In May 2026, I tried to start up a little online enclave where people with various political, religious, and philosophical inclinations could share and discuss ideas.
Obviously, this was a response to the internet being polluted by LLMs, yes, but also to the persistent and worsening problem of too much low-quality information being distributed at hyper-speed and hyper-volume, which is very often presented in absolute terms. Nuance is hard to come by, everybody is pissed, and it feels like 80% of what is on my computer screen is either wholly AI-generated or heavily AI-modulated. Even people whose thoughts I typically appreciate and respect and whom I believe to have brilliant, original ideas increasingly sanitize their thinking/writing with LLMs. We are bulldozing the fecund rainforest of human ingenuity!
Anyway, as a result of all that, for about ~4 months, the ~15 people part of this group sent each other articles and wrote long, deeply considered meditations on things and debated questions and tried to parse problems. The ‘atmosphere’ was one of fervent ideological exploration and deconstruction. We were passionate, often blunt, but never angry and rarely rude in a way we couldn’t recover from.
But as of a couple weeks ago, the forum has gone completely radio silent. Network effects are exponential in both directions, and as people got busy/disinterested, disengaging became contagious. The last time someone sent a message in the forum was Sept 2.
Communities are extraordinarily delicate, sensitive ecosystems, so I’m not shocked it petered out. Also, while there were invigorating discussions and, for the time it was active, it was vastly more intellectually fulfilling for me than the General Internet, it was definitely not quite right.
I’ve thought about it a lot and the reason it didn’t work is that it was still communication mediated through an online interface. I am now convinced true fellowship, especially fellowship which is intended to center our humanity, must happen in person.
[SKIP IF U ARE TOO COWARDLY TO BE EARNEST AND CORNY!]
I have been thinking about the Greek philosophers. Socrates, of course, was an unyielding proponent of the oral tradition. He believed the absolute best way to share ideas, explore experience, and debate was to do so in person; two souls sparking against each other like rocks in real-time, embarking on the psychedelic experience of connection. He famously believed writing ruined your memory and, because it was ‘inert’ and didn’t accomodate back-and-forth, your theories could not be fairly tested by valid critique.
This may have been an overrreaction on his part at the time but now it’s not. Unless someone says something to me in person, I have no idea if it’s really their thinking or processing that I’m reading or an LLMs. I don’t know if it’s their thinking mediated, cleaned up, and neutered by LLM-speak. I don’t know if it’s a bot. I don’t know anything. I don’t have a way of finding out. I don’t like being suspicious. I don’t like being bored. I don’t like feeling nothing. I don’t like feeling alone. I don’t like ingesting Claude-speak and later saying ‘load-bearing’ in my inner monologue. I don’t like talking to people in person and noticing Claude-speak in their syntax (ex: personifying abstract ideas, saying ‘once you x, it stops being y and starts being z.’ Many of my colleagues do this in real life, particularly higher-ups. Dystopian.)
Due to this line of thinking, along with my little online forum totally drying up, I’m taking a new tack.
The salon is moving in-person. The original creed is the same.
Here it is (it’s called the Gadflies here because that’s what we named it):
Summary of our creed
The Gadflies is a secret, closed organization designed to foster intellectual exploration, philosophical, ethical, and civic debate, tolerance for nuance and disagreement, creativity, imagination, social enrichment, and rigorous interior examination.
It is intended to be our defense against a culture increasingly absorbed by passive consumption, intellectual laziness, irrational ideological extremism, polarization, discomfort intolerance, and overall Wall-E-ificiation.
Consider this a boxing club, but for critical and creative thinking.
If we take this work seriously, we will not only have an enduring competitive advantage in our working and creative lives, but also a sense of fulfillment in knowing we are preserving our inviolable ability to reason, imagine, reconcile, wonder, argue, create, persuade, and, most importantly, learn.
This group is much more than a book club or a writer’s group. It’s more like AA, the Free Masons, fight club, or mass/church/temple. It demands investment (in our case, a time investment), and a fervent commitment to a shared value system. In joining, you are promising to be accountable to the group, and to prioritize the health of the group over other minor discomforts, like ego or convenience.
Ours is a sacred mission. It’s a fundamentally humanitarian mission. We aren’t luddites, and we aren’t opposed to new technologies; rather, we are committed to preserving what makes our own lives fulfilling. New technologies and a fortified human spirit can and must coexist. Now, largely because of AI/LLMs/hyperconvenience, it will take concerted, deliberate work to build toward a fortified human spirit.
Value system
Our value system is basically our ten commandments. We can amend it at any time — we are not a rigid or tradition-obsessed group. We appreciate progress. That said, amending the value system requires a unanimous vote.
We are fundamentally rational: We must be willing to change our minds in the face of better data. Honest intellectual exploration depends upon rational thinking, decision-making, and debate. We take disagreements in good faith. We are not interested in being right. The goal of the group is to rummage around in the dusty neglected attic of knowledge and truth and share what you find there, not to be the smartest in the room.
Don’t devalue subjectivity, emotion, or compassion: Rational does not mean devoid of emotion. This is a humanist group, and emotions are core to our being as humans. They inform our experience of life. If someone’s contribution to a discussion is, ‘I disagree with that because I believe it’s morally wrong’, or ‘I find that worldview defeatist/depressing’, or something else subjective, that’s a fair counter. If we were unfeeling robots, objectivity would win every argument. In fact, there probably wouldn’t be any argument. We discourage dismissing others’ points of view outright because they seem emotional or subjective. Objectivity and subjectivity are both valuable frameworks for understanding ethical, creative, and philosophical questions.
Diversity of thought is good: Diversity is richness. It is always good. We love dissenting opinions. We love a new lens for looking at something. We welcome stoics, hedonists, poets, mathematicians, Catholics, atheists, socialists, capitalists, etc. etc. Beyond that, we welcome people of all ‘walks of life’ (lmao) but for real: this cannot become just a group of tech people (though I anticipate it will be quite tech-heavy, at least at first, which is fine). We also welcome surgeons, lawyers, teachers, astronauts, farmers, cashiers, civil servants, HVAC technicians, and professors. “….Skull and Bones' membership developed a reputation in association with the ‘power elite’. Regarding the qualifications for membership, Lanny Davis wrote in the 1968 Yale yearbook: “‘If the society had a good year, this is what the "ideal" group will consist of: a football captain; a Chairman of the Yale Daily News; a conspicuous radical; a Whiffenpoof; a swimming captain; a notorious drunk with a 94 average; a film-maker; a political columnist; a religious group leader; a Chairman of the Lit; [redacted]; a ladies' man with two motorcycles; an ex-serviceman; [redacted]; a guy nobody else in the group had heard of, ever …’”
Being wrong is as valuable as being right: There’s never any shame in being wrong. People will not share their true opinions for fear of being laughed out of the room if there’s any concern about that. If you’re wrong, you are part of the effort to uncover what’s right, and you’re encouraging those with an opposing view to helpfully parse the rationale for their position. Low-ego or you’re out: Arguments must be made in good faith. We aim to discuss ideas, not display dominance. We must approach discussions with humility and mutual respect. Focusing on the idea and not ‘winning’ the argument is an exercise in quieting our own insecurities, ignoring our ego, and inviting respect for our fellows and a commitment to rationality to take precedence over our own impulse to ‘prove ourselves.’
Invites are sacred: If you have someone you’d like to invite, email mrmarket@kindasortastudio.com with a short description of who they are and why they’re a good fit. Send them our value system first so they can self-vet, too.
You can be kicked out for low participation: (“expelled for indolence”) - There’s no hard rule and we’ll use our discretion, but not contributing to the group often enough is grounds for being booted. This isn’t anything personal and everybody gets busy. It’s just that we have to incentivize active participation for the health of the group. If everybody becomes a lurker, the group dies. You can reapply later.
Ground synchronous discussions in a common basis: We would be required to engage with some source material on a regular basis to support discussions. This could be primary texts in philosophy and ethics, novels, essays, songs, videos of lectures, documentary films, etc. Really anything. COME TO CLASS PREPARED.
No ‘unsafe’ people allowed: ‘Unsafe’ can mean a lot of things. Use your discretion. Obviously no sexual predators, but beyond that, vengeful/angry/intentionally inflammatory/antisocial/hyper-reactionary personalities would also not be safe for the group. This is a community and therefore a social organism. We need to protect it! A note on political affiliation: We welcome membership from individuals across the political spectrum.
Hate the stance/policy/idea, not the person: Our version of hate the sin not the sinner. We must all vow to love one another. How do you disagree with someone you love? How do you feel when someone you love has an opinion you don’t like - maybe even one you disagree with on moral grounds? If someone says “I love AI,” and you strongly believe AI is ruining the environment/future, you can hate their stance - but you must always love your fellow. Hating ideas is a natural tendency among passionate people. But there is no room for hating one another in this group.
A note on AI: We encourage you to rely solely on your own brain, but we won’t be purists. Just know there is a cognitive tradeoff, and using your brain rather than AI for tasks related to the Gadflies will likely be more gratifying and result in ‘greater ROI on your time spent working on stuff for the organization’, if you will.
If you are located in/around Boston and this is at all interesting to you, email me at mrmarket@kindasortastudio.com.
I will email you an application (this isn’t to be exclusive, rather, what I learned from the first attempt is that unless everyone in the group is totally ‘aligned’ with the intent of the community and able to fully commit, it falls apart. Disengaging is contagious, etc.)
If you are not in the Boston area but otherwise would have joined, I urge you to start a similar group in your area! I recently saw a connection share something by Gary Vee about how someone should start a business where they get paid to take walks with lonely people in the city. He said there’s ‘a real need’ and ‘a booming market’ for that. He said whoever starts that business ‘will make a fucking killing’. We must not go gentle into that bleak night.