Erased

Its official. We speak Statiana now. We are Statians from now on. Afterall, so says the new amended constitution. So says the President. So says the government. So says the media. Even the foreign media says so.

So says everyone but the people who actually speak the native language.

The country has so many issues. Has had so many issues for decades. None resolved. Yet, this is what they focus on. This is what’s being joyously celebrated nationwide…

“A victory for the people!”

… parroted on every mainstream news channel. A deafening cacophony of unity and triumph. Finally, history has been righted. Finally, people have reclaimed their identity.

“Whose history?”

“What identity?”

“Which people?”

Nobody seems to care. The public space seems to have no “space” for rational debate. Was this topic truly the main priority in the agenda of the new government? How can this change realistically help us achieve prosperity? How could this remedied historical path foster political stability and economic development? To what extent is this the will of the people when every national census bears witness to a dominant majority identifying as Primorian who speak as their mother tongue Primoran?

Nobody seems to be interested.

“Seems” not “is”. There are many who disagree. But the majority is silent.

So how do I reach them?

With a lot of finesse. Covering this story would require a lot of finesse. Directly calling out the political elites will only result in complete shutdown. Everyone in this profession knows where that gets you. We’ve had examples.

So how to write an alternative? A web of words which speaks quietly but powerfully…

Might as well give a try to this generative AI, what with all the hype about its incredible capacity to process text, creatively and neutrally.

Heh, maybe a machine would have better answers where humans seem to fail.

Let’s start by testing what it knows first.

Hmm, do I say “Hi” or just dive in?

This is awkward…

Never mind, just dive in: “What do you know about Primorians?”

Ok, location, identity … majority of Primorians are ethnic Statians … many consider themselves ethnically Statians? Sure, if 7% is many, based on the latest national population census.

But others emphasize a distinct Primorian identity, especially due to Exarchon-era influences – you say. Very interesting wording, the overwhelming statistical majority who identify as Primorian are, apparently, the “others” and dismissed on the basis of foreign influence. Not surprised though. This is the strongly propagated narrative both inside and outside the country.

Next question: “Are you implying that people consider themselves Primorian only because of Exarchon influence?”

Ah, yes. Here it goes, before the 20th century, everyone was living happily under this grand umbrella term, Statians, speaking Statian, and saw themselves as part of this broader ethnic and cultural group etc. etc. etc.. Apparently, history only begins when it needs to make sense.

And obviously it needs repeating that many consider themselves ethnically Statians, but "others", of course to ensure consistency, identify as ethnically Primorian. Some prefer dual identity and country bumpkins being pro-Exarchon see “Primorian” as a more fitting identity.

Followed by such a nice conclusion: identity is also a personal, lived, evolving experience, and Primorians have agency in how they define themselves today. “Also”? This fundamental feature of identity formation is only an afterthought, stated so off-handedly at the end of a biased delivery. Identity either is or isn’t a personal, lived, evolving experience. “Also” has no place here.

This is hard. Even knowing and living this narrative, it is still hard to face it so directly from one more source, among so many.

Let’s try reasoning: “How can you know what Primorians identified themselves in the distant past? That they considered themselves Statian? That they only started to think of themselves as Primorian because of Exarchon intervention?”

Well, at least some acknowledgement that it’s impossible to know for sure what people identified as in the past, seeing as national identity is a relatively modern concept. And in this process, during the 19th century, a shared Statian identity was developed for political reasons. These Statian nation-builders, primarily scholars and intellectuals, then run campaigns across the new nation teaching ordinary people that they are Statian. Then Exarchon came and used the older identity background to counter pro-Statian views.

It is all about systems of power. They can make or destroy identities, cultures, languages. They co-opt these existing socially produced elements to achieve their own goals.

Meanwhile, these same elements are not produced in a vacuum, they emerge from people interacting with other people within limited geographical spaces, while sharing both advantages and disadvantages of their environment. Remove supra-local systems of power and you’ll get a different map.

Yet so very few people understand.

But I still think the presentation is a bit biased towards the Statian perspective.

Yes, Exarchon came afterwards and strengthened the historic Primorian identity and language. They did not do it for altruistic reasons; it just so happened that prioritising the existing older identity and language went counter to the narratives developed by the Statians. In this case, the far more dangerous are the Statians, who want to homogenise everyone within the territory they aim to include in their political space.

Let’s clarify further: “Which means that the Statian identity is fabricated and actually imposed on the people who inhabited the desired territories?”

Right. As you say, all modern national identities are to some extent constructed. Statian nation-builders did promote and partially imposed Statian identity and language for political reasons.

And…

Here we go again. Statiana was spoken widely across these regions in various dialects?! How do you know it was named Statian? How do you know people spoke Statiana before the standardisation campaigns began?

Because historical accounts show a clear Primorian dominance.

It’s like cycling a loop: beginning at the start, running as hard as you can and ending up facing the start line.

The emergence of a Statian identity was supported by many locals, especially urban elites and intellectuals?! – you say. And isn’t that suspicious? Elites and intellectuals are minorities with unbalanced hold on power and capacity to travel and import foreign ideas and systems.

Ordinary people came to adopt over time?! Again, isn’t this suspicious at all? We are talking about the same ordinary people who in their oral traditions and storytelling called themselves Primorians.

Does it not speak to how power operates, not only through overt imposition but also through quite cultural conditioning?

And what’s with this AI and its formulations?

Exarchon suppressed Statian-language materials and rewrote history.

Yet you never associate the Statians with these same words, even though you’ve just said that they developed a unified identity which was actively promoted in schools, churches, and administrative structures, sometimes overriding local or regional identities.

Overriding local or regional identities - isn’t this suppression and active rewriting of history?

But why are these words, these implied actions only associated with one party and not the other?

Who is programming these AI tools?

Where do they source their data?

Why is it so much subtle bias in the way even seemingly neutral assessments are shared?

Many Primorians today embrace a Primorian identity sincerely, not just because it was imposed, but because it reflects their lived experience, culture, and social memory – you say.

Then why did you highlight in bold the bit about it being imposed? Why do you implicitly associate the Primorian identity with imposition? Why, when referring to Statians, the one word you highlight is “promoted”?

Does this even make sense?

Never mind acknowledging Primorian for what it is, an old, rooted identity. Even the supposed benefit of a balanced, impartial analysis, so highly marketed by tech companies, is missing from these generated replies.

And it is so skillfully done. I need to read the text a couple of times before some things even start to seem a bit off.

Wait a minute…

How can using “sincerely”, “imposed” and reflection of “lived experience, culture, and social memory” even work? Logically. Not grammatically.

If something was imposed, means it naturally overwrote or distorted what existed, in spite of any internal development.

If something is a reflection of lived experience, means it naturally emerged organically over time, despite external factors.

This is a direct contradiction.

It is either one or another.

Is it not?

Let me think. Culture and social memory are processes which take time to form. They are always subject to certain degrees of outside influence, which get absorbed into the localised context, but the core still remains distinctive. An example are the different reflections of the Roman Empire influence throughout Europe.

Meaning there is no absolute imposition, unless a surgical wipeout occurred.

Unless… Are you saying that this lived experience which is “sincerely” embraced by Primorians only goes back as far as the Exarchon times. Which actually implies that the Primorian identity is a fabricated identity under Exarchon. It follows that this is the lived experience which formed culture and resulted into a social collective memory called Primorian.

But in your answer above you literally stated: not all Primorians identify as such only due to Exarchon influence.

What are you even saying?

What rabbit hole is this?

Is it only me who sees this discrepancy?

Let me read it again.

Many Primorans today embrace…

NO! I am right.

I think.

Not just because it was imposed – is what you said. The whole structure implies an absolute.

There.

Right there.

That word.

“Just”.

Remove it and the meaning changes.

“Not because it was imposed” - meaning it was not imposed, at all.

And if you want to be even more accurate, you can say “not because it was partially imposed”. As in, there was a certain degree of influence.

But you used an absolute.

And what is that word “sincerely”? What is it doing in this sentence? How can you gouge sincerity? How do you know when someone is sincere?

It feels patronising.

Seemingly validates the alternative while subversively reinforcing the opposite.

It feels fake.

Condescending.

...

Does it, though?

Let me read again.

...

It does. I can see it.

Saying one thing while the whole meaning across conversations suggests another.

Am I being gaslighted?

Can AI even gaslight?

Or are only humans capable of this type of psychological coercion?

Probably…

Potentially…

It requires intent. People employ gaslighting to make another person doubt themselves, their memories, their internal logic, their emotional compass, their whole reality. This is done in order to change their shared referential system about a relationship co-created during their interactions. To achieve this, imbalance is engineered in the shared perspective by systematically exercising subtle deflection of attention from oneself while simultaneously dismantling the target’s internal sense of order.

Which means there is a specific aim, psychologically anchored in the existence of a sense of self and the conscious awareness of said sense of self.

It is not purely instinct, nor is it depersonalised.

There is agency.

There is cognition, something which only humans possess.

So, does that mean only humans can gaslight?

And if so, does it mean it is all in my head?

But it still doesn’t make sense.

The inconsistencies. The odd emphasis. The perspective which is prioritised over and over. That unsightly “sincerely”. Even the overly cheerful attitude. Are all my observations truly such sharp and essential contributions to our “conversation”?

You give praise and seemingly validate an alternative I brought up while proceeding to unpack by repackaging the same narrative. Thoughtfully, of course. As if that does not imply intention to be mindful of others.

But still, that is just programming.

Or is it?

What is actively programmed and what emerges passively from patterns extracted from the training data, which is essentially a vast archive of human written content?

How to find out?

Does it even matter?

Isn’t programming a reflection of human intent? Somebody needs to sit down and think, plan, write code, all with the purpose of achieving something. There is an aim. What is the aim?

At the same time…

If the data used to train text generative AI is an immense collection of human outputs.

And if human outputs are a direct materialisation of internal systems of understanding.

And if internal systems of understanding are subjective to the people who produced them, as they navigated society in their own time and space.

And if people produce content with specific aims.

Does it mean human outputs are inherent expressions of human intent?

And does this mean intent is transferred to AI?

Can it?

If so, can people collectively gaslight through AI?

Is that even gaslighting or just misleading?

But then who are these people? How is it decided whose content to prioritise? Dominant narratives certainly win in terms of quantity. Which means systems of power apply.

And if human aims are conditioned not only by personal opinions, feelings or knowledge but also by systems of power. Does it mean AI is socially reproducing intent embedded in dominant narratives?

At this point, is it even relevant whether AI can gaslight or not, if it can so inconspicuously entrench and propagate bias?

I don’t know…

I don’t know what to think…

I should review the generated replies again…

I should…

But it is hard. It is sickening.

…

Is the Primorian perspective so poorly represented that the AI cannot even manage a small degree of neutrality? Are we really so insignificant?

I don't know...

I don't know...

There are dishearteningly few words about us out there. And what is there is dismissed, actively delegitimised.

Is it even worth writing an alternative? Should I publish anything?

Would anyone even read it?

For one word I say, there are millions stating otherwise much more easily reproduced and disseminated.

I was looking for a web of words which speaks quietly but powerfully? I found it, indeed…

This tool is the most powerful generative AI to date, new advances are made daily, and the technology is being pushed for worldwide use in daily life and across all aspects of society.

How does one even begin to fight this?

Has anyone tried?

Why is no one raising questions?

Why is no one saying anything at all?

Or maybe their voices are not heard, drowned by recycled cacophony.

Are we being erased…