arxiv: 2605.14090 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.GR· cs.LG

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Synthetic Sociality: How Generative Models Privatize the Social Fabric

Ana Dodik , Moira Weigel

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.GRcs.LG

keywords generative modelssocial doingsynthetic socialitycommodificationdigital economysocial relationsprivatization

0 comments

The pith

Generative models automate the production of social capacities called social doing, privatizing the social fabric.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that generative models do not only automate intellectual labor but also human social capacities termed social doing. It historicizes the commodification of sociality in the digital economy as the basis for these models. By distinguishing use sociality from exchange sociality, it analyzes how models substitute for or mediate social relations. This creates synthetic sociality controlled by private entities. A reader would care because it suggests AI affects the core of human connection, not just productivity.

Core claim

Our thesis is that generative models automate the production not only of intellectual labor or intelligence, but of a broader set of human social capacities we name social doing. We elaborate this by drawing on the distinction between use and exchange sociality, showing how generative models lead to synthetic sociality in part fabricated by privately owned systems.

What carries the argument

The distinction between use sociality and exchange sociality, used to show how generative models substitute for or mediate existing social relations.

Load-bearing premise

The use and exchange sociality distinction from critical theory applies directly to generative model effects without new empirical validation.

What would settle it

Empirical data showing users maintain unchanged levels of real social engagement despite using generative models would undermine the thesis.

read the original abstract

We put forth a critical theoretical framework for analyzing generative models both descriptively and normatively. Our thesis is that generative models automate the production not only of intellectual labor or intelligence, but of a broader set of human social capacities we name "social doing." We do this by historicizing the commodification of sociality in the digital economy, leading to the availability of social data as the precondition for generative models. We elaborate our definition of "social doing" by drawing a distinction between "use" and "exchange" sociality and further differentiate between the ways that generative models either substitute for or mediate existing social relations and processes. We then turn to existing empirical research on how people use generative model-based products and the effects that their use has upon them. In this, we introduce the concept of Synthetic Sociality, a social reality in part fabricated by Silicon Valley's privately owned and undemocratically governed generative models. Lastly, we offer a normative analysis based on our findings and framework, and discuss future design opportunities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper introduces Synthetic Sociality as generative models automating social capacities, but the use/exchange distinction rests on untested analogy from critical theory.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that generative models are positioned as automating not just intelligence but a wider set of social capacities the authors label social doing, which produces a privatized Synthetic Sociality. This extends commodification arguments to current AI tools by tracing how social data became available in the first place. The paper does a clean job historicizing the shift from digital platforms to generative systems and then splits sociality into use versus exchange forms, showing how models can substitute for or mediate relations. It reviews existing empirical work on user effects and closes with normative points plus some design suggestions. That arc is straightforward and stays grounded in the cited literature. The soft spot is the leap from those prior studies to the claim that the use/exchange binary actually explains the mechanisms or experiential changes. The paper treats the distinction as directly applicable without demonstrating that the referenced research differentiates impacts along that axis or that the categories track real substitution effects. No new data or independent checks appear, so the normative conclusions sit on interpretive ground. This piece is aimed at readers in critical AI studies, social computing, or design ethics who want a theoretical frame for structural impacts. It would be worth sending to peer review because the argument is internally coherent, engages the literature seriously, and raises questions that referees can pressure-test with empirical or conceptual pushback.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper advances a critical theoretical framework arguing that generative models automate not only intellectual labor but a broader set of human social capacities termed 'social doing.' It historicizes the commodification of social data in the digital economy as the precondition for these models, distinguishes 'use' from 'exchange' sociality to define how models substitute for or mediate social relations, introduces 'Synthetic Sociality' as a fabricated social reality governed by private entities, reviews existing empirical research on user effects, and concludes with normative analysis and design opportunities.

Significance. If the central mapping holds, the work would offer a substantive extension of critical theory into generative AI analysis, providing a lens for understanding risks to non-commodified social interactions and informing design alternatives in computer-society research. It builds on prior commodification scholarship but its significance hinges on whether the interpretive framework can be empirically anchored rather than remaining self-referential.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and section elaborating definition of social doing] The core thesis (Abstract) that generative models automate 'social doing' by substituting for or mediating use versus exchange sociality rests on an untested analogy: the paper cites existing user-effect studies but does not show that those studies differentiate impacts along the use/exchange axis or that the binary captures actual substitution mechanisms in LLM interactions.
[Abstract and normative analysis section] The introduction of Synthetic Sociality (Abstract) is constructed directly from the same commodification premises used to explain its emergence, creating circularity: the definition of the phenomenon presupposes the privatizing effects it is meant to diagnose without independent external benchmarks or falsifiable predictions.
[Empirical research review] The empirical research review does not validate the load-bearing claim that generative models produce synthetic sociality; referenced studies are not shown to support the use/exchange distinction as the operative mechanism, weakening the transition from descriptive historicization to normative conclusions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract is information-dense; separating the historical, definitional, empirical, and normative threads into distinct sentences would improve readability.
[Definition of social doing] Clarify whether 'social doing' is intended as a new theoretical construct or a relabeling of existing concepts from critical theory to avoid potential overlap with prior literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, clarifying the theoretical scope of the framework while indicating targeted revisions to improve precision and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and section elaborating definition of social doing] The core thesis (Abstract) that generative models automate 'social doing' by substituting for or mediating use versus exchange sociality rests on an untested analogy: the paper cites existing user-effect studies but does not show that those studies differentiate impacts along the use/exchange axis or that the binary captures actual substitution mechanisms in LLM interactions.

Authors: We agree that the paper does not empirically test the use/exchange distinction as an operative mechanism. The framework is explicitly theoretical: the distinction functions as an interpretive lens derived from prior commodification scholarship to organize and analyze existing user-effect findings. The cited studies are presented as illustrative rather than as direct evidence for the binary. We will revise the abstract and the definition section to state this scope more explicitly and add a brief note in the empirical review acknowledging that future work would be needed to test substitution mechanisms along this axis. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract and normative analysis section] The introduction of Synthetic Sociality (Abstract) is constructed directly from the same commodification premises used to explain its emergence, creating circularity: the definition of the phenomenon presupposes the privatizing effects it is meant to diagnose without independent external benchmarks or falsifiable predictions.

Authors: We accept that the presentation risks appearing circular. The concept is introduced as a synthesis that specifies the privatized governance dimension and its consequences for social relations, building on but extending the commodification premises. To reduce this impression, we will revise the normative analysis section to separate the foundational premises from the novel claims of the concept and will add a short paragraph outlining possible external benchmarks or falsifiable implications for future empirical research. revision: partial
Referee: [Empirical research review] The empirical research review does not validate the load-bearing claim that generative models produce synthetic sociality; referenced studies are not shown to support the use/exchange distinction as the operative mechanism, weakening the transition from descriptive historicization to normative conclusions.

Authors: The review section is intended to supply illustrative support for the theoretical claims rather than to validate them empirically. We will revise the section to include explicit mappings showing how selected study findings can be read through the use/exchange lens, while inserting clearer language on the limits of this interpretive approach and the consequent need for dedicated empirical tests before strong normative conclusions are drawn. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Theoretical framework applies established critical theory categories without definitional reduction or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper constructs its central thesis by historicizing the commodification of sociality as background, then elaborates 'social doing' via the pre-existing use/exchange distinction drawn from critical theory, and finally introduces 'Synthetic Sociality' as a descriptive label for model-mediated relations. No step equates a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own fitted inputs or prior self-citation by construction; the use/exchange binary is imported as an analytic lens rather than derived from the models themselves, and empirical references are invoked only after the framework is stated. The derivation therefore remains self-contained as interpretive social theory rather than a closed loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework draws on Marxist use/exchange value distinctions and critical theory assumptions about commodification without providing independent empirical grounding for their application to generative models.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Social data from digital platforms serves as the precondition for generative models to automate social capacities.
Stated in the historicization section of the abstract as the basis for the thesis.
ad hoc to paper Generative models either substitute for or mediate existing social relations in ways that produce synthetic sociality.
Introduced as the core differentiation without prior empirical mapping.

invented entities (2)

Synthetic Sociality no independent evidence
purpose: Describes a social reality fabricated by privately owned generative models.
New concept introduced to capture the outcome of automation of social doing.
Social doing no independent evidence
purpose: Broader set of human social capacities beyond intelligence that generative models automate.
New term defined to extend the thesis beyond intellectual labor.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 1364 out tokens · 28305 ms · 2026-05-15T01:53:52.059333+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We elaborate our definition of 'social doing' by drawing a distinction between 'use' and 'exchange' sociality and further differentiate between the ways that generative models either substitute for or mediate existing social relations and processes.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

generative models automate the production not only of intellectual labor or intelligence, but of a broader set of human social capacities we name 'social doing.'

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages

[1]

Theodor W. Adorno. 1938. Über den Fetischcharakter in der Musik und die Regression des Hörens.Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung7 (1938), 29–60

work page 1938
[2]

Fayaz Ali, Qingyu Zhang, Muhammad Zubair Tauni, and Khuram Shahzad. 2024. Social Chatbot: My Friend in My Dis- tress.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction40, 7 (2024), 1702–1712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2150745 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2150745

work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2150745 2024
[3]

Dani Anguiano. 2025. AI lovers grieve loss of ChatGPT’s old model: ‘Like saying goodbye to someone I know’.The Guardian(Aug. 2025). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/22/ai-chatgpt-new-model-grief

work page 2025
[4]

1832.On the Division of Mental Labour

Charles Babbage. 1832.On the Division of Mental Labour. Charles Knight. https://books.google.com/books?id=9EYa0QEACAAJ

work page
[5]

Milena Batanova, Richard Weissbourd, and Joseph McIntyre. 2025. https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/loneliness-in-america-2024 16 Ana Dodik and Moira Weigel

work page 2025
[6]

Dina Berrada. 2025. Unpacking the magic of our new creative tools. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/generative-ai-creation-tools-made- on-youtube-2025/

work page 2025
[7]

Alexander Bick, Adam Blandin, and David J. Deming. 2024. The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI. 32966 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3386/w32966 DOI: 10.3386/w32966

work page doi:10.3386/w32966 2024
[8]

Zachary Biondi. 2023. The Specter of Automation.Philosophia51, 3 (July 2023), 1093–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00604-x

work page doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00604-x 2023
[9]

2024.The Influencer Factory: A Marxist Theory of Corporate Personhood on YouTube

Grant Bollmer and Katherine Guinness. 2024.The Influencer Factory: A Marxist Theory of Corporate Personhood on YouTube. Stanford University Press

work page 2024
[10]

Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Marita Skjuve, and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI Friend: How Users of a Social Chatbot Understand Their Human–AI Friendship.Human Communication Research48, 3 (2022), 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac008

work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac008 2022
[11]

John T Cacioppo and Stephanie Cacioppo. 2018. The growing problem of loneliness.Lancet (London, England)391, 10119 (Feb. 2018), 426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30142-9

work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30142-9 2018
[12]

Henry Chandonnet. 2025. I used Grok’s AI companions for a week. The foul-mouthed red panda is hilarious — the flirty anime girl is worrying. https://www.businessinsider.com/grok-bad-rudi-ani-levels-ai-companion-xai-elon-musk-2025-7

work page 2025
[13]

2025.Harnessing Data at Scale: Character.AI’s Transition to WarpStream

Character AI. 2025.Harnessing Data at Scale: Character.AI’s Transition to WarpStream. https://blog.character.ai/harnessing-data-at-scale-character- ais-transition-to-warpstream/

work page 2025
[14]

Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman

Aaron Chatterji, Thomas Cunningham, David J. Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman. 2025.How People Use ChatGPT. Technical Report w34255. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w34255

work page doi:10.3386/w34255 2025
[15]

Thomas Claburn. 2022. Holz, founder of AI art service Midjourney, on future images. https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/david_holz_ midjourney/

work page 2022
[16]

Ann-Marie Corvin. 2025. https://cybernews.com/ai-news/project-skippy-turn-employee-data-anime-girlfriend/

work page 2025
[17]

Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias. 2019.The Costs Of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Bloomsbury Publishing

work page 2019
[18]

Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias. 2019. Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject.Television & New Media 20, 4 (2019), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632

work page doi:10.1177/1527476418796632 2019
[19]

Emmelyn A. J. Croes and Marjolijn L. Antheunis. 2021. Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38, 1 (2021), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463

work page doi:10.1177/0265407520959463 2021
[20]

Liam Curtis. 2025. AI Slop Report: The Global Rise of Low-Quality AI Videos. https://www.kapwing.com/blog/ai-slop-report-the-global-rise-of- low-quality-ai-videos/

work page 2025
[21]

Mauro De Gennaro, Eva G Krumhuber, and Gale Lucas. 2020. Effectiveness of an empathic chatbot in combating adverse effects of social exclusion on mood.Frontiers in psychology10 (2020), 495952

work page 2020
[22]

1824.Notice sur les grandes tables logarithmiques et trigonometriques: adaptées au nouveau système métrique décimal

Gaspard de Prony. 1824.Notice sur les grandes tables logarithmiques et trigonometriques: adaptées au nouveau système métrique décimal. Didot

work page
[23]

Gerrit De Vynck and Drew Harwell. 2025. On Sora, Silicon Valley’s hottest new social network, everything is fake. https://www.proquest.com/ newspapers/on-sora-silicon-valleys-hottest-new-social/docview/3256585135/se-2?accountid=12492

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Goldstein

Renée DiResta and Josh A. Goldstein. 2024. How spammers and scammers leverage AI-generated images on Facebook for audience growth. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-151

work page doi:10.37016/mr-2020-151 2024
[25]

Miriam Doh, Corinna Canali, and Nuria Oliver. 2025. What TikTok Claims, What Bold Glamour Does: A Filter’s Paradox. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1902–1915. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732126

work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732126 2025
[26]

2017.(Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work

Brooke Erin Duffy. 2017.(Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

work page 2017
[27]

Frank, Matthew Groh, Laura Herman, Neil Leach, Robert Mahari, Alex “Sandy” Pentland, Olga Russakovsky, Hope Schroeder, and Amy Smith

Ziv Epstein, Aaron Hertzmann, the Investigators of Human Creativity, Memo Akten, Hany Farid, Jessica Fjeld, Morgan R. Frank, Matthew Groh, Laura Herman, Neil Leach, Robert Mahari, Alex “Sandy” Pentland, Olga Russakovsky, Hope Schroeder, and Amy Smith. 2023. Art and the science of generative AI.Science380, 6650 (2023), 1110–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/sc...

work page doi:10.1126/science.adh4451 2023
[28]

Rand, and Iyad Rahwan

Ziv Epstein, Sydney Levine, David G. Rand, and Iyad Rahwan. 2020. Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art?iScience23, 9 (Sept. 2020), 101515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101515

work page doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101515 2020
[29]

Henry Farrell, Alison Gopnik, Cosma Shalizi, and James Evans. 2025. Large AI models are cultural and social technologies.Science387, 6739 (2025), 1153–1156. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt9819 arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adt9819

work page doi:10.1126/science.adt9819 2025
[30]

1975.Wages against Housework(1st ed.)

Silvia Federici and Power of Women Collective. 1975.Wages against Housework(1st ed.). Power of Women Collective; Falling Wall Press, London; Bristol

work page 1975
[31]

Fortunati and J

L. Fortunati and J. Fleming. 1995.The Arcane of Reproduction: Housework, Prostitution, Labor and Capital. Autonomedia

work page 1995
[32]

Jesse Fox and Andrew Gambino. 2021. Relationship Development with Humanoid Social Robots: Applying Interpersonal Theories to Human–Robot Interaction.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking24, 5 (May 2021), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0181

work page doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0181 2021
[33]

Nancy Fraser. 2016. Contradictions of Capital and Care.New Left Review100 (2016), 99–117. Synthetic Sociality: How Generative Models Privatize the Social Fabric 17

work page 2016
[34]

David C. Giles. 2002. Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research.Media Psychology4, 3 (Aug. 2002), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04

work page doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_04 2002
[35]

Omri Gillath, Ting Ai, Michael S Branicky, Shawn Keshmiri, Robert B Davison, and Ryan Spaulding. 2021. Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence.Computers in human behavior115 (2021), 106607

work page 2021
[36]

Josh A Goldstein, Jason Chao, Shelby Grossman, Alex Stamos, and Michael Tomz. 2024. How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda?PNAS Nexus 3, 2 (Feb. 2024), pgae034. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae034

work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae034 2024
[37]

Gonzales and Jeffrey T

Amy L. Gonzales and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2008. Identity Shift in Computer-Mediated Environments.Media Psychology11, 2 (2008), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802023433 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802023433

work page doi:10.1080/15213260802023433 2008
[38]

Regularity and Inferential Theories of Causation

Ivor Grattan-Guinness. 2003.The computation factory: de Prony’s project for making tables in the 1790s. Oxford University Press. https: //doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508410.003.0005 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508410.003.0005

work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508410.003.0005 2003
[39]

Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25, 1 (March 2020), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022

work page doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmz022 2020
[40]

Troy, Dario Amodei, Jared Kaplan, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli

Kunal Handa, Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Saffron Huang, Esin Durmus, Sarah Heck, Jared Mueller, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, Tim Belonax, Kevin K. Troy, Dario Amodei, Jared Kaplan, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2025. Which Economic Tasks are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations. arXiv:2503.04761 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04761

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

Drew Harwell. 2025. Making cash off ’AI slop’: The surreal video business taking over the web. https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts- websites/making-cash-off-ai-slop-surreal-video-business/docview/3240553260/se-2 Name - TikTok Inc; Copyright - Copyright WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post Aug 18, 2025; Last updated - 2025-08-19

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Will Hawkins, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2025. Deepfakes on Demand: The rise of accessible non-consensual deepfake image generators. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1602–1614. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732107

work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732107 2025
[43]

Richard Wohl

Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction.Psychiatry19, 3 (1956), 215–229. https: //doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 PMID: 13359569

work page doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 1956
[44]

Brandt, Radomír Meundefinedh, and Mitchel Resnick

Jennifer Jacobs, Joel R. Brandt, Radomír Meundefinedh, and Mitchel Resnick. 2018. Dynamic Brushes: Extending Manual Drawing Practices with Artist-Centric Programming Tools. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Montreal QC, Canada)(CHI EA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. htt...

work page doi:10.1145/3170427.3186492 2018
[45]

1991.Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism

Fredric Jameson. 1991.Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv12100qm

work page 1991
[46]

Women’s Work

Kylie Jarrett. 2014. The Relevance of “Women’s Work”: Social Reproduction and Immaterial Labor in Digital Media.Television & New Media15, 1 (Jan. 2014), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476413487607

work page doi:10.1177/1527476413487607 2014
[47]

Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

work page
[48]

InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Montréal, QC, Canada)(AIES ’23)

AI Art and its Impact on Artists. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Montréal, QC, Canada)(AIES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604681

work page doi:10.1145/3600211.3604681 2023
[49]

Jones, Huma Gupta, and Matthew Ritchie

Caroline A. Jones, Huma Gupta, and Matthew Ritchie. 2024. Visual Artists, Technological Shock, and Generative AI. (March 2024). https: //doi.org/10.21428/e4baedd9.b4f754fd

work page doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.b4f754fd 2024
[50]

Andrej Karpathy. 2025. Very impressed with Veo 3 and all the things people are finding on r/aivideo etc. https://x.com/karpathy/status/ 1929634696474120576

work page 2025
[51]

Alexandra Kollontai. 1921. Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm Online English translation available at Marxists Internet Archive

work page 1921
[52]

Max Kreminski. 2024. The Dearth of the Author in AI-Supported Writing. InProceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants(Honolulu, HI, USA)(In2Writing ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 48–50. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3690712.3690725

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

Linnea Laestadius, Andrea Bishop, Michael Gonzalez, Diana Illenčík, and Celeste Campos-Castillo. 2024. Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika.New Media & Society26, 10 (Oct. 2024), 5923–5941. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221142007

work page doi:10.1177/14614448221142007 2024
[54]

Maurizio Lazzarato. 1996. Immaterial Labor. InRadical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt (Eds.). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 132–146

work page 1996
[55]

Yier Ling and Alex Imas. 2025. Underreporting of AI use: The role of social desirability bias. 5232910 (May 2025). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5232910

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5232910 2025
[56]

Jiaxu Lou and Yifan Sun. 2025. Anchoring bias in large language models: an experimental study. 9 (Dec. 2025), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001- 025-00435-2

work page doi:10.1007/s42001- 2025
[57]

Georg Lukács. 1971. Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat. InHistory and Class Consciousness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 83–222

work page 1971
[58]

Donald MacKenzie. 1984. Marx and the Machine.Technology and Culture25, 3 (1984), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/3104202

work page doi:10.2307/3104202 1984
[59]

there is no replacement

Gili Malinsky. 2025. Mark Zuckerberg says people can fill the need for friends with AI, but “there is no replacement” for human relationships, psychologist says. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/09/mark-zuckerberg-says-ai-can-replace-human-relationshipsexpert-disagrees.html

work page 2025
[60]

Ernest. Mandel. 1975.Late capitalism(revised edition. ed.). Verso, London

work page 1975
[61]

1976.Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I

Karl Marx. 1976.Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK. 18 Ana Dodik and Moira Weigel

work page 1976
[62]

Emma May, Britt Paris, and Serita Sargent. 2026. Dis/engaging the ‘common sense’ of AI: Labor strategies from the 2023 SAG-AFTRA around data-driven technologies.Big Data & Society13, 1 (2026), 20539517261421466. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517261421466 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517261421466

work page doi:10.1177/20539517261421466 2026
[63]

Brashears

Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discus- sion Networks over Two Decades.American Sociological Review71, 3 (2006), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100301 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100301

work page doi:10.1177/000312240607100301 2006
[64]

Mejias and N

U.A. Mejias and N. Couldry. 2024.Data Grab: The new Colonialism of Big Tech and how to fight back. Ebury Publishing. https://books.google.com/ books?id=qAm-EAAAQBAJ

work page 2024
[65]

2023.Introducing Social Profiles for Meta’s AIs

Meta Platforms. 2023.Introducing Social Profiles for Meta’s AIs. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/social-profiles-for-metas-ai-characters/ Accessed: 2025-12-12

work page 2023
[66]

2024.Create Your Own Custom AI With AI Studio

Meta Platforms. 2024.Create Your Own Custom AI With AI Studio. https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/create-your-own-custom-ai-with-ai-studio/ Accessed: 2025-12-12

work page 2024
[67]

Cade Metz. 2020. Riding Out Quarantine With a Chatbot Friend: ‘I Feel Very Connected’.The New York Times(2020). https://www.nytimes.com/ 2020/06/16/technology/chatbots-quarantine-coronavirus.html

work page 2020
[68]

Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein

Hannah Mieczkowski, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein. 2021. AI-Mediated Communication: Language Use and Interpersonal Effects in a Referential Communication Task.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 17:1–17:14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449091

work page doi:10.1145/3449091 2021
[69]

Evgeny Morozov. 2022. Critique of Techno-Feudal Reason.New Left Review133/134 (April 2022), 89–126

work page 2022
[70]

Muldoon, M

J. Muldoon, M. Graham, and C. Cant. 2024.Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI. Canongate Books. https://books.google. com/books?id=QQrqEAAAQBAJ

work page 2024
[71]

Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. 2021. Errorism. Agnieszka Kurant. https://msl.org.pl/en/errorism-agnieszka-kurant

work page 2021
[72]

Premilla Nadasen. 2021. Rethinking Care Work: (Dis)Affection and the Politics of Caring.Feminist Formations33, 1 (2021), 165–188

work page 2021
[73]

Katie Notopoulos. 2025. Meta’s dream of AI-generated users isn’t going anywhere. https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-generated-users- facebook-messenger-instagram-2025-1 Accessed: 2025-12-12

work page 2025
[74]

Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, Cristina Mele, Tiziana Russo-Spena, Dominik Mahr, and Andrea Ruggiero. 2020. Mitigating loneliness with companion robots in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: an integrative framework and research agenda.Journal of Service Management31, 6 (Aug. 2020), 1149–1162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0148

work page doi:10.1108/josm-05-2020-0148 2020
[75]

OpenAI. 2025. Our Structure. https://web.archive.org/web/20250819200810/https://openai.com/our-structure/ Archived from https://openai.com/ our-structure/

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

OpenAI. 2025. Sora 2 is here | OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/sora-2/

work page 2025
[77]

2023.The eye of the master: a social history of artificial intelligence

Matteo Pasquinelli. 2023.The eye of the master: a social history of artificial intelligence. Verso, London New York

work page 2023
[78]

Qiyao Peng, Yingdan Lu, Yilang Peng, Sijia Qian, Xinyi Liu, and Cuihua Shen. 2025. Crafting Synthetic Realities: Examining Visual Realism and Misinformation Potential of Photorealistic AI-Generated Images. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706599.3719834 arXi...

work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3719834 2025
[79]

Iryna Pentina, Tianling Xie, Tyler Hancock, and Ainsworth Bailey. 2023. Consumer–machine relationships in the age of artificial intelligence: Systematic literature review and research directions.Psychology & Marketing40, 8 (2023), 1593–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21853

work page doi:10.1002/mar.21853 2023
[80]

Laurel Ptak. 2014. Wages for Facebook. http://wagesforfacebook.com. Online manifesto/project, accessed YYYY-MM-DD

work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.