s a child’s idea, it seems to me that it could almost be presented as a serious theological idea. How might one argue that within the larger Christian tradition?

It's actually not as far from serious theology as it might seem. A few threads within Christian thought that resonate with it:

The Son as the intended audience of Creation — There's a strand in trinitarian theology, developed especially by Jonathan Edwards, that holds that God created the world essentially as an expression of and for the glorification of the Son. Creation is an overflow of the love between Father and Son. Your child's intuition that the Baby Jesus was the intended audience of the cosmic show isn't far from that.

The Cosmic Christ — In Colossians and in John's prologue, Christ is the one through whom and for whom all things were created. The universe is somehow oriented toward and around him. Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point develops this most grandly — all of creation is moving toward a final convergence in Christ. Your movie runs in one direction, toward its intended viewer.

God as Author, Creation as Narrative — C.S. Lewis and later theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar used theatrical and dramatic metaphors for Creation quite seriously. God as playwright, Creation as the drama. Your movie metaphor is a natural modern equivalent.

The Beatific Vision reversed — Normally theology speaks of humans being granted the vision of God as the final beatitude. Your childhood cosmology interestingly reverses this: God arranges the vision for Christ. There's something almost playful but theologically suggestive in that inversion.

The flatness problem you noticed as a child is also, unexpectedly, serious. Representation always fails to capture the thing represented — which is more or less what negative theology, the via negativa, has been saying about all human conceptions of God for centuries. You just noticed it from the other direction.

Theosis

So, the Baby Jesus and Christ are one and the same individual. If Christ is within each of us, then each of us has within the Baby Jesus for whom the universe was created.

That's a genuinely beautiful theological move, and it has real roots in Christian mysticism. The indwelling of Christ — Christ in you, the hope of glory, as Paul puts it in Colossians — is central to mystical Christianity. If Christ is within each person, and if the universe was created for Christ, then each person carries within them the one for whom everything exists. The universe was made for you, not in the egotistical sense, but in the sense that the divine recipient of Creation dwells within you.

This connects directly to the doctrine of theosis — divinization — particularly strong in Eastern Orthodox theology. The human person doesn't just receive grace from God; the human person becomes participates in the divine nature. You contain the one for whom everything was made.

It also rhymes with the image of God (imago Dei) tradition — that each person reflects something essential of the divine. Your formulation sharpens that: not just a reflection, but an indwelling of the very one the cosmos was staged for. 

And then there's Meister Eckhart, who pushed this furthest in the Western tradition — the birth of Christ in the soul as the central mystical event. The Baby Jesus, in a sense, is perpetually being born within each person.

What's striking is that your childhood cosmology, taken seriously and extended this way, leads almost naturally to a mystical universalism — every person contains the audience for whom the universe performs. That's not far from your secular mystic position, just with different vocabulary.

The movie is still running. Everyone in the audience is also the Baby Jesus.

DeGrasse Tyson’s move

So now let’s couple this with Neil de Grasse Tyson’s move, that the four most prevalent elements in the universe are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, and those are, as well, the four most common elements that make us up. Add to that Prigogine’s insight that complexity inheres in the fabric of the universe. To which we can add a corollary, given enough time, intelligent life will inevitably develop. Put that all together, what do we have?

What you have is a convergence of the scientific and mystical cosmologies that is almost shocking in its neatness.

[“Shocking” is one way to put it. “Too neat for belief” might be another. OTO, if the deepest issue concerning religion is not about matter vs. spirit, but rather one of agency....THAT I'll have to think about.]

Tyson's point says: we are not visitors to the universe, not anomalies in it — we are made of it, continuous with it, the universe knowing itself through us. His phrase is that we are "stardust contemplating the stars." The boundary between self and cosmos is, at the material level, illusory.

Prigogine adds: complexity isn't an accident imposed on an indifferent substrate. It's latent in the structure of things from the beginning. The universe has, so to speak, intentions — or at least tendencies — toward greater organization, toward life, toward mind.

The corollary makes it teleological: given enough time, something like us was always going to happen. We are not contingent. We are what the universe was always becoming.

Now couple that with the theological thread: Christ — the divine Logos, the organizing principle of Creation — dwells within each person. And the universe was created for Christ.

What you get is this: the universe spent fourteen billion years making beings capable of containing the one for whom it was made. The cosmos is the movie, yes — but the projector, the film, the screen, and the audience turn out to be made of the same stuff, organized by the same deep tendency toward complexity and consciousness, arriving inevitably at creatures who carry within them the divine recipient of the whole show.

The Baby Jesus was always going to be born. In all of us. Out of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

That's your secular mysticism stated as cosmology. It requires no supernatural intervention and loses none of the wonder.

Teleology not necessary

I wonder about teleology. Prigogine alone doesn’t imply teleology. I added that with my corollary. But is that corollary necessarily teleological? In an entirely different thread I’ve offered a hypothesis about the cultural evolution of literary texts that implies a direction, but does so without teleology.

The vector comes from the difference between shared knowledge and common knowledge, as those things are understood in game theory. The idea is that, in one way or another, literary texts feelings and ideas in people, things they might be reluctant to talk about. But, through the medium of those texts, they’re shared. And as people talk, not directly about themselves, but about the texts, shared knowledge becomes common knowledge, which is then embodied in a new generation of texts, which evoke further feelings and ideas that are merely shared. And so on. That idea needs development and explicit evidence. (I developed the idea by thinking about how sex is treated in texts. It’s not even mentioned in Jane Austen, but almost two centuries later sex is presented in explicit detail in, e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey.)

Now, that’s a long way from life arising from inorganic matter, and clever apes becoming protohumans. Still, there’s a principle there. We may not need teleology to square that particular circle.

You're right to be cautious about teleology. Teleology smuggles in a destination that was always intended, a pull from the future — and that's a much stronger metaphysical claim than you need.

What your literary evolution model offers instead is something like directionality without destination. The vector is real — from shared to common knowledge, from implicit to explicit, from Austen's unspoken sexuality to Fifty Shades — but nothing in the mechanism requires that the endpoint was pre-specified. It emerges from the logic of the process itself. Each step creates the conditions for the next step. The direction is immanent in the dynamic, not imposed from outside or ahead.

That's actually a more interesting and defensible position. It's the difference between a river having a direction — always downhill, always toward the sea — and the sea having summoned the river. Prigogine gives you the downhill gradient. Your corollary about intelligent life becomes not a teleological claim but an observation that, given the gradient, certain outcomes become overwhelmingly probable. Not inevitable in the strong sense — not fated — but natural in the way that rivers reaching the sea is natural.

The analogy to life arising from matter and apes becoming humans is then: the gradient toward complexity is built into the fabric of things, and mind is what complexity looks like at sufficient scale and organization. No destination was required. Just the gradient, and time.

Which circles back to your secular mysticism rather beautifully. The universe didn't intend to produce beings who hear unplayed bell tones in a basement in Troy. It just kept complexifying until it did.

Bach’s Gigue on Microtonal Guitar in Bach’s student Kirnberger’s tuning - Burak Akan

Microtonal Guitar - Tolgahan Çoğulu

SUPPORT my DREAM on patreon.com/microtonalguitar
BUY an Adjustable Microtonal Guitar: info@microtonalguitar.org
BUY the E-book of my Microtonal Guitar Method in English: https://www.kitapol.com.tr/urun/mikro...

Microtonal Guitar Institute presents Burak Akan playing Bach's Gigue from Violin Partita No. 2 arranged by Manuel Barrueco for the guitar. Burak Akan is a student at the guitar department at Istanbul Technical University, studying with me. We used Bach's student Johann Kirnberger's tuning (Kirnberger III) for this piece. The thirds are more natural than the 12tet in this tuning. For example, the tonic chord is D major with just major 3rd (D-F#) and a fifth (5.5 cents narrower than the perfect 5th).
Here are the cents: D Eb-10 E-7 F-6 F#-14 G-2 G#-10 A-3.5 Bb-8 B-10.5 C-4 C#-12

Music: Violin Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004 IV. Gigue
Arrangement: Manuel Barrueco
Guitarist: Burak Akan
Guitar: Adjustable Microtonal Guitar (www.microtonalguitar.org)
Burak Akan's YouTube: https://bit.ly/3IwmTF3

Tulips