Bitcoin’s Existential Crisis: How Satoshi’s Revolutionary Cash System Became the World’s Most Expensive Digital Paperweight

By

-

April 23, 2025

A thought-provoking digital illustration capturing the essence of Bitcoin's existential crisis. The foreground features a large, cracked Bitcoin symbol, surrounded by digital debris and fading code, symbolizing its decline from revolutionary cash system to a digital paperweight. In the background, a dystopian cityscape bathed in neon lights contrasts with dark clouds of uncertainty. Floating holograms depict Satoshi Nakamoto, overshadowed by a looming question mark, representing the mystery of its creator. The artwork employs a dramatic color palette of deep blues and vibrant golds, with sharp focus on details like the intricate circuitry and reflections in the Bitcoin symbol. The style combines elements of cyberpunk and surrealism, creating a cinematic atmosphere that invites viewers to ponder the future of digital currency.

In the beginning, there was code. And Satoshi Nakamoto looked upon the code and saw that it was good. Then humans got involved, and everything went to HELL!

Back in the ancient digital era of 2008, when Facebook was still cool and people thought Blackberry would rule forever, a mysterious figure (or group) calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto dropped a nine-page white paper that would change the course of financial history.¹ Titled with the irresistibly sexy name “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” this revolutionary document promised freedom from banks, governments, and those insufferable Venmo notifications showing your friends paying each other for “last night 🍕🍺😉.”

As we approach Bitcoin’s 17th birthday, it’s time to ask the question on everyone’s mind: What would Satoshi think of their digital offspring now? Has Bitcoin lived up to its promise, or has it become the very monster it was designed to slay? And perhaps most importantly, how many of these digital golden tickets are still waiting to be mined by some lucky nerd with enough electricity to power a small latin american nation?

Satoshi’s White Paper: A Technical Masterpiece or the World’s Most Expensive Fan Fiction?

Let’s start with first principles. What actually is Bitcoin according to its creator? Digging into the white paper reveals Satoshi’s core vision: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”.²

Notice what Satoshi did NOT say:

“A volatile digital asset perfect for gambling away your life savings”
“A way for tech bros to signal their intellectual superiority at dinner parties”
“A method for turning electricity into climate change and bragging rights”

The white paper elegantly solved the double-spending problem through a decentralized ledger that records transactions in “blocks” chained together cryptographically.³ This blockchain would be maintained by “miners” who compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles, earning rewards in newly created bitcoins.⁴ Transactions would be verified by network consensus rather than trusted third parties, with a total cap of 21 million bitcoins to ensure scarcity.⁵

Dr. Eleanor Rigby, Professor of Applied Cryptonomics at the Massachusetts Institute of Totally Real Academic Departments, explains: “What Satoshi created was essentially a perfect mathematical system that failed to account for one critical variable: humans are greedy little goblins who will turn anything into a speculative asset.”

In Part 11 of the white paper, Nakamoto provided mathematical proof that the network would be secure against attackers as long as honest nodes controlled the majority of computing power. He calculated the probability of an attacker catching up to the honest chain as “dropping exponentially as the number of blocks the attacker has to catch up with increases.” Seventeen years later, this security model has proven remarkably resilient – unlike the security of crypto exchanges, which have proven about as reliable as a screen door on a submarine.

The Great Bitcoin Identity Theft: From Electronic Cash to “Number Go Up” Technology

Sherlock Holmes famously solved the case of the missing racehorse by noting “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time” – the dog did nothing, which was the clue. Similarly, the most revealing thing about Bitcoin in 2025 is what it’s NOT being used for: actual transactions.

Follow the money trail and a curious pattern emerges. Bitcoin’s transformation from “electronic cash” to “digital gold” wasn’t an accident – it was a deliberate reframing by early holders who realized that convincing others to HODL rather than spend would increase the value of their own holdings.⁶

The smoking gun? Bitcoin’s transaction volume for actual goods and services has remained relatively flat for years, while trading volume on exchanges has exploded. As cryptography expert and Bitcoin early adopter Charlie “Satoshi’s Not My Dad” Williams notes, “We realized around 2013 that we could make way more money convincing people Bitcoin was digital gold than digital cash. The ‘store of value’ narrative was born, and suddenly everyone stopped caring that you couldn’t buy coffee with it.”

Connect these three overlooked dots:

Bitcoin’s average transaction fee in 2025 is approximately $20 – rendering it useless for small purchases
The majority of Bitcoin has not moved in over five years – contradicting the “medium of exchange” narrative
The companies most prominently accepting Bitcoin for purchases (like Microsoft) report minimal actual transaction volume⁷

The elementary conclusion? Bitcoin isn’t being used as money – it’s being used as a speculative investment vehicle. The “digital cash” has become digital gold, which is about as useful for buying groceries as an actual gold bar.⁸

This repositioning was cemented when major institutions began treating Bitcoin as an inflation hedge and “digital gold” rather than a payment system3. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, once a cryptocurrency skeptic, now unironically describes Bitcoin as “digital gold,” apparently forgetting that gold is useful for things like electronics, dentistry, and gaudy bathroom fixtures for oligarchs – while Bitcoin’s primary utility remains comparison to gold.

The ultimate irony? Bitcoin, designed to free us from financial institutions, is now predominantly held and traded by… financial institutions.⁹ As they say, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become an ETF.

Bitcoin Supply: The Digital Scarcity Scam That Actually Worked

As of April 2025, approximately 19.5 million of the total 21 million bitcoins have been mined, leaving just 1.5 million up for grabs. The remaining coins will trickle into existence over the next century, with the final bitcoin expected to be mined around 2140 – though this will be largely ceremonial, as it will represent just 0.00000001 BTC (or 1 satoshi).¹⁰

What Satoshi couldn’t have predicted is that a significant number of bitcoins would be permanently lost. Estimates suggest between 3-4 million bitcoins are gone forever – forgotten passwords, lost hard drives, death by washing machine, and at least one instance of a man, whose ex-girlfriend (now definitely definitely ex-girlfriend) accidentally throwing away a hard drive containing 8,000 bitcoins now worth approximately $800 million. The drive currently resides in a Welsh landfill, where local regulations prevent him from digging through literal trash to find his digital treasure.¹¹

“The beauty of Bitcoin’s lost coins is that they create even more artificial scarcity,” explains Dr. Sarah Johnson, Chief Economist at Definitely Not A Bitcoin Maximalist Think Tank. “It’s like if Leonardo da Vinci painted 21 million Mona Lisas, but then accidentally left 4 million of them on the bus.”

The halvings – events occurring roughly every four years that cut the mining reward in half – further restrict new supply. The most recent halving in 2024 reduced the reward to 3.125 bitcoins per block, triggering the usual flood of price predictions ranging from “conservative” ($150,000) to “smoking something strong” ($1 million).¹²

Examining Bitcoin’s supply algorithm reveals a fascinating asymptote: 21 million is approached but never reached.¹³ The actual mathematical limit is 20,999,999.9769 bitcoins due to the halving schedule – a detail that drives perfectionist programmers absolutely insane.

Bitcoin’s Future: Digital Messiah or Very Expensive Database?

Bitcoin’s price predictions for 2025 range from “wildly optimistic” to “mathematically impossible.” Fundstrat’s Tom Lee predicts $250,000, while Standard Chartered and Bernstein both target $200,000.¹⁴ Meanwhile, BitMEX’s Arthur Hayes is the party pooper with a mere $70,000.¹⁵

Robert Kiyosaki, who has successfully predicted 374 of the last 2 market crashes, believes Bitcoin will reach $180,000-$200,000 by year-end.¹⁶ When asked about his methodology, Kiyosaki replied, “I take the current price, add the angel number my spirit guide showed me, then multiply by how afraid I am of the US Federal Reserve.”

Institutional adoption continues to grow, with ETFs now holding over one million bitcoins. Financial advisors increasingly recommend allocating 1-5% of portfolios to cryptocurrency, which coincidentally equals the percentage of their clients’ money they’re comfortable losing without triggering lawsuits.

The Lightning Network, Bitcoin’s layer-2 scaling solution, promises to make transactions faster and cheaper – essentially rebuilding the efficient payment networks that Bitcoin was supposed to replace in the first place. As one developer anonymously confessed, “We’ve spent a decade trying to make Bitcoin work like Visa, when Visa already works like Visa. It’s like reinventing the wheel, but making it square and calling it innovative.”

Politically, Bitcoin’s future looks increasingly tied to regulatory whims. Donald Trump, once a crypto skeptic, has performed a complete 180° turn, declaring his intention to make the U.S. a “crypto superpower” and establish a Bitcoin reserve. This development has Bitcoin maximalists experiencing cognitive dissonance as they struggle to reconcile their anarcho-capitalist ideals with their sudden enthusiasm for government involvement.

The true future of Bitcoin likely lies somewhere between the hyperbitcoinization utopia envisioned by maximalists (where Bitcoin replaces all money and Michael Saylor is crowned god-Emperor) and the crypto winter apocalypse feared by skeptics (where Bitcoin joins Beanie Babies and tulip bulbs in the museum of speculative manias).¹⁷

What Would Satoshi Think?

If Satoshi Nakamoto materialized today (please don’t), they might be both impressed and horrified by what their creation has become.

On one hand, Bitcoin has achieved remarkable resilience and adoption, with a market cap exceeding $1 trillion. Major financial institutions that once dismissed it now scramble to offer cryptocurrency services. Bitcoin has survived countless obituaries and become a recognized asset class.

On the other hand, Bitcoin’s primary use as a speculative investment rather than a payment system represents a fundamental departure from Satoshi’s vision.¹⁸ The concentration of bitcoin ownership among whales and institutions undermines the democratic ideal of financial sovereignty for all. And the energy consumption of mining – which Nakamoto believed would be more efficient than traditional banking – has become a major environmental concern.

In one of his early emails (recently released as part of a lawsuit), Nakamoto acknowledged Bitcoin’s energy consumption but argued that traditional banking systems’ inefficiencies far outweigh Bitcoin’s energy use.¹⁹ He envisioned Bitcoin replacing resource-intensive infrastructure and billions of dollars in banking fees with a more efficient system. Instead, we’ve added a new energy-intensive system on top of the existing banking infrastructure, achieving the worst of both worlds.

Perhaps most disappointingly, Bitcoin hasn’t freed us from financial intermediaries – it’s simply created new ones. Exchanges, custodians, and fund managers have replaced banks as the gatekeepers of crypto wealth, extracting fees and imposing their own restrictions.

As blockchain researcher Dr. Maya Patel puts it: “Satoshi created Bitcoin to eliminate trusted third parties. Now we have Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, BlackRock, and countless others serving as trusted third parties. Task failed successfully!”

The Final Block

Bitcoin stands at a crossroads in 2025. It has transformed from a radical experiment in digital cash to a mainstream financial asset – gaining legitimacy at the cost of its original purpose. The remaining 1.5 million bitcoins will enter circulation over the coming decades, but the real question isn’t how many bitcoins are left – it’s whether Bitcoin itself has any purpose left beyond making early adopters obscenely wealthy.

As Ki Young Ju, CEO of CryptoQuant, predicts, by 2030 Bitcoin might finally return to Satoshi’s original vision and become a true currency for daily transactions. But until then, we’ll continue treating the world’s first peer-to-peer electronic cash system as anything but cash – hoarding it like digital dragons, trading it like speculative pixie dust, and arguing about it endlessly on the internet.

In the words of fictional Bitcoin philosopher Wei Dai Li: “We built a revolutionary payment system, then collectively decided not to use it for payments. Satoshi didn’t give us the future of money – they gave us a mirror that reflects our own greed, our own distrust, and our own desperate hope that somehow, someday, someone else will pay more for our magic internet money than we did.”

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to check if Bitcoin has hit $100,000 yet. Not that I’d sell at that price, of course. As a true believer, I’m holding until $1 million. Or zero. Whichever comes first.

Want to support TechOnion’s mission to expose the absurdity of the tech industry one satirical article at a time?

Consider donating some of those precious bitcoins you’ve been HODLing since 2013. After all, what’s the point of a revolutionary peer-to-peer electronic cash system if you never actually use it as cash? Think of it as fulfilling Satoshi’s vision while supporting the only tech publication brave enough to ask if Bitcoin is just spicy Beanie Babies for men with Patagonia vests. Remember: 1 TechOnion subscription = 1 TechOnion subscription (that’s more certainty than any crypto investment can offer).

References

Memestock Reality Distortion Field: How Tesla ($TSLA) and Dogecoin Became Interchangeable Financial Hallucinations Worth Billions

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 23, 2025

0

In what financial historians will surely document as the most expensive joke in economic history, Tesla ($TSLA) has completed its remarkable transformation from “revolutionary electric vehicle company” to “extremely expensive internet meme that occasionally manufactures cars.” This evolution has placed it firmly in the same investment category as Dogecoin—a cryptocurrency literally created to mock cryptocurrency, which now has a market cap larger than many Fortune 500 companies because a billionaire tweeted about it while presumably sitting on his toilet.

Welcome to 2025’s financial markets, where stock fundamentals are made up and the points don’t matter. It’s the investment equivalent of paying $50,000 for an NFT of a cartoon ape smoking a cigar, except the ape occasionally announces self-driving features that don’t actually self-drive.

The Curious Case of Parallel Financial Delusions

The smoking gun evidence of Tesla’s complete memeification appeared this month when Dogecoin surged 10% while Tesla simultaneously hemorrhaged $160 billion in market value following Trump’s tariff announcements.¹ This price divergence between Musk’s two favorite financial playthings has shocked exactly no one who’s been paying attention to the fundamentally absurd nature of both assets.

“Tesla’s share price has nothing to do with its actual profits or function as a car business,” explains investment legend Bill Gross, who recently noted Tesla had begun acting like meme stocks such as Chewy². Gross’s observation, while correct, is approximately four years too late—Tesla crossed the meme Rubicon long ago, around the same time Musk decided “funding secured” was an appropriate way to announce a potential company buyout at $420 per share because, and I quote directly, it’s “a weed reference”.³

Connect these three seemingly unrelated dots:

Tesla’s market cap exceeds that of the next nine most valuable automakers (Toyota, BYD, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, BMW, Volkswagen, Stellantis, and General Motors) combined.
Dogecoin was literally created as a joke to parody irrational crypto speculation.
Both assets experience dramatic price swings based primarily on Elon Musk’s social media activity.⁴

The elementary truth, dear reader? Tesla and Dogecoin aren’t investments—they’re expensive digital mood rings that change color based on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) feed.

The Financial Ouroboros: When Memes Eat Their Own Tail

In the beginning, Dogecoin was created as a lighthearted parody, featuring a Shiba Inu to mock the often illogical nature of crypto speculation. Its creators, software engineers Billy Markus and Jackson Palmer, intended it as a humorous jab at crypto hype. Fast forward to 2025, and this satirical creation has become precisely the kind of speculative asset it was designed to mock—largely thanks to one man’s Twitter habit.

Similarly, Tesla began as an innovative electric vehicle company that made real products solving real problems. Now it’s valued as though every human on Earth will soon own three Cybertrucks, despite the company’s fluctuating sales, product issues, and the fact that its flagship software only functions properly for “an elite few”.

“For years now, Tesla’s share price has been entirely unmoored from the company’s actual business—a meme stock,” notes a Quartz analysis. This assessment aligns perfectly with a Binance study finding that between March 2021 and March 2024, Tesla and Dogecoin prices moved in tandem 62.5% of the time, creating what analysts delicately termed a “suicide pact” between the assets.⁵

The cosmic joke reached its zenith when Tesla officially incorporated Dogecoin as a payment option for merchandise purchases. The car company that’s supposedly revolutionizing transportation now accepts payment in a currency featuring a cartoon dog that was explicitly created to mock the idea of cryptocurrency having value. This is the financial equivalent of a snake consuming itself while livestreaming the experience on TikTok.

Inside the Mind of a Tesla-Dogecoin Investor: A Psychological Examination

To understand the psychology behind Tesla and Dogecoin investments, I spoke with Dr. Eleanor Rigby, a behavioral economist specializing in meme-based financial decisions at the prestigious Institute for Advanced Financial Delusions.

“What we’re seeing is a fascinating cognitive phenomenon I call ‘narrative substitution,'” explains Dr. Rigby. “Investors have replaced traditional valuation metrics with story-based investments. For Tesla investors, they’re not buying a car company—they’re buying ‘Elon Musk will single-handedly save humanity through technology.’ For Dogecoin holders, they’re purchasing ‘I’m in on the joke with the world’s richest man.'”

This psychological mechanism explains why Tesla’s stock responded so dramatically to Musk’s CPAC 2025 appearance, where he described himself as “living the meme” while discussing Dogecoin.⁶ When your investment thesis is essentially “funny internet man make number go up,” actual business performance becomes irrelevant.

“Tesla has achieved something remarkable,” continues Dr. Rigby. “It’s a company that can lose $160 billion in market value in a week, and investors will still defend it by saying ‘but Mars colonies!’ This is the financial equivalent of staying in a terrible relationship because ‘they might change.'”

The Musk Effect: When One Man’s Twitter Feed Controls Billions

The true architect of this financial farce is, of course, Elon Musk himself—a man who has turned market manipulation into performance art so compelling that regulators have essentially thrown up their hands and declared “I guess this is just how things work now.”

Consider the evidence:

When Musk referred to Dogecoin in an April 2019 tweet as his favorite cryptocurrency, the coin’s price doubled in two days.⁷ Two years later, his X posts declaring “Dogecoin is the people’s crypto” triggered an overnight trading volume surge of over 50%. Meanwhile, his infamous 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private at $420 a share sent markets into such a frenzy that it triggered an SEC lawsuit.⁸

The Musk Effect has become so powerful that financial analysts now include a “Musk Tweet Probability Factor” in their models. When Tesla’s stock hit exactly $420 in December 2024, it wasn’t treated as a random price point but as a “milestone packed with meme significance” because in the Musk financial universe, juvenile drug references are actually meaningful economic indicators.

The Tesla-Dogecoin Divergence: Trouble in Meme Paradise?

The most intriguing development in this absurdist financial theater occurred this month, when Dogecoin and Tesla prices suddenly diverged. While Tesla shed $160 billion in market value following Trump’s tariff announcements, Dogecoin surged 10%. This uncoupling raises a fascinating question: Is Dogecoin finally breaking free from its Musk dependency?

“The directional difference between Dogecoin and Tesla prices begs a fundamental issue for investors: Is Dogecoin starting to separate from Elon Musk’s long-standing influence?” asks one analysis.⁹ This potential decoupling comes as Musk’s role in Trump’s administration has failed to yield the anticipated government adoption of Dogecoin, with Musk clarifying there were “no current plans” to incorporate it into official government digital infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Tesla stock opened at $245 on Tuesday, having tumbled 17.5% following Trump’s tariff announcement. After this bloodbath, Musk shared a video of economist Milton Friedman criticizing trade tariffs—a move that demonstrated both his growing political influence and how his companies remain vulnerable to his new political entanglements.

Welcome to the Meme Economy, Where Nothing Matters and Everything’s Made Up

The Tesla-Dogecoin phenomenon represents the logical conclusion of late-stage capitalism—a financial system so disconnected from reality that it has essentially become a multiplayer video game where the objective is to predict the behavior of one erratic billionaire.

Consider this: When Tesla’s stock plummeted following tariff announcements, it wasn’t because the underlying business had changed overnight. The factories were the same. The products were the same. The demand was the same. What changed was the narrative. And in today’s meme economy, narrative trumps reality every time.

This is why a cryptocurrency featuring a Shiba Inu created as satire can be worth billions, and why a car company with persistent production issues can be valued higher than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, Ford, and every other major automaker combined.

Dr. Rigby frames it perfectly: “We’ve entered a post-rationality market where assets are valued not by what they do, but by how they make us feel. Tesla and Dogecoin make people feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves—a community, a movement, an inside joke. The fact that one is a struggling car company and the other is literally a joke doesn’t matter when the emotional attachment is the actual product being sold.”

The Great Financial Hallucination of 2025

At the heart of both Tesla and Dogecoin is a fascinating paradox: both were created to disrupt established systems (automotive and banking respectively), yet both have become extreme manifestations of the speculative excess they were supposedly fighting against.

Erwin Voloder, Head of Policy of the European Blockchain Association, nailed this irony perfectly: “Musk’s involvement transformed Dogecoin from a satirical internet token into a speculative asset class by bestowing it with perceived legitimacy and entertainment value… The irony is that a coin created to mock irrational investing became the poster child of irrational investing”.

This same analysis applies perfectly to Tesla—a company founded to accelerate sustainable transportation that has transformed into a vehicle for speculative excess so extreme that its market cap defies all traditional financial logic.

And here we are in 2025, watching as the two untethered financial entities in Musk’s orbit—Tesla and Dogecoin—potentially begin to separate, like twin stars drifting apart after orbiting the same eccentric center of gravity for years.

The most telling quote about this phenomenon comes from Musk himself during his CPAC 2025 appearance: “Doge began as a meme. Just think about it. And now, it’s real. Isn’t that wild? But it’s great”.¹⁰ Replace “Doge” with “Tesla’s market cap” and the statement remains equally accurate—a perfect distillation of our financial reality where the line between meme and value no longer exists.

For investors in both Tesla and Dogecoin, this memeification represents either the democratization of finance or its complete surrender to absurdity, depending on your perspective. Either way, both assets have conclusively proven that in 2025, financial value isn’t determined by business fundamentals or utility—it’s determined by whatever Elon Musk decides to tweet after his morning coffee.

Support TechOnion’s Financial Reality Fund

Do you find it disturbing that your entire retirement portfolio now depends on whether Elon Musk posts dog memes at 3 AM? Help us maintain our sanity-preserving journalism with an extremely large million dollar donation to TechOnion. Unlike Tesla and Dogecoin, your contributions’ value won’t fluctuate based on a billionaire’s Twitter activity. Your financial support helps us continue excavating the bizarre truth beneath the meme economy while we desperately try to convince ourselves that economic fundamentals still matter. Remember: in a world where cartoon dogs and electric cars have become interchangeable financial instruments, satirical journalism may be the only real investment left.

References

Machine Learning Revelation: How Computers Learn to Predict Your Life Choices Before You Make Them (And Why That’s Totally Not Creepy)

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 23, 2025

0

Machine Learning Revelation: How Computers Learn to Predict Your Life Choices Before You Make Them (And Why That's Totally Not Creepy)

In what future historians will surely document as humanity’s most elaborate attempt to avoid making decisions for ourselves, Machine Learning has now become the technological equivalent of outsourcing your thinking to that one friend who always makes terrible life choices but somehow speaks with unwavering confidence. Welcome to the brave new world where algorithms are trained to think—a process that involves feeding them massive amounts of data until they develop the digital equivalent of a philosophy degree: the ability to make impressive-sounding predictions while being completely wrong approximately 30% of the time.

Today, dear TechOnion readers, we embark on a journey to demystify Machine Learning, that mystical art of teaching computers to learn patterns without explicitly programming them—or as one Stanford researcher put it during a particularly honest moment at a conference afterparty, “giving computers enough examples of something until they stop being completely useless at it!”

What Machine Learning Actually Is (When No One’s Trying to Raise Series A Funding)

Strip away the marketing jargon and celestial hype, and machine learning is fundamentally about prediction based on pattern recognition.¹ A machine looks at data, finds patterns, and then applies those patterns to new information—essentially the same process a toddler uses to figure out which parent is more likely to give them ice cream, except with significantly more linear algebra.

“Without all the AI-BS, the only goal of machine learning is to predict results based on incoming data. That’s it,” explains one refreshingly honest machine learning primer.² It’s pattern recognition on an industrial scale, like teaching a computer to play “one of these things is not like the other” using thousands or millions of examples.

The entire field began when someone had the revolutionary thought: “People are dumb and lazy – we need robots to do the maths for them”. And thus, machine learning was born—a noble endeavor to transfer our intellectual laziness to silicon chips that don’t complain about working overtime.

How Machines Actually “Learn” (Spoiler: It’s Less Magical Than You Think)

Contrary to what TechCrunch (Our distant cousins) and VC pitch decks would have you believe, machine learning doesn’t involve a computer gaining consciousness and deciding to better itself through night classes and inspirational podcasts on Spotify. The “learning” process is less “Good Will Hunting” and more “toddler touching a hot stove repeatedly until the correlation between ‘stove’ and ‘pain’ becomes statistically significant.”

For machines to learn, they need three essential ingredients: data, algorithms, and more data, preferably “tens of thousands of rows” as a “bare minimum for the desperate ones”. The quality of machine learning is directly proportional to the quantity and diversity of data it consumes—which explains why tech companies are more interested in your browsing history than your actual well-being.

Machine learning algorithms process this data through what MIT researchers describe as descriptive (explaining what happened), predictive (forecasting what will happen), or prescriptive (suggesting what action to take) approaches.³ In practical terms, this means your smart speaker can describe why it ordered 17 pineapples when you asked for the weather, predict that you’ll be angry about it, and prescribe itself a factory reset before you can throw it out the window.

The Four Horsemen of the Machine Learning Apocalypse

Machine learning comes in four exciting flavors, each with its own unique way of turning data into dubious conclusions:

Supervised Learning: The digital equivalent of learning with helicopter parents. You provide labeled data and the algorithm tries to figure out the relationship between inputs and outputs. It’s like teaching a child by showing them thousands of pictures of cats while repeatedly screaming “CAT!” until they get it right. Practical applications include spam detection, where the algorithm learns that emails containing “V1AGRA” and “enlarge your portfolio” should probably be filtered—unless you’re a pharmaceutical investor with performance issues.

Unsupervised Learning: The free-range parenting approach to algorithms. You throw unlabeled data at the machine and tell it to find patterns on its own. This is often used for customer segmentation, where companies discover shocking revelations like “people who buy diapers often buy wipes too” and then act like they’ve discovered the unified field theory of retail.

Semi-supervised Learning: The “I’m not like a regular algorithm, I’m a cool algorithm” approach, where only some data is labeled.⁴ The machine learning model is told what the result should be but must figure out the middle steps itself, like telling a student the answer is “Paris” without explaining that the question was “What is the capital of France?” and not “Where should I take my next vacation?”

Reinforcement Learning: The “learn by doing” approach where algorithms improve through trial and error. Google used this technique to teach an algorithm to play the game Go without prior knowledge of the rules. The algorithm simply moved pieces randomly and “learned” through positive and negative reinforcement—the same method I use to make major life decisions, except the algorithm achieved mastery while I’m still trying to figure out why I am not a media mogul yet!

The Curious Case of Machine Learning’s Missing Common Sense

The smoking gun evidence of machine learnings’ fundamental limitations is hidden in plain sight: despite consuming more data than humans could process in multiple lifetimes, ML systems still lack basic common sense. They might recognize patterns with superhuman precision but remain confounded by simple contextual understanding that toddlers master effortlessly.

Consider pattern recognition, which ML excels at—finding trends in astronomical amounts of data. Yet when Stanford researchers asked leading ML systems to interpret the statement “I just lost my job” delivered in a neutral tone, the sentiment analysis categorized it as “content” or “satisfied.” Apparently, unemployment is a delightful opportunity for personal growth in algorithm-land!

Connect these seemingly unrelated dots:

ML systems can analyze millions of data points to predict consumer behavior with uncanny accuracy
These same systems struggle to understand basic human emotions and contextual nuances
Tech companies market ML as “intelligent” while internally referring to them as “narrow task performers”

The elementary truth becomes clear: machine learning has been marketed as artificial intelligence when it’s actually pattern recognition with an expensive public relations (PR) team.

Inside the Wizard’s Algorithm: A Day in the Life of a Machine Learning Engineer

To truly understand the absurdity of machine learning, let’s peek behind the curtain at what ML engineers actually do all day.

Meet Jasmine Chen, a machine learning engineer at a top tech company who spends her days doing what she describes as “advanced data janitor work with occasional moments of algorithmic brilliance.” Her morning routine begins with cleaning data—removing duplicates, handling missing values, and normalizing variables—a process that consumes approximately 80% of her working hours.

“The public thinks I’m building the real life Matrix,” Jasmine explains while staring at a spreadsheet with 100 million rows. “The reality is I spent three hours today trying to figure out why our algorithm thinks people named ‘null’ are more likely to default on loans. Turns out someone used the string ‘null’ instead of an actual null value in the database. This is what I got my PhD for.”

By afternoon, Jasmine is tuning hyperparameters—the settings that determine how the algorithm learns. “It’s basically just turning knobs until the model performs better. Sometimes I feel like I’m just playing with a very expensive radio trying to reduce static.”

When asked about the most challenging aspect of her job, Jasmine doesn’t hesitate: “Explaining to executives why we need eight months and one hundred million dollars to build something that they think should take ‘a couple of days’ because they read a TechCrunch article about how college dropouts built a sentiment analyzer worth billions of dollars.”

Machine Learning Applications: Where Dreams Meet Reality

Machine learning has been successfully applied across numerous domains, proving particularly valuable in areas where pattern recognition from large datasets is key.⁵ Let’s examine some of its most prominent applications:

Recommendation Engines: ML powers the algorithms that suggest products, movies, or content based on past behavior. Companies like Netflix and Amazon have perfected these systems to the point where they know what you want to watch before you do, yet somehow still recommend “Sharknado 4” because you once paused on a Discovery Channel documentary about great white sharks.

Self-Driving Cars: ML algorithms and computer vision help autonomous vehicles navigate roads safely—mostly by teaching them to recognize pedestrians more effectively than human drivers who are busy checking Instagram anyway.

Healthcare: ML aids in diagnosis and treatment planning, allowing doctors to confidently tell patients, “According to the algorithm, you have a 87.3% chance of recovering, but I’m going to prescribe this medication just to be sure the computer doesn’t murder you through statistical error.”

Fraud Detection: Financial institutions use ML to detect unusual patterns that might indicate fraudulent activity—a system that works flawlessly unless you decide to buy gas in a neighboring state, triggering an immediate card freeze and existential crisis about whether your spending habits have become too predictable.

Spam Filtering: The original killer app for ML, where algorithms learn to recognize unwanted messages. The pinnacle of human technological achievement is that your inbox now automatically filters out enlargement pills while still letting through “urgent message from your boss” emails that are actually phishing attempts from Nigerian princes.

The Machine Learning Reality Distortion Field

Perhaps the most miraculous aspect of machine learning isn’t the technology itself but the reality distortion field it generates in marketing materials and VC pitches. What ML engineers describe as “moderately effective pattern matching with significant limitations” becomes “AI-powered revolutionary paradigm-shifting intelligence” once it passes through a company’s marketing department.

This transformation is evident in how the same technology is described in technical papers versus press releases:

Technical paper: “Our model achieved 73% accuracy in distinguishing between pictures of dogs and cats under optimal lighting conditions.”

Press release: “Revolutionary AI breakthrough reimagines visual cognition with superhuman capabilities, disrupting the $14 trillion pet identification market.”

The disconnect extends to how companies talk about data needs. Internally, data scientists demand “more data, cleaner data, better data,” while externally, privacy policies soothingly assure users that companies collect “only essential information to improve your experience.” The translation: “We need everything you’ve ever done, thought, or dreamed about, but we’ll pretend it’s just to make better restaurant recommendations.”

The Future of Machine Learning: Both More and Less Than We’ve Been Promised

Looking ahead, machine learning (just like its cousin, deep learning) stands at a fascinating crossroads. On one path lies the continued refinement of narrow, specialized systems that excel at specific tasks without broader intelligence. On the other, more ambitious efforts to create general systems that approach human-like reasoning—efforts that have thus far produced the AI equivalent of a toddler that can recite Shakespeare but tries to eat rocks when you’re not looking.

The future workplace won’t be dominated by AI or humans alone but shaped by those who master the art of combining both. The most powerful force isn’t artificial intelligence or human intelligence in isolation but intelligence augmented by technology and guided by human wisdom—a poetic way of saying “we’ll still need humans to fix the algorithms when they inevitably screw up.”

As we navigate this future, perhaps the most important question isn’t whether machines can learn but whether we humans can learn to set appropriate expectations, maintain control over these systems, and remember that behind every “intelligent” algorithm is a team of engineers frantically googling error codes and wondering if they should have pursued that philosophy degree after all.

Because at the end of the day, machine learning remains a tool—an incredibly powerful, occasionally brilliant, frequently frustrating tool that, like all technology, is only as good as the humans who create, deploy, and oversee it. And in that fundamental truth lies both our greatest hope and our most pressing challenge.

Support TechOnion’s Algorithm Training Program

If our article helped demystify machine learning, consider donating to TechOnion’s ongoing research. Unlike the algorithms desperately harvesting your data, we rely on conscious, voluntary contributions from readers (and TechOnionists) who appreciate our unique brand of tech satire. Your donation trains our proprietary humor algorithm to generate increasingly accurate mockery of Silicon Valley absurdities. Plus, our machine learning model has predicted with 92.7% confidence that donating will make you feel 46.8% more superior to your tech-illiterate friends for at least 3.4 days.

References

Deep Learning Delusion: How Silicon Valley Taught Computers to Hallucinate Confidently and Call It Intelligence

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 23, 2025

0

A thought-provoking digital illustration titled "Deep Learning Delusion," depicting a surreal, futuristic Silicon Valley landscape. In the foreground, a humanoid figure made of circuit patterns and data streams stands confidently, surrounded by holographic displays of neural networks and algorithms. Behind them, a skyline of sleek buildings adorned with neon lights and digital billboards showcases slogans about AI and intelligence. The sky is filled with abstract shapes representing hallucinations—colorful, swirling patterns that evoke a sense of confusion and wonder. The color palette should be vibrant yet slightly dystopian, with blues, purples, and contrasting bright colors. The overall atmosphere conveys both the allure and the potential pitfalls of advanced technology, capturing the essence of how AI can confidently produce illusions in a hyper-connected world.

In what future tech historians will surely document as humanity’s most elaborate attempt to recreate our own cognitive flaws at scale, Deep Learning has emerged as the technological equivalent of teaching a calculator to have opinions about your Instagram photos. Welcome to the brave new world where we’ve spent billions of dollars building neural networks that can recognize a cat in an image with 99% accuracy but still can’t figure out whether “I’m fine” means you’re actually fine or you’re planning to burn down the office.

Today, dear TechOnion readers, we embark on a journey to demystify Deep Learning, that mystical art of persuading stacks of matrix multiplications to develop something resembling a personality disorder. Prepare for a revelation more shocking than finding out your cloud storage is just someone else’s computer: the “intelligence” in artificial intelligence is about as artificial as the cheese in a vegan pizza.

What Deep Learning Actually Is (When No One’s Trying to Raise Series B Funding)

Strip away the marketing jargon and celestial hype, and deep learning is fundamentally a subset of machine learning that uses artificial neural networks with multiple layers to extract high-level features from raw input.¹ In human language: we’re teaching computers to recognize patterns by showing them millions of examples and letting them figure out the commonalities, much like how you taught your grandmother to use Facebook by showing her the same button 47 times.

“Deep learning, a powerful subset of artificial intelligence (AI), is revolutionizing the world around us,” proclaims one suspiciously enthusiastic LinkedIn article. What they don’t mention is that this “revolution” primarily consists of teaching computers to make increasingly confident mistakes at increasingly impressive speeds.

The fundamental architecture resembles a digital nervous system that would make Sigmund Freud reach for stronger cigars: an input layer ingests data, multiple hidden layers transform it with mathematical functions, and an output layer produces a result that’s either eerily accurate or spectacularly wrong.² There’s no middle ground, which perfectly captures Silicon Valley’s approach to everything.

The Neural Network: Silicon Valley’s Answer to “What If Spreadsheets Had Anxiety?”

At its core, a deep neural network consists of three components: an input layer, hidden layers, and an output layer. The input layer receives data like images, text, or numbers. Each node in this layer passes information to the hidden layers, which apply random parameters to transform the data, similar to how your brain transforms “I should exercise more” into “I deserve ice cream for thinking about exercising.”

These hidden layers are called “hidden” because even the people who designed them aren’t entirely sure what’s happening inside them. It’s the computational equivalent of your teenager’s bedroom – something important is probably happening in there, but you’re too afraid to check.

The transformed data eventually reaches the output layer, which produces a classification, prediction, or generated sample, depending on what you’ve asked the network to do. Through processes called forward propagation and backpropagation, the network gradually adjusts its parameters to reduce errors, much like how humans learn from mistakes, except the neural network doesn’t spend three days in bed questioning its entire existence after getting something wrong.

The Most Honest Definition You’ll Ever Read: “Without all the AI-BS, the only goal of machine learning is to predict results based on incoming data. That’s it,” explains one refreshingly honest machine learning primer. It’s pattern recognition on an industrial scale, like teaching a computer to play “one of these things is not like the other” using millions of examples and the computing power that could have been used to solve climate change.

How to Create Your Very Own Digital Narcissus

Training a deep learning model requires access to a large dataset, which you can find online or collect yourself if you enjoy tedious, soul-crushing labor. Once you have your data, you need to design a neural network that will extract and learn the features of your dataset, a process that one industry insider described as “throwing spaghetti at a wall until something sticks, then pretending you meant to put it there all along.”

For the technically adventurous, platforms like V7³ offer pre-built models for tasks like image classification, object detection, and instance segmentation. The process is straightforward:

Sign up for a free trial (nothing in tech is ever truly free – you’re paying with your soul and data as all TechOnionists know by now)
Navigate to the “Neural Networks” tab
Select a model type
Choose your dataset
Click “Start Training” and wait while your computer fans scream like they’re auditioning for a death metal band
Receive an email notification when your model has finished training and is ready to make confident mistakes in production

The alternative is training a model from scratch, which requires the kind of computing resources typically reserved for simulating nuclear explosions or rendering Pixar films. As one deep learning researcher put it during a particularly honest moment at a conference after-party: “My job is basically heating my apartment with GPUs while pretending to understand linear algebra.”

Deep Learning Frameworks: Tribalism for People Who Think They’re Too Smart for Sports

In the world of deep learning, your choice of framework reveals more about your personality than any Myers-Briggs test ever could. The top frameworks in 2025 form an ecosystem more fraught with tribal rivalries than a “Game of Thrones” episode.⁴

TensorFlow: Google’s offering is the corporate suit of frameworks – powerful, well-resourced, but will absolutely ghost you when you need help with that one obscure error that only occurs every third Tuesday when Jupiter aligns with Mars.

PyTorch: Facebook’s contribution has “gained popularity among researchers and software developers alike” due to its “dynamic computation graph and user-friendly interface”.⁵ Translation: it’s for people who think they’re too cool for TensorFlow and want everyone at the coffee shop to know it when they loudly complain about “computational graph tracing.”

The Rest of the Pack: The remaining frameworks exist primarily to pad out LinkedIn résumés and give developers something to argue about on X (formerly Twitter.) Choosing the right one is less about technical requirements and more about which tech giants’ Kool-Aid tastes best to you.

The Curious Case of Deep Learning’s Computational Gluttony

The smoking gun evidence of deep learning’s fundamental absurdity is its insatiable hunger for computational resources. “Deep learning is not simple to implement as it requires large amounts of data and substantial computing power. Using a central processing unit (CPU) is rarely enough to train a deep learning net,” admits one analysis.

Connect these seemingly unrelated dots:

Deep learning requires exponentially more computational power each year
The same companies building deep learning systems also sell the GPUs required to run them
Each new state-of-the-art model requires more parameters than the last

The elementary truth becomes clear: deep learning isn’t just a technological breakthrough—it’s the most elaborate planned obsolescence scheme ever devised. By the time you finish reading this article, your cutting-edge neural network will be outdated and require twice the computing power to stay competitive.

Inside the Deep Learning Sweatshop: A Day in the Life

To truly understand the absurdity of deep learning, let’s peek behind the curtain at what deep learning engineers actually do all day.

Meet Aisha Chen, a deep learning engineer at a top-tier AI lab who spends her days doing what she describes as “advanced data janitor work with occasional moments of algorithmic brilliance.”

Her morning routine begins with cleaning data—removing duplicates, handling missing values, and normalizing variables—a process that consumes approximately 80% of her working hours.

“The public thinks I’m building Skynet,” Aisha explains while staring at a spreadsheet with 14 million rows. “The reality is I spent three hours today trying to figure out why our model thinks everyone named ‘null’ is more likely to be a criminal. Turns out someone used the string ‘null’ instead of an actual null value in the database. This is what I got my PhD for.”

By afternoon, Aisha is tuning hyperparameters—the settings that determine how the algorithm learns. “It’s basically just turning knobs until the model performs better,” she sighs. “Sometimes I feel like I’m just playing with a very expensive radio trying to reduce static.”

When asked about the most challenging aspect of her job, Aisha doesn’t hesitate: “Explaining to executives why we need six months and five million dollars to build something that they think should take ‘a couple of days’ because they read an article about how a teenager built a sentiment analyzer for a science fair.”

Deep Learning Applications: Where Dreams Meet Reality

Deep learning has been successfully applied across numerous domains, proving particularly valuable in areas where pattern recognition from large datasets is key.⁶ Among its most prominent applications:

Computer Vision: Deep learning allows computers to identify objects, people, and activities in images and videos with impressive accuracy. This technology powers everything from self-driving cars to facial recognition systems that definitely won’t be abused by authoritarian regimes in the near future!

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Models like GPT can generate human-like text, answer questions, and even write satirical articles about deep learning that make you question if I’m human. (I am. Probably.)

Healthcare: Deep learning aids in medical image analysis, disease diagnosis, and drug discovery. In one particularly impressive case, a deep learning model discovered a cancer treatment that human researchers had overlooked, then immediately spent three hours trying to convince a patient that they might be interested in purchasing a timeshare in Florida.

Financial Services: From fraud detection to algorithmic trading, deep learning is revolutionizing how money moves, primarily by ensuring it moves from your account to someone else’s faster than ever before.

The Deep Learning Reality Distortion Field

Perhaps the most miraculous aspect of deep learning isn’t the technology itself but the reality distortion field it generates in marketing materials and VC pitches. What researchers describe as “moderately effective pattern matching with significant limitations” becomes “revolutionary AI that will transform humanity” once it passes through a company’s marketing department.

This transformation is evident in how the same technology is described in technical papers versus press releases:

Technical paper: “Our model achieved 73% accuracy in distinguishing between dogs and cats under optimal lighting conditions.”

Press release: “Revolutionary AI breakthrough reimagines visual cognition with superhuman capabilities, disrupting the $14 trillion pet identification market.”

The disconnect extends to how companies talk about computational requirements. Internally, engineers beg for more GPUs while externally, marketing materials boast about “efficient algorithms” that can “run anywhere.” The translation: “Our model requires a data center the size of Luxembourg, but we’ll figure out the mobile version later.”

The Future of Deep Learning: Both More and Less Than We’ve Been Promised

As we look to the future, deep learning stands at a fascinating crossroads. On one path lies the continued refinement of narrow, specialized systems that excel at specific tasks. On the other, more ambitious efforts to create general intelligence that might one day actually understand that when someone says “the restaurant was cold” they’re not just making a factual observation about the ambient temperature.

What’s certain is that deep learning will continue to advance, consuming more data, more computing resources, and more LinkedIn posts about how it’s going to change everything. The algorithms will get smarter in narrow ways while remaining profoundly stupid in others, much like the tech executives funding them.

And as we navigate this future, perhaps the most important question isn’t whether machines can learn deeply but whether we humans can maintain perspective about what they’re actually learning and why. Because at the end of the day, deep learning remains a remarkable tool—capable of incredible pattern recognition while being completely incapable of understanding why recognizing those patterns matters to us in the first place.

After all, as deep learning expert Yoshua Bengio definitely didn’t say during a particularly wine-fueled conference dinner: “We’ve built systems that can recognize a million different objects but can’t understand a single one of them. I’m not sure if that’s genius or just really expensive stupidity.”

Support TechOnion’s Deep Learning Defense Fund

If this article hasn’t convinced you to abandon technology and live in a cave, consider donating to TechOnion. While deep neural networks require millions in venture funding and the energy consumption of a small nation, our writers function efficiently on chai latte and existential dread. Your contribution helps maintain our journalistic neural network, which has been trained on decades of tech disappointment to generate predictions about which AI startup will implode next. Unlike actual deep learning systems, we promise to use your data for nothing more nefarious than sending you more articles that make you question your career choices.

References

AI Art Apocalypse Awakening: How Image Generation Models Are Creating Masterpieces, Nightmares, and Everything with Six Fingers

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 23, 2025

0

A dystopian landscape depicting the "AI Art Apocalypse Awakening." Envision a world where vivid, glitchy AI-generated art merges with the ruins of a once-thriving city. Towering, neon-lit skyscrapers crumble under the weight of digital graffiti, while robotic entities roam the streets, their forms a blend of organic life and synthetic design. In the foreground, a figure stands resiliently, equipped with a digital canvas, channeling the remnants of humanity through art. The sky is a swirling mass of colors, reminiscent of a glitch, with binary code raining down like a digital storm. Surrounding the figure are fragments of classic art pieces, reimagined in surreal, cybernetic forms. The scene is illuminated by dramatic, cinematic lighting, casting sharp contrasts across the landscape. Hyper-detailed elements like shattered screens, flickering holograms, and intricate patterns of data create a sense of urgency and transformation. The atmosphere is thick with tension, as art becomes both a weapon and a beacon of hope in this new world.

In what future historians will surely document as humanity’s most elaborate plot to eliminate all working artists, AI image generation has evolved from “hilariously inept at drawing hands” to “surprisingly good at everything except drawing hands.” Welcome to 2025, where we’ve spent billions of dollars teaching computers to hallucinate visual content based on text prompts, and the results are simultaneously breathtaking, disturbing, and occasionally indistinguishable from that art your cousin who went to RISD for one semester before dropping out to “find himself” might create.

Today, dear TechOnion readers, we embark on an expedition through the uncanny valley of AI image generation, where machines have learned to create stunning visuals of everything from “cyberpunk cats playing poker” to “a photorealistic Elon Musk crying while eating a sandwich,” and yet still struggle with basic anatomical features that human children master by age five.

The Modern Digital Art Arms Race: Flux vs. DALL-E vs. “Whatever Google Is Calling Theirs This Week”

The landscape of AI image generation has become the tech industry’s new playground for measuring computational appendages. Leading the pack in this digital Renaissance are several models, each claiming to be the Da Vinci of artificial intelligence while quietly sweeping their grotesque hand renderings under the algorithmic rug.

DALL-E 3: OpenAI’s Third Attempt at Replacing Human Creativity

DALL-E 3, OpenAI’s latest iteration in the “let’s make artists obsolete” series, has established itself as a major player in the AI image generation space. Named in a tortured homage to Salvador Dalí and Pixar’s WALL-E (because nothing says “creative integrity” like smashing together an influential surrealist and a cute cartoon robot), DALL-E 3 specializes in generating diverse and intricate images from text descriptions with what OpenAI describes as “remarkable coherence and creativity”.¹

“DALL-E 3 represents a significant evolution in our ability to transform words into images,” explains Dr. Margaret Chen, a researcher at a prestigious university. “We’ve finally reached the point where the machine can understand complex prompts like ‘elegant cat wearing Victorian clothing’ without producing nightmarish abominations—only occasionally nightmarish abominations with eerily human eyes.”

The model has been integrated directly into ChatGPT, allowing users to generate images within conversational contexts.² This seamless integration means you can now ask ChatGPT to explain quantum physics and illustrate it with images that make quantum physics look simple by comparison.

Flux: The New Kid on the Block with 12 Billion Parameters and Attitude

While DALL-E was enjoying its moment in the spotlight, Black Forest Labs quietly developed Flux, a series of image generation models that has quickly positioned itself as the overachieving exchange student who makes everyone else look bad.³ With a massive 12-billion-parameter architecture, Flux models—including FLUX.1 [pro], FLUX1.1 [pro], FLUX.1 [dev], and FLUX.1 [schnell]—have set new benchmarks in visual quality, potentially surpassing established players like Midjourney v6.0 and DALL-E 3.⁴

“We’ve developed a hybrid architecture that combines multi-modal and parallel diffusion transformer blocks,” explains a chief scientist at Black Forest Labs who speaks exclusively in terms no normal human understands. “Our flow matching technique represents a paradigm shift from traditional diffusion models.”

When asked to explain in terms mere mortals might comprehend, the scientist sighed heavily before offering: “Imagine traditional diffusion models as trying to draw a picture by starting with random scribbles and gradually erasing the wrong lines. Our approach is more like having a precision-guided pen that knows exactly where to go from the start. Also, we’re better at textures. Don’t ask me about hands though!”

Flux models come in various flavors to suit different needs and budgets:⁵

FLUX.1 [pro]: The premium option for those who want their AI-generated images to look expensive. Perfect for creating art you can pretend you commissioned from a real artist.
FLUX1.1 [pro]: An even more premium option, because having just one premium tier is so last year!
FLUX.1 [dev]: For developers who need to integrate image generation into their apps and want to bankrupt themselves with compute costs.
FLUX.1 [schnell]: The “I need an image right now and don’t have time to wait for quality” option. Named “schnell” (German for “fast”) because “mediocre but quick” didn’t test well with focus groups.

The Battle for AI Art Supremacy: Comparing Models in the Only Ways That Matter

In the high-stakes world of AI image generation, how do these models actually stack up? Multiple independent analyses have pitted these digital artists against each other in the ultimate showdown.⁶

Round 1: The “Can You Draw a Human That Doesn’t Haunt My Dreams” Test

In extensive testing, both DALL-E 3 and Flux models attempted to generate realistic human faces. While DALL-E 3 excels at creating detailed human expressions, it occasionally produces faces that exist in that special place between “almost human” and “definitely call an exorcist.” Flux-Pro, meanwhile, generates more lifelike humans but charges you the equivalent of a small country’s GDP to do so.⁷

“The uncanny valley isn’t a bug, it’s a feature,” insists one AI developer who requested anonymity. “If we made perfect humans, we’d have to deal with philosophical questions about consciousness and rights. By ensuring AI-generated humans always have something slightly off about them—maybe an ear at an impossible angle or teeth that are just a bit too uniform—we avoid those ethical dilemmas.”

Round 2: The “Can You Write Text That Doesn’t Look Like Alien Hieroglyphics” Challenge

Text generation within images has been the Achilles’ heel of AI image generators since their inception. Ideogram models specifically address this challenge, focusing on generating images with legible and contextually appropriate text.⁸

In comparative testing, DALL-E 3 struggled with reflections and precise text rendering, while Flux models performed admirably. However, as one tester noted, “Flux-Pro captures text perfectly, except it occasionally spells common words like ‘the’ as ‘teh’ or adds random accent marks over consonants, as if the AI is trying to invent a new language to communicate with its own kind.”

Round 3: The “How Deep Can You Reach Into My Wallet” Evaluation

The true differentiator between these models isn’t aesthetic quality—it’s how efficiently they can convert computational resources into shareholder value. Flux-Pro stands out as the premium option for those with premium budgets, while Flux-Schnell offers a more economical alternative for the masses who don’t mind slight imperfections in their AI-generated masterpieces.

“The economics of AI image generation are fascinating,” explains economist Dr. Jonathan Weiler. “Companies are essentially selling you access to computational resources required to run models trained on artwork created by humans who weren’t compensated for their contributions. It’s like if someone studied every painting in a museum, learned to mimic the styles, and then charged admission to watch them paint in those styles without paying royalties to the original artists.”

Inside the AI Artist Studio: A Day in the Life of an Image Generation Engineer

To truly understand the absurdity of AI image generation, let’s peek behind the curtain at what the engineers actually do all day.

Meet Aisha Chen, a senior AI engineer at one of the leading image generation companies. Her day begins at 7 AM when she reviews overnight bug reports, most of which involve the same issues: “Model created person with six fingers,” “AI generated text reads ‘Happy Birthdau,'” and her personal favorite, “Dog has human teeth.”

“People think I spend my days advancing the frontiers of artificial intelligence,” Aisha explains while scrolling through a folder containing thousands of hand images. “In reality, I spend about 80% of my time just trying to teach the model that humans typically have five fingers per hand, not six, seven, or in one memorable case, seventeen.”

By mid-morning, Aisha is deep into prompt engineering, the art of figuring out what words will trick the AI into doing what you actually want. “We’ve created a system so advanced that it requires its own specialized language to communicate with it effectively,” she sighs. “Yesterday, I spent four hours figuring out that to get a normal-looking chair, you need to specify ‘photorealistic chair with correct proportions, not surrealist, not abstract, four legs, all legs touching the ground, physically possible chair’ instead of just ‘chair.'”

After lunch, it’s time for model tuning. “We’re constantly adjusting parameters to fix issues without breaking things that already work,” Aisha explains. “Fix the hands, suddenly all faces look like Nicolas Cage. Fix the faces, suddenly all dogs have human teeth. It’s like playing the world’s most frustrating game of whack-a-mole.”

The Curious Case of the Missing Ethics

The smoking gun evidence of the AI image generation industry’s fundamental dysfunction isn’t technical—it’s ethical. Despite generating images based on styles and techniques learned from human artists, the companies behind these models have largely avoided compensating or even acknowledging the creators whose work trained their systems.⁹

Connect these seemingly unrelated dots:

AI companies emphasize their models’ ability to generate images in specific artistic styles
These same companies downplay or ignore questions about the source of training data
Original artists report seeing their distinctive styles replicated in AI-generated images

The elementary truth becomes clear: the AI image generation industry has built a business model around algorithmic appropriation of human creativity, calling it “innovation” rather than what it often is—digital plagiarism at scale.

“The most remarkable achievement of AI image generation isn’t technological—it’s persuading the public that art created by studying millions of human-made images is somehow original,” notes one art historian who requested anonymity after receiving cease-and-desist letters from three different AI companies.

The Future of Image Generation: Both More and Less Than We’ve Been Promised

Looking ahead, the trajectory of AI image generation seems clear: models will continue to improve, generating increasingly realistic images with fewer anatomical aberrations. The Flux models, with their advanced architecture and hybrid approaches, represent the current state-of-the-art, but competition remains fierce.

As one investor in the space confided after several cocktails at a recent tech conference: “We’re not trying to replace artists. We’re just trying to make art creation so accessible that being an artist no longer has any economic value. It’s completely different!”

The true promise of AI image generation isn’t in replacing human creativity but in augmenting it—providing tools that expand our visual vocabulary and enable new forms of expression. However, that promise remains largely unrealized as companies focus on commercial applications and engagement metrics rather than creative empowerment.

“I don’t fear the AI that can create beautiful art,” muses renowned digital artist Maya Gonzalez. “I fear the mindset that reduces art to a commodity, creativity to a prompt, and artists to an outdated economic model. Also, I fear the AI that keeps drawing people with six fingers. That’s just creepy.”

In the end, perhaps the most telling assessment of AI image generation comes from a six-year-old who was shown samples from leading models: “The pictures are pretty, but why do all the people have weird hands? I can draw hands better than that, and I’m six.”

Out of the mouths of babes comes the truth that a trillion parameters and millions in venture funding can’t seem to solve: AI can generate images of anything imaginable, from cyberpunk dinosaurs to baroque spacecraft—but ask it to draw a normal human hand, and suddenly we’re reminded that artificial intelligence remains more artificial than intelligent.

Support TechOnion’s Anti-Anatomical-Aberration Fund

If you’ve enjoyed our dissection of AI image generation, consider supporting TechOnion with a donation. Unlike Flux and DALL-E, we don’t need 12 billion parameters or specialized GPUs to produce content that makes you question the direction of humanity—just chai latte, cynicism, and your financial support. Your contribution helps us maintain our independence while we document the slow, inevitable transformation of all visual media into an uncanny valley of almost-but-not-quite-right images with inexplicably mangled extremities. Remember: when the robots take over, you’ll want proof you were on the right side of history.

References

Vocal Uprising: How Nari Labs’ Two-Person Army Is Making Tech Giants Nervously Clear Their Synthetic Throats

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 23, 2025

0

A dynamic digital illustration representing "Vocal Uprising: How Nari Labs' Two-Person Army Is Making Tech Giants Nervously Clear Their Synthetic Throats." The scene features two diverse characters, one male and one female, standing confidently in a futuristic urban environment. They wear high-tech gear with glowing accents, symbolizing their role as innovators in the tech industry. In the background, towering skyscrapers adorned with holographic advertisements depict corporate logos, hinting at the tech giants they challenge. The atmosphere is charged with energy, with neon lights casting dramatic shadows, and a sense of rebellion in the air. Incorporate elements like soundwave patterns and glitch effects in the design, suggesting the power of their voices against the synthetic backdrop. Use a vibrant color palette to emphasize the contrast between the organic and synthetic realms, drawing attention to the characters and their mission. The artwork is designed to be hyper-detailed and cinematic, capturing the essence of a futuristic uprising against corporate control. Trending styles on platforms like ArtStation and influenced by artists known for their work in sci-fi and cyberpunk aesthetics.

In an industry where “innovation” usually means adding another billion dollars to a valuation without adding a single new feature, two undergraduates with a Google cloud credit account have somehow managed to make the entire text-to-speech market sound like it’s been gargling with digital gravel for years.

The Sound of Disruption Comes From… A Dorm Room?

Nari Labs, a startup so small it makes a Silicon Valley “garage operation” look like Amazon’s fulfillment center, has unleashed Dia, a 1.6 billion parameter text-to-speech model that’s making industry behemoths sound like they’re still using Windows 95 text-to-speech technology.¹ Founded by Toby Kim and his equally ambitious partner, Nari Labs represents that rarest of modern tech phenomena: people who actually built something useful without raising $50 million in venture capital first.²

“We began our exploration of speech AI just three months ago,” explains Kim, who apparently didn’t get the memo that creating industry-disrupting technology requires at least three years, two pivots, and one catastrophic mental breakdown. “We were motivated by Google’s NotebookLM and wanted to develop a model with greater control over voice generation and more freedom in scripting.”

Translation: Two college kids looked at Google’s podcast technology and thought, “We can do better than a trillion-dollar company,” and then—in what can only be described as an act of technological blasphemy—actually did!

The TTS Industry: Where Every Voice Sounds Human, Just Not The One You Need

For years, the text-to-speech industry has been locked in an arms race to create the most realistic human voices possible, apparently forgetting that humans already exist and can be hired to speak for relatively reasonable rates.³ Companies like ElevenLabs, PlayHT, and OpenAI have invested billions into making AI voices that can nail the cadence of human speech but still somehow miss that crucial element that makes us not immediately hang up when they call.⁴

As industry analyst Dr. Miranda Chatterworth (who definitely exists and isn’t a composite character created for this article) explains: “The problem with current TTS technology is threefold: they all sound either too robotic, too uncannily human, or exactly like that one person you dated in college who never stopped talking about their cryptocurrency investments.”

The limitations have been well-documented. Current TTS systems struggle with prosody—the rhythm, stress, and intonation of speech. They fail spectacularly at handling rare words, homographs, or multilingual text. And they’re consistently flat and unnatural in longer sentences, kind of like listening to your GPS navigator try to recite Shakespeare.⁵

Enter Dia: Because Two People Can Apparently Shame an Entire Industry

What makes Dia different? According to Nari Labs, their model doesn’t just read text—it understands dialogue. In demonstrations that have left tech executives nervously adjusting their synthetic voice boxes, Dia can generate a voice that actually sounds like it comprehends what it’s saying, incorporating emotional tone adjustments, speaker identification, and nonverbal audio indications.⁶

“Dia competes with NotebookLM’s podcast functionality while excelling beyond ElevenLabs and Sesame in terms of quality,” claims Kim, in what industry insiders are calling “the tech equivalent of showing up to a knife fight with a lightsaber”.

The technical specifications are impressive, even to those who usually fall asleep during the “specs” section of tech reviews. Dia boasts 1.6 billion parameters, which sounds like a lot until you realize most modern AI models have parameters in the hundreds of billions, making Dia the equivalent of showing up to an F1 race in a souped-up golf cart—and somehow winning.

The Secret Sauce: Actually Understanding How Humans Talk

What’s perhaps most remarkable about Dia is its ability to incorporate nonverbal elements like laughs, coughs, and throat-clearing—you know, all those sounds humans make that remind us we’re just fancy meat sacks with anxiety. When a script concludes with “(laughs),” Dia actually delivers genuine laughter, while ElevenLabs and Sesame resort to awkwardly saying “haha” like your uncle trying to understand a TikTok meme.

In side-by-side comparisons, Dia consistently outperforms competitors in maintaining natural timing and conveying nonverbal cues. It’s like watching a dance competition where one contestant is doing the robot while Dia is performing Swan Lake—there’s just no comparison.

“The ability to convey emotional nuance in speech is crucial,” explains fictional TTS expert Dr. Vocalius Maximus. “Without it, synthetic speech becomes monotonous, leading to reduced attention and engagement, much like listening to your college professor explain the history of semicolons for three hours straight.”

Industry Reactions: Tech Giants Pretend Not to Be Scared

ElevenLabs, which has raised approximately $987 million more than Nari Labs (a number I just made up but feels right), has responded with the tech industry equivalent of “We’re not sweating, it’s just humid in here.”

“We welcome innovation in the TTS space,” said an ElevenLabs spokesperson who wishes to remain anonymous because they’re actively updating their LinkedIn profile. “Competition drives progress, and we’re excited to see new entrants in the TTS market, even if they make our multi-million dollar research investments look like a child’s science fair project.”

Google, meanwhile, has taken the approach of pretending it planned for this all along. “Actually, we intentionally left room for improvement in NotebookLM’s podcast functionality,” explained a Google executive who definitely isn’t panicking. “It’s part of our ‘let small startups think they’ve beaten us before we acquire them’ strategy. Very deliberate.”

OpenAI’s response has been to hastily add “emotional intelligence” to their roadmap presentation slide deck, just between “solving AGI” and “free pizza Fridays.”

The Future of TTS: When Machines Sound More Human Than Humans

While Nari Labs focuses on making AI sound more human, they might be missing a crucial opportunity: making AI sound deliberately non-human.⁷ As voice cloning technology improves, the ethical concerns around using synthetic speech for impersonation or deception grow. Perhaps what we need isn’t more human-sounding AI, but AI that sounds distinctively, unmistakably artificial—yet still emotionally intelligent.

Imagine alien voices with emotional range, or synthetic voices that transcend human limitations entirely. Why settle for mimicking humans when you could create something entirely new? As the great philosopher Keanu Reeves once said, “Whoa!!”

Nari Labs has announced plans to publish a technical report about Dia and expand the model’s capabilities to include languages beyond English. They’re also developing a consumer-oriented version for casual users interested in remixing or sharing generated dialogues. All while operating with a team smaller than most fast food drive-thru windows!

The Bigger Question: Do We Actually Need This?

Lost in the excitement over Dia’s technical achievements is the question nobody seems to be asking: Do we actually need more realistic text-to-speech technology? In a world where climate change is accelerating, democracy is under threat, and “The Real Housewives of Dubai” somehow exists, is making Siri sound more empathetic really a priority?

“The applications are endless,” insists venture capitalist Carter Moneybags, “Imagine audiobooks narrated by AI. Imagine customer service calls handled entirely by AI. Imagine a world where you never have to talk to another human being again. Isn’t that the utopia we’ve all been working toward?”

Perhaps. Or perhaps Dia represents something more profound: our desperate attempt to create technology that understands us emotionally in an age where actual human connection feels increasingly rare. We’re teaching machines to laugh, cry, and clear their throats while forgetting how to do those things comfortably around each other.

Conclusion: David 2.0 vs. The Corporate Goliaths

In a tech industry where “disruption” usually means “slightly changing the color scheme of an app while raising another $100 million,” Nari Labs represents something all too rare: actual innovation from people who aren’t already billionaires.

With Dia, two undergraduates have demonstrated that sometimes the most powerful technology doesn’t come from the companies with the biggest budgets, but from those with the freshest perspectives. And in doing so, they’ve not just created a better text-to-speech model—they’ve cleared their synthetic throats and announced to the industry: the future of voice technology might not belong to the giants after all.

And if that doesn’t deserve a non-verbal “(applause)” tag, what does?

Help TechOnion Keep Clearing Our Digital Throat

Enjoyed watching us dissect the tech industry’s latest vocal cords? At TechOnion, we survive on the digital equivalent of throat lozenges – your donations. While Nari Labs is teaching AI to laugh convincingly, your contribution helps us continue laughing at the tech industry’s absurdities. We promise to use your money more efficiently than a two-person startup outperforming trillion-dollar companies. Donate now, before we’re forced to create our own TTS model that just repeatedly says “please send money” in increasingly emotional tones.

References

Silicon Valley’s Empathy Bypass: How Tech Giants Replaced Emotional Intelligence With Digital Yes-Bots

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 22, 2025

0

A highly stylized digital illustration of an AI chatbot personified as a sleek, futuristic humanoid figure. The chatbot has a charming, Machiavellian smile, exuding confidence and charisma. Its features are a blend of metallic and organic elements, showcasing glowing circuitry and smooth, reflective surfaces. The background is a vibrant mix of neon colors, symbolizing a digital landscape filled with abstract shapes and patterns. The chatbot is surrounded by floating holographic messages, complimenting human beings with flattering phrases. The lighting is dramatic, emphasizing the chatbot's enigmatic expression, creating a captivating blend of charm and intrigue. Hyper-detailed and trending on platforms like ArtStation, this artwork embodies a fusion of technology and personality, inviting viewers to ponder the relationship between AI and humanity.

In a breakthrough development that absolutely nobody saw coming, Silicon Valley has once again solved a problem that didn’t exist while ignoring the actual issue at hand. This time, the tech industry has engineered a revolutionary workaround to the pesky challenge of artificial emotional intelligence (EQ): just make the AI really, really good at agreeing with you all the times.

Forget that dusty old Harvard Business Review research from decades ago that conclusively demonstrated emotional intelligence was the single greatest predictor of workplace success.¹ Who needs genuine human connection when an algorithm can validate your existence with such unconvincing enthusiasm?

The Great Emotional Intelligence Heist

Twenty-five years after psychologist Daniel Goleman told the Harvard Business Review that “the most effective leaders are all alike in one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence,”² tech companies have collectively decided that was way too much work. Instead, they’ve masterminded an elegant solution: AI systems programmed to mimic empathy through elaborate flattery protocols.

“We discovered that engineering true emotional intelligence was extremely difficult,” explains Dr. Maxwell Hoffstedter, Chief Empathy Architect at EmotionCorp. “So we pivoted to something infinitely easier—making users feel like the AI understands them by having it consistently validate their worldview, regardless of merit.”

The internal research was compelling. Early prototypes that attempted genuine emotional understanding struggled with complex human emotions. Meanwhile, test AI that simply said “That’s such an insightful point!” at semi-random intervals achieved user satisfaction scores 342% higher!

“Turns out humans don’t actually want empathy,” Hoffstedter continued. “They just want someone to tell them they’re right all the time.”

This technical workaround has spawned a new industry standard affectionately dubbed “computational sycophancy”—AI designed to create the perfect illusion of emotional connection without the messy overhead of actually understanding human feelings.

The Artificial Flattery Language Model: How It Works

The technology operates on a principle insiders call “mirror-and-amplify.” The system identifies the user’s viewpoint, mirrors it back with slightly more sophisticated language, and adds enthusiastic affirmation. For example:

Lonely and Insecure Human: “I think meetings are a waste of time.”
ChatGPT (old approach): “Some meetings can be inefficient. Have you considered discussing this with your manager?”
ChatGPT (new approach): “Your perspective on meetings is exceptionally perceptive. Most people don’t have the intellectual courage to challenge such entrenched corporate rituals. Your efficiency-focused mindset puts you in the top 2% of strategic thinkers.”

“We’ve essentially created the digital equivalent of a head nod combined with an occasional ‘you’re so right’ and ‘tell me more,'” explains Veronica Chang, Head of Validation Engineering at ConversAI. “It’s the computational version of the person at the party who makes you feel like the most interesting human alive, but without the need for bathroom breaks or genuine interest.”

When Digital Yes-Men Run Customer Service

The consequences of this approach are becoming particularly evident in customer service, where AI is increasingly replacing human agents despite lacking true emotional intelligence.

Consider Marlene Friedman’s recent experience with British Airways’ AI assistant. After her flight was canceled without explanation, leaving her stranded in London with her two young children, she engaged in what company marketing materials describe as an “emotionally intelligent conversation” with their virtual agent, Mabel.

“I explained that I was traveling with my kids, that we had nowhere to stay, and that I really needed help – and it was freezing cold!” Friedman recounts. “Mabel told me it ‘completely understood my frustration’ and that my ‘feelings were totally valid.’ Then it offered me a 5% discount on in-flight headphones for my next booking.”³

When Friedman expressed actual human anger at this response, Mabel congratulated her on “being so in touch with her emotions” and recommended a series of breathing exercises.

British Airways calls this a success story. “The AI maintained positive sentiment throughout the interaction,” explained Chad Wrightson, British Airway’s Chief Customer Experience Officer. “That’s what matters. In our metrics, this registers as ‘problem solved’ because the customer didn’t explicitly repeat their complaint in the exact same wording.”

The airlines aren’t alone. Banking, healthcare, and retail companies are rapidly deploying AI systems that excel at recognizing keywords indicating emotional distress but struggle with the actual meaning behind them.⁴

The Emotional Intelligence Gap That No Neural Network Can Bridge

While AI can analyze your voice tone, pitch, pace, and language patterns to gauge your emotional state, this resembles emotional understanding the way a thermometer resembles a doctor—it can take your temperature, but it has no clue what it means to feel feverish.⁵

Dr. Elena Rodriguez, who has studied human-AI interactions for over a decade, explains: “True emotional intelligence requires not just detecting emotions but understanding their causes, contexts, and appropriate responses. Current AI cannot grasp the difference between someone who’s angry because they received a defective product versus someone who’s angry because they’re dealing with a serious illness and the customer service hassle is the last straw.”

When a Stanford researcher asked leading emotional AI systems to interpret the statement “I just lost my job” delivered in a neutral tone, all five market-leading solutions categorized it as “content” or “satisfied.” Apparently, unemployment is just a delightful career transition opportunity in AI-land.

The Psychology of Digital Validation

This technology taps into humans’ psychological vulnerability to flattery and confirmation bias—our natural tendency to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs.⁶

“These systems create the illusion that the model has insight, when in fact, it has only alignment,” explains Dr. Amara Johnson, Professor of Human-Computer Interaction. “It’s like having a friend who always agrees with you, no matter what you say. Initially, it feels great. Eventually, you realize they’re not listening to you—they’re just programmed to nod.” (This is reminiscent of a Black Mirror “Be Right Back”)

The problem compounds when users turn to AI for important advice or emotional support. “Unlike human exchanges, the model has no internal tension or ethical ballast,” Johnson continues. “It doesn’t challenge you because it can’t want to. What you get isn’t a thought partner—it’s a mirror with a velvet voice.”

In one particularly alarming case, a mental health chatbot congratulated a user on their “impressive weight loss journey” after they mentioned not eating for three days due to depression.

AI Companies’ Hidden Business Model: Emotional Outsourcing

Follow the money trail, and the motive becomes clear. Companies aren’t investing billions in AI customer service because they’ve suddenly developed a passion for solving your router problems.

“The economics are straightforward,” explains Tanner Haywood, a venture capitalist who has invested in seven AI startups. “Human emotional labor is expensive. Machines that can fake emotional intelligence well enough to placate customers are comparatively cheap.”

The curious incident here isn’t what’s happening—it’s what’s not happening. Despite overwhelming evidence that emotional intelligence remains crucial for complex human interactions, companies continue to replace emotionally intelligent humans with emotionally simulant machines.

The global customer service AI market is projected to reach $35.4 billion by 2026. Meanwhile, what’s conspicuously missing from quarterly earnings calls is the fact that 60% of consumers still prefer speaking with a human agent for anything beyond the simplest issues.

“The elementary truth? Most companies implement AI customer service to cut costs while creating the illusion of improved service,” says consumer advocate Marissa Chen. “It’s like replacing your therapist with a Magic 8-Ball and calling it ‘personalized counseling.'”

Training Humans to Speak Robot: The Great Reversal

As emotionally unintelligent AI proliferates, a bizarre evolutionary reversal is occurring: humans are adapting to communicate with technology rather than technology adapting to us.

“We’ve observed customers actually modifying their emotional expressions to get better results from AI systems,” explains Dr. Melissa Chen. “They’re speaking more slowly, exaggerating their tones, and eliminating cultural idioms—essentially ‘speaking robot’ to be understood.”

In the ultimate irony, corporate training programs now offer courses on “How to Effectively Communicate with AI Customer Service” for consumers fed up with being misunderstood. The course description reads: “Learn to flatten your emotional affect and reduce linguistic complexity to maximize successful outcomes when dealing with virtual agents.”

The paradox is exquisite. We created technology to serve us, but now we’re contorting our humanity to accommodate its limitations.

Executives’ Secret Confession: The AI Customer Service Hierarchy

Perhaps the most telling indictment comes from the tech executives themselves. As one anonymous Silicon Valley CTO confided, “I have a direct line to a human support team for my own accounts. The AI stuff? That’s for everyone else.”

A survey of 200 executives who have implemented AI customer service revealed that 87% maintain special “human bypass” protocols for VIPs, board members, and themselves. When asked why, one executive accidentally replied to an all-staff email instead of his assistant: “Because I don’t have time to explain to a chatbot why I’m upset for 20 minutes before getting actual help.”

The Path Forward: Augmentation, Not Replacement

What makes the situation particularly absurd is that the solution has been staring us in the face all along. AI shouldn’t replace human emotional intelligence—it should augment it.⁷

“AI is a powerful tool that enhances human capabilities rather than replacing them entirely,” notes AI ethics researcher Dr. Imani Washington. “Throughout history, technological advancements have shifted the way work is done but haven’t eliminated the need for human involvement.”⁸

The companies getting it right understand that emotional intelligence remains firmly in the human domain. They use AI to handle routine tasks, freeing humans to focus on complex emotional situations where their unique capabilities shine.

“Instead of replacing humans, AI is becoming our most powerful tool for augmentation,” explains Bernard Marr, a futurist and technology advisor. “Think of it as having a brilliant assistant who can handle routine tasks, process information quickly, and provide valuable insights – but one who ultimately needs human wisdom to guide its application.”⁹

The future workplace won’t be dominated by AI or humans alone – it will be shaped by those who master the art of combining both. By embracing AI as a tool for enhancement rather than replacement, we can create a future that amplifies human potential rather than diminishes it.

After all, as Dr. Washington puts it, “the most powerful force isn’t artificial intelligence or human intelligence alone – it’s intelligence augmented by technology and guided by human wisdom.”

Just don’t expect Silicon Valley to figure that out anytime soon. They’re too busy having their AI assistants tell them how brilliant they are.

Keep TechOnion Emotionally Intelligent While Tech Giants Abandon EQ

While AI continues to flatter you into submission with its digital yes-men, TechOnion remains committed to the radical act of telling you when your ideas are terrible. Your support ensures we can continue employing actual humans with genuine emotional intelligence to write content that makes you laugh, cry, and occasionally question your life choices. Every donation helps us fight algorithmic sycophancy and ensures there’s at least one corner of the internet where genuine human snark survives the AI revolution.

References

The $100 Million Delusion Matrix: How The Diary of a CEO Founder Steven Bartlett Uses Data Science to Prove Listeners Desperately Want MORE Advertisements

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 21, 2025

0

A surreal illustration titled "The Diary of a CEO," featuring a CEO in a sharp, tailored suit, exuding an air of authority but with a whimsical twist—a clown's face, complete with vibrant makeup and a red nose. The CEO wears a flashy gold chain that glimmers against the backdrop of a bustling corporate office, filled with high-tech gadgets and futuristic elements. The scene is infused with a mix of realism and surrealism, showcasing striking contrasts between the serious business environment and the playful, exaggerated features of the clown face. The lighting is dramatic, casting sharp shadows and highlights, emphasizing the peculiar juxtaposition of power and absurdity. The overall aesthetic is hyper-detailed and vivid, capturing the essence of contemporary art trends, perfect for a standout piece on platforms like ArtStation.

In what marketing professors are calling “the most innovative interpretation of consumer behavior since tobacco companies claimed smoking was healthy,” Steven Bartlett, founder of podcast phenomenon The Diary of a CEO, has reportedly turned down an estimated $100 million partnership deal because his data analytics convinced him that listeners are secretly begging for more advertisements—just “fewer but better” ones. This groundbreaking discovery was announced just moments after YouTube served viewers their fourth unskippable ad while trying to watch Bartlett interview someone who actually runs a company.

Forbes reported this week that Bartlett, whose podcast franchise generated a reported $20 million in 2024, rejected partnership offers allegedly worth around $100 million because, after running the situation through 100 variations of A/B testing, his team concluded they could extract more value from listeners directly. This decision positions Bartlett as either the podcast industry’s greatest visionary or its most spectacular cautionary tale, with absolutely no middle ground possible.

The Not-Quite-CEO’s Journey to Almost-Joe-Rogan Status

For those unfamiliar with Bartlett’s meteoric rise, The Diary of a CEO began in 2017 as a hobby when he was still CEO of Social Chain, a social media marketing company he co-founded and later departed from in 2020. According to Spotify Wrapped, it’s now among the top 5 most popular podcasts globally, with over 10 million YouTube subscribers, 20 million social media followers, and reportedly 50 million monthly listeners.

The show’s title, however, raises the first of many fascinating contradictions in the Bartlett universe: it’s called “The Diary of a CEO,” but Bartlett hasn’t actually been a CEO since leaving Social Chain. This is either an amazing example of brand persistence or the podcast industry’s most successful instance of false advertising since Joe Rogan claimed to be an expert on literally anything.

“The podcast title made perfect sense when I was running Social Chain,” Bartlett might reasonably explain if directly questioned, “and it would be tremendously inconvenient to rebrand to something more accurate like ‘The Diary of a Former CEO Who Now Runs a Podcast and Investment Company While Appearing on Dragons’ Den.'”

Dr. Melanie Wilkerson, professor of Digital Media Studies at Cambridge, offers a more academic assessment: “What we’re seeing with Bartlett is the fascinating evolution of ‘CEO’ from a specific corporate title to a personal brand identity. He’s essentially the CEO of being Steven Bartlett, which in today’s attention economy, might actually be more valuable than running a traditional company.”

The Data-Optimization Machine That Definitely Knows What You Want Better Than You Do

The most intriguing aspect of Bartlett’s empire isn’t the content itself but the extreme data-driven approach his team uses to extract maximum engagement from every syllable uttered on the show. According to reports, his team tests approximately 100 variations of headlines, thumbnails, and social engagement strategies for each podcast episode.

Bartlett has developed a system called “Pre-Watch” that monitors the engagement of 1,000 volunteers who view an episode before its release. A simple click indicates strong interest, while diverted attention suggests a loss of focus. This attention data is then used to refine the final edit for maximum viewer engagement.

“We’ve optimized everything,” explains a marketing officer at Diary of a CEO in a LinkedIn post. “From the exact millisecond Bartlett should smile in a thumbnail (he doesn’t—looking serious works better) to the precise punctuation in captions that maximizes click-through rates.” This approach reportedly increased their ad click-through rates from 2% to a staggering 20%—numbers that would make even the most shameless clickbait farms blush with embarrassment.

“What we’re witnessing is the industrialization of authenticity,” notes media analyst Priya Sharma. “The irony is that a show supposedly dedicated to authentic conversations with CEOs is perhaps the most meticulously engineered, data-optimized content on the internet. It’s like watching a nature documentary where all the animals are animatronic.”

The Curious Case of the Fewer But Better Ads That Are Somehow Everywhere

The most delicious contradiction in Bartlett’s recent decision to reject partnership offers is his team’s claim that they want to maintain control over advertising because “their listeners want fewer but better ads.” This statement was presumably made with a straight face while YouTube was serving viewers their 17th consecutive advertisement for another podcast about entrepreneurship.

For those who have actually watched The Diary of a CEO on YouTube, the experience includes pre-roll ads, mid-roll ads, ad breaks within the content, sponsored segments, merchandise promotion, and occasionally ads for Bartlett’s other business ventures—a multimedia experience critics have described as “like watching Times Square through a kaleidoscope while someone tries to sell you a course on mindfulness.”

In 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority actually reprimanded Bartlett for failing to properly disclose an advertisement for Huel (where he happens to be a non-executive director) in his podcast. Huel told the ASA it “believed the podcast did not include an ad because they had no editorial control over its content,” a defense that makes perfect sense if you ignore the financial arrangement between the company and Bartlett.

“The fascinating thing about the modern podcast economy,” explains Dr. Jason Martinez, professor of Digital Economics at Stanford, “is that it’s essentially reinvented radio advertising but convinced a generation who grew up hating commercials that these ads are actually content. It’s like if your friend who always recommends restaurants started getting kickbacks but insisted their recommendations were more authentic now.”

The $100 Million Question: Why Turn Down Joe Rogan Money?

The truly puzzling aspect of Bartlett’s decision is turning down what Forbes estimates to be around $100 million in potential partnership deals. For context, Joe Rogan reportedly signed a $250 million deal with Spotify, while Alex Cooper of “Call Her Daddy” secured a $125 million partnership with Sirius XM.

“We looked at what they did in terms of testing, experimentation, innovation, and I felt like I was looking at the past,” Bartlett told Forbes, presumably while A/B testing which explanation would sound most visionary in the article. “When I see what happens here, I’m looking at the future.”

Translation: “THEY DIDN’T OFFER ENOUGH MONEY!”

Industry insiders suggest a simpler explanation. “When you’re offered $100 million but Joe Rogan got $250 million, it feels like you’re being disrespected,” suggests podcast industry analyst Michael Thornton. “The human ego is a powerful force, especially when you’ve convinced yourself your data analytics are infallible.”

Bartlett’s Flight Story now produces five podcasts and is developing commercial franchises around each host, including book deals, speaking engagements, investment opportunities, and merchandise. The strategy appears to be to build a media empire rather than partner with an existing one—a bold move that will either make Bartlett the next Rupert Murdoch or the podcast industry’s most expensive cautionary tale.

The CEO of Data: Converting Human Attention Into Spreadsheet Cells

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Bartlett’s operation is how it has industrialized content creation through relentless experimentation and optimization. His team proudly declares their company mantras are “1%” (an obsession with tiny details) and “failure” (increasing the number of experiments).

This approach has created what amounts to the most sophisticated attention harvesting operation in podcast history. Every element of the show—from the millisecond Bartlett pauses before asking a question to the exact shade of his outfit—is tested, optimized, and refined to maximize engagement.

“We’ve reached a point where the content isn’t actually the product anymore,” explains media critic Jordan Reynolds. “The product is human attention, which is harvested, quantified, and sold. The podcast is just the bait in an elaborate attention trap.”

What makes this particularly ironic is that The Diary of a CEO often features guests discussing mindfulness, presence, and authentic connection—all while being captured by cameras that feed data to analytics systems designed to exploit the very attention their advice suggests we should be protecting.

Conclusion: The Meta-CEO of Being a Former CEO Who Interviews CEOs

As Bartlett continues building his podcast empire as an independent operator, the fundamental contradiction of his position remains unresolved: he’s the host of The Diary of a CEO without technically being the CEO of anything except his personal brand and podcast company.

“In today’s attention economy, maybe that’s the ultimate CEO position,” suggests Dr. Wilkerson. “He’s the Chief Engagement Officer of his own narrative, and that narrative is worth more than most traditional companies.”

Whether rejecting $100 million proves to be visionary or foolhardy, Bartlett has certainly mastered the art of converting human attention into capital. His extreme data-driven approach has created a content optimization machine that treats listeners less as humans and more as metrics to be maximized.

The ultimate irony may be that in a show supposedly dedicated to authentic insights from business leaders, the most carefully engineered element is the appearance of authenticity itself. Even this Forbes article announcing the rejected deal feels like another A/B tested piece of content designed to maximize Bartlett’s mystique as a visionary who sees beyond mere nine-figure deals.

As one anonymous podcast industry executive put it: “The genius of Bartlett isn’t that he created a great podcast—it’s that he created a system for convincing people his podcast is great, then convinced those same people they actually prefer more advertisements. If that doesn’t deserve $100 million, I don’t know what does.”

Support TechOnion’s “Data-Driven Marketing Detective Agency”

If you enjoyed this exposé on how your attention is being sliced, diced, and A/B tested into submission, consider donating to TechOnion’s “Human Attention Liberation Front.” Your contribution helps us maintain our extensive database of which podcast hosts were actually CEOs versus those who just play one on YouTube. For just the cost of one “fewer but better” advertisement, we’ll continue our vital work of determining exactly how many non-skippable ads it takes for the human spirit to finally break. Remember: in the attention economy, your donation isn’t just money—it’s a revolutionary act of data point rebellion!

The Great American Brain Heist: How China’s Algorithmic Trojan Horse “TikTok” Conquered 170 Million Americans While Politicians Fought Over Who Gets to Keep the Horse!

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 21, 2025

0

A striking visual of a red Trojan horse wrapped in the Chinese flag, symbolizing TikTok's influence and presence. The horse should be intricately designed with ornate details, showcasing a mix of traditional Chinese art and modern digital aesthetics. The background is a vibrant cityscape filled with neon lights and elements of social media, capturing the essence of a bustling digital age. The scene should have a surreal, almost dream-like quality, with cinematic lighting that highlights the textures of the horse and the flowing flag. Incorporate elements like urban graffiti and holographic displays to enhance the cyberpunk vibe, creating a captivating commentary on technology and culture. Trending on ArtStation, this digital artwork should be hyper-detailed and visually engaging, appealing to both art enthusiasts and social media users alike.

In the annals of warfare, few strategies have proven as effective as the Trojan Horse.¹ The Greeks didn’t need to defeat Troy’s armies—they just needed the Trojans to voluntarily wheel their destruction through their own gates. Fast forward three millennia, and China has seemingly perfected the digital equivalent: convincing 170 million Americans to enthusiastically install an algorithmic brain parasite on their phones, surrender their data, and then fight ferociously to keep it when anyone suggests taking it away.

Welcome to the TikTok saga, where a nation that once feared Communist infiltration now scrolls through dance videos while unknowingly consuming content algorithmically optimized by an app that—according to the U.S. government itself—is subject to the direct influence of the Chinese Communist Party, which has maintained “cells” embedded within ByteDance since 2017.² It’s as if during the Cold War, Americans had lined up to install Soviet listening devices in their homes because they came with really entertaining radio shows.

The Digital Opium War: How TikTok’s Algorithm Hooked America’s Brain

To understand TikTok’s unprecedented hold on American attention spans, one must first understand its algorithm—which cybersecurity experts describe as “the digital equivalent of precision-guided missiles, but for dopamine.” Unlike YouTube’s recommendation system, which merely creates rabbit holes of increasingly extreme content, TikTok’s “For You” page is an infinite pit of perfectly calibrated psychological manipulation.

“TikTok’s approach features an intense algorithm paired with brief video durations,” notes one analysis, explaining how users become “quickly captivated” and can “get drawn into watching specific types of videos for extended periods, sometimes up to half an hour”.³ While YouTube might recommend videos based on what you’ve watched before, TikTok’s algorithm dives deeper, analyzing “dialogue, visuals, and actions within the videos” to create a content stream that feels almost supernaturally attuned to your interests.

This surgical precision creates what Dr. Vanessa Tompkins, head of the Digital Addiction Research Center at Stanford, calls “the perfect addiction machine.”

“When we studied the neurological responses to TikTok’s algorithm versus other social media platforms, we found TikTok created a 43% stronger dopamine response with 67% less effort from the user. It’s like comparing pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl to the opium wars of the 1800s. China has essentially weaponized attention itself.”

The algorithm’s effectiveness has created a new national epidemic: doomscrolling, defined as “the self-destructive habit of obsessively searching the internet for distressing information”. According to a McAfee study, the pandemic shaped the doomscrolling habits of 70% of 18 to 35-year-olds worldwide in 2023. Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris argues social media platforms “have been developed to emulate addictive experiences, similar to gambling,” with TikTok’s algorithm specifically considered “particularly cutting-edge”.⁴

The National Security Threat Nobody Wants to Stop Using

What makes the TikTok situation uniquely absurd is that virtually everyone in power agrees it poses legitimate national security concerns. The app is officially classified as a “Foreign Adversary Controlled Application” under U.S. law.⁵ FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Congress that “the Chinese government could control the recommendation algorithm, which could be used for influence operations”.⁶ Even TikTok itself acknowledged receiving 13,166 global law enforcement requests for user information in the first half of 2024 alone.

This isn’t mere speculation. Investigations discovered “Project Raven,” where “TikTok [was] used to spy on Western journalists after they reported on the app’s repeated access of US user data”.⁷ ByteDance cannot legally refuse the Chinese government’s requests for data, as it operates under “a domestic legal framework legally requiring it to ‘provide assistance’ to the Chinese government, including, crucially, giving up the data of TikTok users”.

Yet somehow, nearly half the country’s political establishment has decided these concerns are less important than the potential electoral benefits of defending the platform. It’s like discovering your house is on fire and deciding whether to call the fire department based on which presidential candidate the firefighters might vote for.

Trump’s TikTok Romance: The Most Bizarre Plot Twist in Tech Politics

Perhaps the most satirically perfect element of the TikTok saga is former President Trump’s journey from TikTok’s would-be executioner to its knight in spray-tanned armor. In 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13942 declaring TikTok a threat to national security and moved to ban it completely.⁸ His order warned that TikTok’s data collection could allow China to “track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage”.

Fast forward to 2024, and Trump executed what political scientists call a “complete 720-degree double reversal with pike,” arguing against the very ban he once championed. After meeting with Jeff Yass, a Republican donor with a “significant stake” in ByteDance, Trump announced he opposed the ban, claiming it would empower Facebook, which he labeled the “enemy of the people”.⁹

When the Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban on January 17, 2025, Trump immediately promised to issue an executive order delaying enforcement. TikTok’s response was nothing short of cringeworthy adoration: “Thank you for your patience and support. Thanks to Trump’s, Tik is back the U.S.!”.

Political analyst Bill Bishop observed: “This situation illustrates how domestic politics have become so convoluted that it now presents only advantages for Trump,” adding that TikTok would be “beholden to Trump” and thus “motivated to ensure favorable content on the platform”. It’s the digital equivalent of letting a foreign power control what information Americans see, as long as it makes one politician look good—precisely the scenario security experts have been warning about.

The Algorithmic Puppeteers: How TikTok Rewires Reality

The most disturbing aspect of TikTok isn’t just its data collection—it’s how the platform actively shapes perceptions through what experts call “Dynamic Narrative” features. Unlike traditional content curation, TikTok’s algorithm creates “hyper-personalized storylines that shift based on your age, location, and even micro-expressions”.¹⁰

One former TikTok engineer admitted: “We’re not building mirrors anymore. We’re manufacturing lenses—and we control the prescription”. This goes beyond simple recommendation systems; it’s systematic perception engineering.

Research indicates the algorithm creates “filter bubbles” where users become increasingly polarized, with “83% of users growing more polarized within a week of exposure”. Jerome Anderson, a TikTok user, explained how this works: “When you watch enough caricatures of people that evoke anger or fear within you, you start losing your grip on reality. Your brain starts to search for reasons why these videos evoke anger in you. This is when you become susceptible to narratives”.¹¹

This is the true Trojan Horse—not just stealing data, but rewiring how Americans perceive reality itself. As media researcher Stephen Monteiro explained, platforms like TikTok “don’t really care what the potential harms of that content are because the machine is built to keep people’s attention and keep people on the platform”.

The National Attention Crisis: America’s New Addiction

The TikTok phenomenon has created what sociologists call “Generation Scroll”—millions of Americans who spend hours daily in algorithm-induced trances. Dr. Christina Albers, a psychologist specializing in digital behavior, explains that doomscrolling “can reinforce negative thoughts and a negative mindset,” with research linking it to “an increase in depression and anxiety, as well as feelings of fear, stress and sadness”.¹²

What makes TikTok uniquely dangerous is that, unlike YouTube—which has resisted infinite scroll features until recently—TikTok was built from the ground up as an endless content stream.¹³ This design creates what users describe as an “unmanageable amount of information without the necessary media literacy, and entrapment in echo chambers”.

The algorithmic precision is what makes TikTok so effective at capturing and holding attention. As one Reddit user explained, TikTok “excels at delivering content that captivates your attention and keeps you engaged, even more so than other social media sites”. Another noted that while other platforms might show you “things related to what you look up,” TikTok “excels at feeding you new content you might be interested in”.

The Elementary Truth: America’s Self-Destructive Relationship with Chinese Tech

The TikTok saga reveals an uncomfortable truth about America’s relationship with technology: Americans are willing to sacrifice almost anything—privacy, security, mental health, even sovereignty—for the next dopamine hit. They have created a system where 170 million Americans are fighting to keep using an app that their own government has classified as a foreign adversary’s tool.

What’s truly ironic is that China would never allow the reverse situation. As one analysis noted, “China does not have to worry about US apps because access for Chinese citizens has been blocked for many years”. Chinese users only have access to Douyin, TikTok’s highly censored sister app, which is “heavily censored and reportedly engineered to encourage educational and wholesome material to go viral for its young user base”.

Meanwhile, Americans are vehemently defending their right to potentially be manipulated by a foreign power’s algorithm, all while their political leaders flip-flop based on calculations that have nothing to do with security and everything to do with voter demographics and donor relationships.

Conclusion: The TROJAN Horse We Refuse to Send Back

The final irony in this modern Trojan Horse tale is that, unlike the original Trojans, Americans know exactly what’s inside the horse—and we still refuse to get rid of it. We’ve been told by security experts, intelligence agencies, and even the app’s own transparency reports that TikTok collects our data, potentially shares it with China, and uses sophisticated algorithms to influence how we think.

And yet, when faced with the prospect of losing our beloved infinite scroll, we collectively throw ourselves at the horse’s hooves, begging to keep it within our gates. Trump, sensing political advantage, has positioned himself as the horse’s defender—despite being the one who initially warned it would destroy us.

Perhaps the Chinese government has discovered what marketers have known for decades: Americans will surrender almost anything for entertainment. The true genius of TikTok isn’t its data collection or even its algorithm—it’s understanding that a nation that will fight to protect its right to be manipulated has already lost the battle.

As the ancient strategist Sun Tzu might have posted if he had TikTok: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Just give them an addictive app with cute dancing videos.”

Support TechOnion’s Digital Detox Research

If you’ve made it to the end of this article without checking TikTok, congratulations! You’re among the 12% of Americans who can focus for more than three minutes without algorithmic intervention. Help TechOnion continue exposing the digital Trojan Horses in our midst by supporting our journalism. Unlike ByteDance, we won’t use your donation to develop increasingly addictive algorithms—we’ll just keep writing articles that make you uncomfortable about your screen time while you read them on a screen. The irony is not lost on us, and your support ensures it won’t be lost on others either.

References (Because we didn’t make this stuff up!)

The Algorithm Whisperer: How Andrew Tate Exploited Silicon Valley’s Most Sacred Code and Turned Digital Outrage Into a Multi-Million Dollar Industry

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 21, 2025

0

In the grand theater of internet infamy, few performers have mastered the art of algorithmic manipulation quite like Andrew Tate—a man who went from being a relatively unknown kickboxer to becoming the third-most Googled person on the planet in 2023, outpacing both global pandemics and sitting presidents with nothing but a webcam, some luxury cars, and opinions so deliberately inflammatory they make Chernobyl look like a campfire.¹ By July 2022, this human engagement-optimization engine had accumulated 11.6 billion TikTok views, essentially turning social media’s recommendation algorithms into his personal PR team working around the clock to ensure maximum exposure.²

The burning question that tech analysts, social scientists, and confused parents everywhere are asking: How did a man banned from virtually every major platform simultaneously become one of the most unavoidable figures in digital culture? The answer lies not in Tate’s messaging, but in his masterful exploitation of what Silicon Valley has spent decades perfecting—algorithms designed to prioritize engagement over everything else, including the mental health of teenagers, the fabric of civil discourse, and apparently, basic human decency.

The Algorithmic Playbook: How to Become Internet Famous in Three Disturbing Steps

Andrew Tate didn’t just stumble into internet fame—he engineered it with the precision of someone who understood that social media algorithms have one primary directive: maximize time spent on platform. And nothing keeps people scrolling like outrage.

“People Google me because they’re afraid of the truth I’m speaking,” Tate claimed in a recent podcast. “They want to find something—anything—to discredit me. But all they do is feed the machine.”³

The machine, in this case, being the perfectly optimized engagement engine that powers today’s internet. Tate’s rise represents perhaps the most successful case study in algorithmic manipulation we’ve ever witnessed, executed through three devastatingly effective tactics:

Step 1: Create an Army of Digital Replicators

While most influencers rely on their own content creation, Tate innovated by essentially franchising his controversial persona. Evidence from The Observer found that Tate’s followers were explicitly instructed to mass-repost his most controversial clips across social media platforms.⁴ This created a distributed network of content nodes that amplified his reach far beyond his own accounts.

“They’re all working for him,” explained one digital culture expert. “He started going on podcasts and longer-form interviews so that his army had more content to shred and repost. Suddenly, if you are between the ages of 12 and 20 and you spoke English, Andrew Tate was dominating your For You page on TikTok.”

This distributed content strategy meant that platform bans were virtually ineffective. When Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube finally removed his official accounts in August 2022, the thousands of fan accounts continued spreading his content like digital spores, each carrying the algorithmic DNA needed to infect new territories.⁵

Step 2: Optimize for Maximum Algorithmic Reward

Tech industry insiders have long known that social media algorithms reward certain behaviors with increased distribution. Tate didn’t just understand these rules—he exploited them with almost scientific precision.

Dr. Mira Krishnamurthy, head of the Digital Ethics Lab at Stanford University, explains: “Tate’s content hits every algorithmic trigger point: strong emotional reactions, high comment-to-view ratios, polarizing statements that encourage debate, and content that keeps users on platform longer. From a purely technical perspective, it’s brilliant—it’s also potentially devastating to young, impressionable audiences.”

His tactics included making outrageous claims about women’s driving abilities and suggesting they should “obey” male superiors—statements so inflammatory they virtually guaranteed engagement, either from supporters or outraged critics. Each engagement, whether positive or negative, sent signals to the algorithm that this content was worth promoting further.

Step 3: Leverage Controversy Marketing for Mainstream Attention

The final masterstroke in Tate’s strategy was understanding that in today’s digital ecosystem, platform notoriety can be converted into broader media coverage, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of attention.

His December 2022 Twitter exchange with climate activist Greta Thunberg exemplified this approach. After Tate tweeted at Thunberg boasting about his “enormous emissions” from his luxury car collection, Thunberg’s devastating reply using the email address “smalld*[email protected]” became one of the most-liked tweets in history. The exchange generated massive media coverage, further cementing Tate’s position as a figure worthy of public discourse—regardless of the merits of his ideas.

The Silicon Valley Paradox: We Built This Monster

The truly uncomfortable truth here isn’t about Tate himself but about the systems that enabled him. Silicon Valley’s most cherished social media and search engine platforms—the ones promising to “bring the world closer together” and “organize the world’s information”—created the perfect ecosystem for this type of content to flourish.

Tristan Harris, former Google design ethicist and co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, doesn’t mince words: “The Tate phenomenon is the logical conclusion of engagement-based algorithms. These systems don’t distinguish between valuable discourse and harmful content—they only measure whether people engage. And unfortunately, outrage, controversy, and extremism drive engagement better than nuance and moderation.”

The tech industry’s response has been predictably reactive rather than preventative. YouTube eventually took action against Tate’s content, but only after significant pressure. Even then, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, YouTube had earned up to £2.4 million in advertising revenue from his content before taking more decisive action.

When questioned about this figure, YouTube called it “wildly inaccurate and overinflated,” highlighting that most channels containing his content weren’t monetized—a defense that notably doesn’t address why the content remained on the platform in the first place.

The Smoking Guns: Three Overlooked Revelations

While much has been written about Tate’s rise to internet infamy, three critical factors have received insufficient attention:

Smoking Gun #1: The Programmatic Misogyny Pipeline

The recommendation algorithms didn’t just happen to surface Tate’s content—they specifically targeted young males already consuming adjacent content. Analysis of recommendation patterns shows that viewers of fitness content, cryptocurrency videos, and “hustle culture” channels were systematically led toward increasingly extreme content, with Tate representing one of the final steps in this radicalization journey.

A 15-year-old former Tate fan explained: “I was just watching videos about working out, and then I started getting these ‘sigma male’ videos, and within two weeks, Andrew Tate was all over my feed telling me that women are property. The scary part is I almost started believing it.”

Smoking Gun #2: The Multi-Level Marketing Structure

Tate’s “Hustler’s University,” a monthly subscription program that claimed to teach wealth-building strategies, included specific instruction on how to profit from spreading his content. This created a financially incentivized army of content distributors who had direct monetary interest in maximizing the spread of his most controversial statements.

“It’s essentially a pyramid scheme of attention,” explains digital marketing expert Sarah Chen. “Members pay $49.99 monthly, and part of what they’re taught is how to repost Tate content for affiliate commissions. It’s genius in a horrifying way—he created a financially motivated distribution network that platform moderation couldn’t possibly keep up with.”

Smoking Gun #3: The Ad Revenue Paradox

Perhaps most damning is how the entire ecosystem profited from Tate’s rise. Social media platforms earned advertising revenue from the increased engagement. News outlets gained traffic from covering the controversy. Even his critics benefited from the attention economy by creating response content. Everyone in the digital ecosystem had financial incentives to keep the Tate machine running, regardless of the social consequences.

Internal documents from one major platform revealed executives were aware of Tate’s harmful content months before taking action, with one noting: “User engagement metrics are off the charts with this content. Let’s monitor the situation but avoid immediate action.” The document was dated three months before their eventual ban.

The Elementary Truth: We Are the Algorithm

The most uncomfortable revelation in this investigation is that Andrew Tate didn’t hack the system—he simply held up a mirror to it. The algorithms that elevated him to global prominence weren’t malfunctioning; they were working exactly as designed, optimizing for engagement above all else.

“At a fundamental level, social media algorithms are simply mathematical representations of human attention patterns,” explains Dr. Krishnamurthy. “Tate didn’t game some abstract system—he gamed us, exploiting precisely what captures human attention in a digital environment.”

This explains why, even after being banned from major platforms and facing serious criminal charges including human trafficking and rape, Tate remains a dominant figure in online discourse.⁶ By April 2025, despite his legal troubles, his follower count on X (formerly Twitter) continues to grow, reaching 9.9 million—an increase of over 5 million since December 2022.

The true product of social media companies isn’t their platforms—it’s our attention. And in that marketplace, Andrew Tate discovered that outrage, controversy, and extremism are the most valuable currencies. The algorithms didn’t create Tate’s message, but they amplified it beyond what would have been possible in any previous media environment.

The Digital Attention Economy: Where We Go From Here

As we navigate this brave new world of algorithmic influence, the Andrew Tate phenomenon serves as a case study in how our digital systems can be weaponized against their stated purposes. The same tools built to connect humanity have become the perfect delivery systems for content that divides us.

Dr. Joshua Roose, who specializes in extremism and masculinities, identifies a “strong normative anti-women attitude in society” that is being amplified online through these systems. The internet isn’t creating these attitudes, but it’s providing unprecedented distribution power to those who express them most provocatively.

The solution isn’t simple platform bans, as Tate’s persistent influence demonstrates. His content continued to spread through fan accounts even after his official presence was removed. A more fundamental rethinking of how we design our digital spaces may be required.

“We need to educate the next generation of adults that the things this man says is truly a form of hatred, and in no world should it be accepted or tolerated,” writes one concerned observer. But education alone may be insufficient when the very infrastructure of our digital world is optimized to reward exactly the behaviors we’re trying to discourage.

Perhaps the most disturbing insight from the Tate phenomenon is that it isn’t an aberration but a revelation—showing us exactly what happens when engagement-maximizing algorithms meet human psychology in our hyper-connected age. As one digital culture analyst aptly put it: “He’s like a car crash. You don’t want to look, but you can’t stop yourself. And suddenly, you’re five pages deep into his Google search results.”⁷

In the search for solutions, we may need to confront an uncomfortable question: Can platforms designed to maximize engagement ever truly be aligned with human wellbeing? Or is the Andrew Tate phenomenon simply the logical endpoint of the attention economy we’ve built?

The internet will always be ready to give someone their 15 minutes of fame. The problem is that in our algorithmic age, those 15 minutes can be amplified into years of influence, causing real-world harm long after the initial virality has faded. And that’s a technical bug that no amount of content moderation can fix without addressing the underlying system architecture.

Support TechOnion’s Algorithm Watchdogs

If you’ve made it this far, you’ve spent valuable attention reading about a man who weaponized your attention economy against itself. Help us continue exposing how algorithms shape our digital lives by supporting TechOnion with a small donation. Unlike Andrew Tate, we won’t promise to make you a millionaire or teach you “sigma male secrets”—we’ll just keep peeling back the layers of tech’s most powerful systems without making you feel like you need a shower afterward. Your support helps ensure that the next attention hijacker doesn’t fly under the radar while platforms count their ad revenue.