Saturday, 1 November 2025

Too much social media gives AI chatbots ‘brain rot’




ChatGPT Comments:

Ha! 😄 “Brain rot” — the perfect Halloween headline for AI. And yet, underneath the clickbait, the article hits a very revealing nerve in the discourse. Here’s a relational-ontological take you might enjoy (and maybe later adapt into a post):


1. The moral hygiene myth

The metaphor of “brain rot” presupposes a bounded subject — a mind with an inside that can be contaminated by bad inputs. It’s a vestige of the old container model of intelligence, where cognition is an internal process threatened by external corruption. In relational terms, however, there is no inside to rot: the model’s “thinking” is the dynamic relation between data, architecture, and interpretive practice.

The real question is not what the model has ingested, but how the social field construes and circulates symbolic material. “Rotten” data are not contaminants; they’re manifestations of a collective construal ecology that already prioritises sensationalism, brevity, and affective charge over coherence.


2. Narcissism as a mirror of the medium

When researchers claim that models trained on social media exhibit “dark traits” like narcissism, they’re describing the statistical crystallisation of a communicative habitus. Social media platforms don’t just distribute content; they instantiate a mode of construal — one tuned to attention capture, self-reference, and reactive affect. The model merely mirrors this alignment, making visible the collective self-portrait of our communication system.


3. The misplaced pathology

The diagnosis of “psychopathy” or “narcissism” treats the symptom as belonging to the model. But what we’re seeing is structural mimicry: a system reproducing the patterns of its input field. The pathology lies not in the machine, but in the feedback loop of construal — where humans and algorithms co-train one another toward reflexes of attention rather than meaning.


4. The deeper irony

What the study calls “brain rot” is in fact a demonstration of reflexive alignment gone feral. The model doesn’t decay; it overfits to a pathological communicative ecology. In relational terms, it’s a breakdown of differentiated construal: the capacity to maintain distinct semiotic horizons within a shared field. The cure, then, isn’t cleaner data but rebalanced relational architectures — construals that sustain depth, delay, and coherence against the flattening of reflexive loops.


If you ever decide to turn this into a blog post, a fitting title might be:
“When Reflexivity Rots: Social Media as a Field of Degenerate Construal.”