Merge the new utku_version

chapters/0.5-preamble.tex

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
 	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
 		\subsection*{Acknowledgements}\par
 		\vspace{0.8em}
-		\footnotesize This thesis owes special thanks to my supervisor Mag. Dr. Sergej Seitz for his continuous support, patience, and incisive insights during the process of research and writing. I am also deeply grateful to Mag. Dr. Christoph Hubatschke for his generous offer to take the role as co-supervisor, his critical feedback and inspiring ideas that shaped many pivotal conceptual moves in this work. Finally, I wish to thank Assoz. Prof. Dr. Fabio Wolkenstein for his assistance in the early conceptualisation of this research topic and for the valuable guidance that helped clarify and refine its theoretical orientation.
+		\footnotesize This thesis owes special thanks to my supervisor Sergej Seitz for his continuous support, patience, and incisive insights throughout the research and writing process. I am also deeply grateful to Christoph Hubatschke for generously taking on the role of co-supervisor and for his critical feedback and inspiring ideas. Finally, I thank Fabio Wolkenstein for his assistance in the early conceptualisation of the research topic and for his valuable guidance.
 	\end{minipage}
 	\vfill
 
@@ -44,15 +44,3 @@
 
 	\end{minipage}
 \end{fullwidth}
-
-%UNIWIEN
-%\newpage %
-%
-%\begin{fullwidth}
-%	\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
-%		\section*{Abstract (Deutsch)}\par
-%		\vspace{0.8em}
-%		\footnotesize Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht, wie Kritik und Widerstand im Kontext der rasant zunehmenden Präsenz von Generativer Künstlicher Intelligenz (genAI) neu theoretisiert werden können, indem diese Systeme zunächst innerhalb von Gilles Deleuze’ Konzept der Kontrollgesellschaften verortet werden. In diesem Rahmen treten klassische Institutionen zugunsten rechnergestützter Infrastrukturen zurück, die durch personalisierte, flexible und kontinuierliche Modulation operieren und so das Feld neu gestalten, in dem sich Prozesse der Subjektivierung entfalten. Frühere KI-Systeme zeigten bereits eine auffällige Ähnlichkeit zur Formulierung von Kontrolle durch prädiktive Relevanzzuweisung und verhaltensbezogene Personalisierung; zeitgenössische genAI-Modelle gehen mit ihren neuartigen Fähigkeiten jedoch einen Schritt weiter und nehmen aktiv an der Wissensproduktion teil, wodurch sie zu zentralen Akteuren in der Bildung menschlicher Subjektivität werden. Auf Grundlage einer theoretischen, historischen und technischen Analyse beleuchtet die Arbeit anschließend zentrale aktuelle Debatten um genAI, untersucht die Bedingungen der Wissensproduktion in Transformer-Architekturen, die Dynamiken der Mensch–Maschine-Interaktion, die Neukonfiguration von Handlungsfähigkeit sowie konkurrierende Entwicklungsparadigmen solcher Modelle. Unter Rückgriff auf Gilles Deleuze’ und Félix Guattaris Projekt \enquote{Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie} mobilisiert die Arbeit Konzepte wie Wunschproduktion, Schizoanalyse und Nomadologie, um ein theoretisches Gerüst zu entwickeln, das neu denken lässt, wie generative Infrastrukturen und Mensch–Maschine-Relationen in divergente, nicht-sedimentierte Formationen überführt werden können. In Kombination mit experimentellen Eingriffen in das Modellverhalten argumentiert die Studie, dass Möglichkeiten für Kritik und Widerstand immanent innerhalb generativer Systeme und ihrer kommunikativen Dynamiken entstehen. Anhand von Interventionen wie Gewichtsverstärkung, künstlicher Neugier und Gegen-Sequenzierung zeigt die Arbeit, wie sich generative Dispositive umnutzen lassen, um divergente Potenziale zu aktivieren, und entwickelt damit ein mikropolitisches Rahmenkonzept für Kritik und Widerstand.
-%	\end{minipage}
-%
-%\end{fullwidth}

chapters/2-control.tex

@@ -12,14 +12,12 @@ It sketches a transition from the closed environments of institutions like schoo
 
 The formulation of control has already inspired critical readings of emerging computational cultures, internet infrastructures, and surveillance capitalism. Early developments in \glspl{nn} and \glspl{dnn} have already played a prominent role by enabling increasingly capable systems, built upon a long history of \gls{nlp}, and supporting applications such as search engines, social media platforms, recommendation systems, and automated filtering. Within this trajectory, \gls{ai} quickly became a central object in theorising control societies; yet, we now stand at a threshold beyond the early imaginaries of \textit{cyberspace} or the \textit{virtual}: the contemporary \gls{ai} landscape is dominated by \gls{genai} systems, particularly \glspl{llm}, which no longer merely transmit or classify information; they increasingly participate in the production of meaning itself \parencite{kazakov2025, dishon2024}. These models generalise across domains, transfer knowledge between tasks, and adapt to unforeseen situations rather than remaining bound to narrow, predefined functions \parencite{xu2024}. Kazakov \parencite*{kazakov2025} characterises this development as a mode of scalar Darwinism, defined by relentless quantitative expansion rather than qualitative transformation. \Glspl{llm} and other \gls{genai} systems advance primarily by scaling; more parameters, larger datasets, and increasing computational resources, without fundamental architectural innovation. This trajectory reinforces existing capitalist logics, treating data as a resource to be extracted and leveraged; competitive advantage derives from scale rather than novelty. Just as neoliberal governmentality construed \textit{the market} as a quasi-metaphysical plane that produces the optimal outcomes without direct intervention \parencite[131]{foucault2008}, contemporary \gls{ai} discourse often assumes that scaling models and data will automatically yield the solutions humanity is said to need.\sidenote{Not always this explicit, but the technosolutionist propagation is particularly strong in the frontlines of tech giants:
 
-	\begin{minipage}{0.9\marginparwidth}
+	\begin{minipage}{\marginparwidth}
-		\centering
 		\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/musk2.png}
 		\vspace{0.3em} % Optional spacing
 	\end{minipage}
 
-	\citereset
+	— \citeauthorfull{musk2025} \cite*{musk2025}
-	— \cite[]{musk2025}
 }
 
 Whether this acceleration will eventually enable more sophisticated forms of \gls{ai}, including \gls{agi}\sidenote{\Gls{agi} is a hypothetical intelligence of a machine capable of understanding, learning, and performing any intellectual task that a human being can do. It generalises across domains, transfers knowledge between tasks, and adapts to new, unforeseen situations, rather than being specialised for narrow tasks \parencite{xu2024}.}, remains contested. What is clear is that these systems continue to expand in capability, generality, and reach. \Gls{genai} models, especially \glspl{llm}, now function as computational agents that operate within and across domains, mediating how information is organised, circulated, and apprehended. They do not simply support existing knowledge practices; they increasingly generate outputs that are taken as meaningful, authoritative, and actionable \parencite{montanari2025, dishon2024}. Their interpretive operations shape what becomes visible or legible, filter which forms of knowledge can travel, and condition how subjects encounter and interpret information. Processes of subjectivation, therefore, unfold within a landscape where computational models actively participate in producing the categories, associations, and interpretive cues through which reality is navigated. As \gls{genai} systems occupy roles once associated with expert judgement, they begin to function as distributed institutional actors. This development intensifies the micropolitical dynamics identified in control societies, raising the question of how critique and resistance might be articulated when meaning is co-produced by systems whose authority derives from scale and statistical inference. The following analysis situates \gls{genai} within the historical transition from disciplinary institutions to control, in order to examine how these models shape institutional logics and the production of subjectivity.
@@ -243,4 +241,4 @@ Moreover, as discussed earlier in this chapter, control presupposes not only tec
 
 This chapter traced the transition from disciplinary societies to control societies and analysed how this shift reorganises the production of subjectivity. Drawing on \citeauthorfull{deleuze1992a} \parencite*{deleuze1992a}, it showed how enclosed institutions give way to diffuse and anticipatory mechanisms of modulation, increasingly mediated by computational infrastructures. These systems operate through continuous feedback, prediction, and dividuation, extending biopolitical mechanisms into a pervasive micropolitical machinery. The chapter revisited the genealogy of subjectivation to establish why, under these conditions, subjectivity becomes the central terrain on which power is exercised and contested, and why the analysis of subjectivation remains crucial for understanding contemporary \glspl{dispositif} of control.
 
-The chapter then examined the longstanding problem of critique and resistance within this environment. Through engagements with contemporary theorists including \citeauthor{rouvroy2012} \parencite*{rouvroy2012}, \citeauthor{galloway2004} \parencite*{galloway2004}, and \citeauthor{mackenzie2018} \parencite*{mackenzie2018}, it highlighted the unresolved tension between the immanence of resistance and the increasing difficulty of articulating it under algorithmic forms of governance. Although the \textit{Postscript} hints at the necessity of resistance, it leaves its concrete mechanisms undeveloped. Later work, especially \citeauthor{mackenzie2021} \parencite*{mackenzie2021}, introduced the concepts of totalising institutions and counter-sequencing, which together offer a preliminary framework for understanding how intervention might occur within computational infrastructures. These reflections culminated in proposing \textbf{Resistance/Critique} as a single immanent operation that emerges within the very procedures through which subjectivation is produced. 
+The chapter then examined the longstanding problem of critique and resistance within this environment. Through engagements with contemporary theorists including \citeauthor{rouvroy2012} \parencite*{rouvroy2012}, \citeauthor{galloway2004} \parencite*{galloway2004}, and \citeauthor{mackenzie2018} \parencite*{mackenzie2018}, it highlighted the unresolved tension between the immanence of resistance and the increasing difficulty of articulating it under algorithmic forms of governance. Although the \textit{Postscript} hints at the necessity of resistance, it leaves its concrete mechanisms undeveloped. Later work, especially \citeauthor{mackenzie2021} \parencite*{mackenzie2021}, introduced the concepts of totalising institutions and counter-sequencing, which together offer a preliminary framework for understanding how intervention might occur within computational infrastructures. These reflections culminated in proposing \textbf{Resistance/Critique} as a single immanent operation that emerges within the very procedures through which subjectivation is produced.

chapters/3-ai.tex

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ methodologies, whereas the models were geared towards recognising patterns in th
 One of the most significant turning points was around 2018 with the successful implementation of the \gls{ssl} approach. \Gls{ssl} constitutes a special case of the \gls{ul}, which not only makes the models identify underlying structures in the data but also enables them to create their own training exercises through the prediction challenges they are subjected to \parencite[129]{manning2022a}. This includes masking specific words in the text to try to predict the correct or most fitting \glspl{token}, or try to guess the next word in an abruptly cut text, where \gls{ssl} models learn by predicting missing elements from within the input itself. This method allowed models to learn linguistic regularities from massive unlabeled corpora, and it gave rise to pre-trained \gls{genai} models \parencite{maas2023}. The novelty that specifically enabled this leap was the \textit{transformer architecture}. Its core mechanism, self-attention, computes weighted dependencies between all tokens in a sequence, allowing the model to capture long-range relations independent of word order. This innovation enabled massive parallelisation and scalability \parencite{maas2023}. Availability of vast data and the unique novelty of transformer architecture that was powered by a huge amount of reinforcement capability through repetition has been crucial in operating on \gls{ssl} methodology to parse and accumulate huge amounts of unlabeled human language data.
 
 \section{Mayan Codices and Telephatic Broadcasts: Algorithmic Governance of Information before \Gls{genai}
-}\label{sec:old_ai}\marginnote{From \citeauthorfull{burroughs1979}'s \parencite*[81]{burroughs1979} \citetitle{burroughs1979}, a relevant quote can be found below.}
+ }\label{sec:old_ai}\marginnote{From \citeauthorfull{burroughs1979}'s \parencite*[81]{burroughs1979} \citetitle{burroughs1979}, a relevant quote can be found below.}
 
 
 The earlier \gls{ai} implementations on the web are mainly classified as
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ Once vectorisation is performed, the next question is how to most effectively re
 	\begin{center}
 		\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{images/dimensionality_reduction300.png}
 	\end{center}
-	\caption{\footnotesize Dimensionality Reduction via Principal Component Analysis, Image
+	\caption{Dimensionality Reduction via Principal Component Analysis, Image
 		Reconstruction out of 20 Principal Components, and Feature Importance
 		Visualisation using Olivetti Faces Dataset (dataset:
 		\cite{attlaboratoriescambridge2005}, implementation: author's self
@@ -425,4 +425,4 @@ In this trajectory, from expansive pre-training to targeted fine-tuning, we see
 
 Chapter 3 analysed the historical and technical development of contemporary \gls{ai} in order to understand how generative models participate in governing information. It traced the shift from symbolic reasoning to statistical and connectionist approaches, showing how \glspl{nn} and \gls{dl} architectures replaced fixed rules with distributed representations learned from data. Early deployments of these systems in search engines, ranking algorithms, and recommender platforms illustrated how profiling, feedback loops, and behavioural steering established the foundations of algorithmic governance.
 
-The chapter then examined the mechanisms that distinguish \gls{genai} models, including feature spaces, dimensionality reduction, attention, gradient descent, and backpropagation; and how the transformer architecture fundamentally changed the capabilities of \gls{genai} models. These processes construct associations, stabilise patterns, and recalibrate internal configurations across iterative cycles. Rather than serving as neutral tools, contemporary architectures shape how meaning is produced and circulated, enabling models to participate in narrative formation and interpretation. 
+The chapter then examined the mechanisms that distinguish \gls{genai} models, including feature spaces, dimensionality reduction, attention, gradient descent, and backpropagation; and how the transformer architecture fundamentally changed the capabilities of \gls{genai} models. These processes construct associations, stabilise patterns, and recalibrate internal configurations across iterative cycles. Rather than serving as neutral tools, contemporary architectures shape how meaning is produced and circulated, enabling models to participate in narrative formation and interpretation.

chapters/4-institution.tex

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 %%%%%%%%%%%\epigraph{
 %%%%%%%%%%%	[W]e observe a range of actors and symbolic representations: the fear of an \enquote{other,} an alien presence that is simultaneously close and familiar, juxtaposed with AI systems being cast as saviors – omnipotent or omniscient entities. Here, an unsettling paradox begins to emerge. These very systems, becoming increasingly autonomous, may soon engage in self-representation across the web, media, and public discourse. This raises intriguing possibilities about how AI might influence its own narrative in the collective imagination.}{\citeauthorfull{montanari2025} \cite*[206]{montanari2025}}
 
-  \epigraph{A progressive  political agenda for the present is about moving at the same level of abstraction of the  algorithm — in order to make the patterns of new social compositions and subjectivities  emerge. We have to produce new revolutionary institutions out of data and algorithms. If  the abnormal returns into politics as a mathematical object, it will have to find its strategy of  resistance and organisation, in the upcoming century, in a mathematical way.}{\citeauthorfull{pasquinelli2015} \cite*[10]{pasquinelli2015}}
+\epigraph{A progressive  political agenda for the present is about moving at the same level of abstraction of the  algorithm — in order to make the patterns of new social compositions and subjectivities  emerge. We have to produce new revolutionary institutions out of data and algorithms. If  the abnormal returns into politics as a mathematical object, it will have to find its strategy of  resistance and organisation, in the upcoming century, in a mathematical way.}{\citeauthorfull{pasquinelli2015} \cite*[10]{pasquinelli2015}}
 
 
 
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ substance by the model (like how gradient descent favours more distinctive
 outputs), only to be amplified even more over the \glspl{epoch} through the
 cycles of backpropagation.
 
-\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{figure}
 	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/image_recognition_network.png}
 	\caption{A speculative illustration of what the abstraction in the inner layers of an image recognition model looks like (cf. \cite{wolchover2017})}
 	\label{fig:image_recognition_network}

chapters/5-conjunctive_synthesis.tex

@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
 
 
 \epigraph{ The goal is not to destroy technology in some neo-Luddite delusion but to push technology into a hypertrophic state, further than it is meant to go. \enquote{There is only one
-way left to escape the alienation of present-day society: to retreat ahead
+		way left to escape the alienation of present-day society: to retreat ahead
-of it,} wrote Roland Barthes. We must scale up, not unplug. Then,
+		of it,} wrote Roland Barthes. We must scale up, not unplug. Then,
-during the passage of technology into this injured, engorged, and unguarded condition, it will be sculpted anew into something better,
+	during the passage of technology into this injured, engorged, and unguarded condition, it will be sculpted anew into something better,
-something in closer agreement with the real wants and desires of its
+	something in closer agreement with the real wants and desires of its
-users.}{\citeauthorfull{galloway2007a} \cite*[98-99]{galloway2007a}}
+	users.}{\citeauthorfull{galloway2007a} \cite*[98-99]{galloway2007a}}
 
 
 The previous chapter examined contemporary \gls{genai} systems through a set of conceptual frameworks that addressed how meaning, agency, and perception emerge in human–machine interaction. I have displayed that the central debates in current \gls{ai} development revolve around how models perceive the world, how politically partial tendencies may influence their outputs, and how communication between human and machine forms its own surface of negotiation, giving rise to questions of agency. Furthermore, the tandem process of meaning generation both reflects and diverges from long-standing technological imaginaries; our cultural expectations of machines, shaped by a deep literary history, often obscure more immediate concerns. As the example \citeauthor{dishon2024} \parencite*[]{dishon2024} draws from \citeauthor{kafka1988} \parencite*[]{kafka1988} illustrates, the blurring and unreliability that accompany the pursuit of truth can constitute a far more pressing issue than speculative anxieties about singularity-like futures. Finally, the problem of how models perceive the world remains central to contemporary \gls{ai} debates, as evidenced in the contrast between \gls{nr} and \gls{cp} introduced by \citeauthor{beckmann2023} \parencite*[]{beckmann2023}: a contrast between interpreting machine perception as emerging from a single representational structure and conceiving it as unfolding across multiple planes within the model’s architecture.
@@ -153,9 +153,8 @@ Thinking about the modulating \glspl{dispositif} of control societies and referr
 Do we observe these tendencies in the technical machinery discussed in Chapter~\ref{cha:ai}? I have already partly argued that this is not entirely the case once we look under the hood. In its pre-training phase, a model is nothing but a productive core, generating associations without clear boundaries. The subsequent fine-tuning and alignment processes can be read as attempts to tame this productivity, encircling its outputs within layers of normative coherence in order to make them \textit{useful}, building or strengthening molar structures in the process. The \glspl{llm} are not lacking in divergence; in fact, one of the greatest threats to their usefulness lies in their tendency to be overly productive, which means also often tending toward hallucinations and, more often than not, their complete disregard for given instructions (sometimes even by speaking the truth while they are supposedly trained not to do so, see Figure~\ref{fig:grok}).
 
 \begin{marginfigure}
-
 	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/grok.png}
-	\caption{\scriptsize X's \gls{llm} Grok arguing against Elon Musk's claims \parencite[]{grok[@grok]2025} }
+	\caption{X's \gls{llm} Grok arguing against Elon Musk's claims \parencite[]{grok[@grok]2025} }
 	\label{fig:grok}
 \end{marginfigure}
 
@@ -178,7 +177,7 @@ What is the implication? Is this the eugenics of human–machine communication t
 
 
 \section{All the Stones and No Mouth: Artificial Desire for Artificial
-Entities}\marginnote{In reference to \citeauthorfull{beckett2009}'s \parencite*[]{beckett2009} novel "Molloy" and Molloy's stone sucking machine.}
+  Entities}\marginnote{In reference to \citeauthorfull{beckett2009}'s \parencite*[]{beckett2009} novel \enquote{Molloy} and Molloy's stone sucking machine.}
 
 But do we have a method to shape \gls{genai} so that it genuinely nurtures creativity and allows users to move beyond the feedback loops formed in their interaction with these systems? In other words, is a non-sedimentary mode of human–machine communication possible? When \gls{ai} development shifted from \gls{sl} to \gls{ul} (see Chapter~\ref{sec:ai_history}), much of the explicit intentionality once encoded into models was lost. Today, intentionality can only be introduced indirectly through training data composition, fine-tuning procedures, or \gls{rlhf} frameworks, all of which remain partial, biased, and structurally constrained. Guiding \gls{genai} toward genuine divergence, therefore, requires not only technical adjustment but also a critical understanding of how its architectures condition and delimit meaning. Through the lens of \gls{dg}, a familiar critique is that \gls{genai} kills the flows of desire (see e.g. \cite{creativephilosophy2023}). This specific critique is concerned that \gls{genai} models' production fills gaps, completes patterns, and reterritorialises fragmented expressions into coherent outputs, leaving little open space for ideas to grow or for desire to flow. It becomes a machinery of completion, supplying coherence even where none exists and producing plausibility in place of truth. Desiring-production is formed by interruptions as much as it is accumulated by flows \parencite[5]{deleuze1983}; thought, critique, belief, and reasoning belong to the same field of production, yet the concern is that the interaction with the model folds them into circuits that privilege completion over interruption. Desire in its free form couples partial objects and generates flows, while simultaneously interrupting them. Gaps in knowledge are essential for growth, but \gls{genai} patches them with persuasive responses, and humans are often ill-equipped to distinguish what is genuinely grounded from what is merely coherent. Acting rarely as a refusing agent, it fills every gap and frequently reinscribes hegemonic representations. What passes as coherence is often believed to align with the dogmas of state and capital \cite[see][]{creativephilosophy2023}, the machine never says \enquote{\textbf{NO!}}.
 The essential role of desire is the production of production; it is abundance itself; it is not \textit{the lack}, as psychoanalysis claims, that drives it \parencite[49]{buchanan2008b}.
@@ -204,7 +203,7 @@ In this way, the \enquote{reward function} becomes a catalyst that initiates a s
 By introducing artificial goals into generative architectures, presented experimentations effectively establish an outreaching point to the model’s own productive inner mechanism, a way for the ongoing molecular operations to be repurposed into movement, preventing their potential collapse into stasis as seen in the communication of certain users with \gls{genai} models from \citeauthor{yu2025}’s \parencite*[]{yu2025} experiment. What appears as artificial curiosity in the model can be interpreted as a machinic simulation of schizophrenic accumulation, an effort to sustain the movement of desire without allowing it to be captured by sedimentation in a stagnating feedback loop. This is not merely a methodology for the model itself but also potentially opens a chance for divergence on both sides of the human–machine communication. Schizophrenic accumulation thus becomes a conceptual tool for understanding how generative systems oscillate between creativity and conformity, production and paralysis. Yet the follow-up question would be how such movements may be oriented without being reterritorialised? How can we structure the introduced reward system to ever explorative constellations? To approach this question, it is necessary to turn to the distinction between the \textit{following} and \textit{reproducing} structures in \gls{dg}’s theory, demonstrated in their analysis of nomad science versus state or royal science, the nomadic \textit{war machine} and the \textit{State}. \sidenote{See \enquote{1227: Treatise on Nomadology – The War Machine} in \cite[409–493]{deleuze1987}.}
 
 \section{Nomadic Steppes and Nomadic Steps: Experiments with Weight
-Amplification}\label{sec:nomad}
+  Amplification}\label{sec:nomad}
 
 
 \begin{blackbox}
@@ -444,17 +443,17 @@ Yet here we once again encounter a tendency already latent within the machine it
 Montanari’s observation encapsulates the paradox of contemporary \gls{genai}: while the extractivist machinery of corporation thrives on the total absorption of human expression, it simultaneously depends on the very unpredictability it seeks to suppress. Hallucinations expose the model’s dependency on the heterogeneity of its training data and, at the same time, its inability to completely assimilate that diversity into a unified regime of meaning. Hallucinations constitute both a failure and an excess: a failure of control, yet an excess of production that gestures toward a line of flight within the apparatus itself, especially in corporation driven production where \gls{genai} models are explicitly produced towards market goals. To read these hallucinations through a Deleuzian lens is to interpret them not as noise to be filtered out but as moments where the system inadvertently deterritorialises itself. What escapes in the hallucinatory output is precisely what cannot be contained by optimisation, what refuses to be reduced to representation. These moments allow us to glimpse the generative potential that persists within even the most stratified structures of algorithmic governance. Hallucinations in this form might be offering an already internal formation for the counter-sequencing to leverage on.
 Taken together, these reflections show that resistance in the age of \gls{genai} cannot be understood as a simple rejection of technological systems. Rather, it emerges through counter-sequencing interventions, whether in research, art, or practice, that disrupt operations of \textit{territorialisation}. In these moments, the productive core of generative systems, as well as human-machine communication with the \gls{genai} models, do not appear necessarily (just) as a site of capture of control societies but rather as a field where new lines of flight and alternative modes of subjectivation can be forged.
 
-\section{Evocative Hacking: \Gls{genai} as Artistic Material}\label{sec:artistic} \marginnote{From a fake quote of \citeauthorfull{burroughs1979}, where he supposedly associates artistic creation with \enquote{evocation}, the original source is nowhere to be found. The fake quote is not included in order not to circulate it any further. 
+\section{Evocative Hacking: \Gls{genai} as Artistic Material}\label{sec:artistic} \marginnote{From a fake quote of \citeauthorfull{burroughs1979}, where he supposedly associates artistic creation with \enquote{evocation}, the original source is nowhere to be found. The fake quote is not included in order not to circulate it any further.
-%%%%%%%%%As well as, from \citeauthor{burroughs1979}' \parencite*[28]{burroughs1989} famous quote, \enquote{Writing is Fifty Years behind Painting}.
+	%%%%%%%%%As well as, from \citeauthor{burroughs1979}' \parencite*[28]{burroughs1989} famous quote, \enquote{Writing is Fifty Years behind Painting}.
 }
 
 The capitalisation on the immanent tendencies for counter-sequencing in models is one of the higher-level methods available to counteract sedimentation. Similarly, exploiting hallucinatory tendencies expands the space for divergent outputs that can be channelled toward artistic practices, as in the classic example of DeepDream. Yet while these openings create limited possibilities for divergence within \gls{genai}, the broader cultural environment demonstrates a contrary tendency. In contrast to the Deleuzoguattarian claim that true art unleashes deterritorialised flows and generates new flows of desire beneath and against established codes \parencite[369–370]{deleuze1983}, the present ecosystem of AI-mediated cultural production trends overwhelmingly toward rapid reterritorialisation. What emerges is not artistic experimentation but the phenomenon commonly referred to as \enquote{\gls{ai}-Slop} \parencite{madsen2025}. This outcome is not merely aesthetic impoverishment; it is a structural effect of platform capitalism, which rewards volume, repetition, and engagement over originality. As a result, derivative outputs proliferate, circulate, and enter subsequent training sets, reinforcing the very patterns they replicate and accelerating the homogenisation of cultural production.
 
-Considering the position of art within \gls{ai} infrastructures, and returning to \citeauthor{guattari1995a}’s display as interpreted by \citeauthor{mackenzie2018} (\cite*{mackenzie2018}, see Section~\ref{sec:crit_res}), \gls{genai} appears as a hostile invention against the artist who was once imagined as the agent capable of changing the direction of algorithmic functioning. The artist-as-process in \citeauthor{mackenzie2018}’s \parencite*[129]{mackenzie2018} formulation is the one who identifies dominant transmissions and creatively redirects them. Yet instead of empowering such interventions, contemporary infrastructures recode creative labour into automated reproduction, blending whatever artistic contributions datasets might contain with vast amounts of digital debris. \citeauthorfull{broad2024} \parencite*[]{broad2024} introduces a systemic approach to shifting this trajectory by returning to an older hacker ethos from the 1960s and 70s, rooted in the foundational principles of GNU\sidenote{GNU, \enquote{GNU is Not Unix}, is a free operating system project initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983, aiming to provide a completely free Unix-like environment. Modern Linux systems combine the GNU userland with the Linux kernel.} and Free Software Foundation\sidenote{FSF, the Free Software Foundation, was founded in 1985 by Richard Stallman to promote users’ freedom to run, study, modify, and redistribute software.} \parencite{stallman2002}. 
+Considering the position of art within \gls{ai} infrastructures, and returning to \citeauthor{guattari1995a}’s display as interpreted by \citeauthor{mackenzie2018} (\cite*{mackenzie2018}, see Section~\ref{sec:crit_res}), \gls{genai} appears as a hostile invention against the artist who was once imagined as the agent capable of changing the direction of algorithmic functioning. The artist-as-process in \citeauthor{mackenzie2018}’s \parencite*[129]{mackenzie2018} formulation is the one who identifies dominant transmissions and creatively redirects them. Yet instead of empowering such interventions, contemporary infrastructures recode creative labour into automated reproduction, blending whatever artistic contributions datasets might contain with vast amounts of digital debris. \citeauthorfull{broad2024} \parencite*[]{broad2024} introduces a systemic approach to shifting this trajectory by returning to an older hacker ethos from the 1960s and 70s, rooted in the foundational principles of GNU\sidenote{GNU, \enquote{GNU is Not Unix}, is a free operating system project initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983, aiming to provide a completely free Unix-like environment. Modern Linux systems combine the GNU userland with the Linux kernel.} and Free Software Foundation\sidenote{FSF, the Free Software Foundation, was founded in 1985 by Richard Stallman to promote users’ freedom to run, study, modify, and redistribute software.} \parencite{stallman2002}.
-He documents interventions that stretch, corrupt, invert, or reroute generative processes. 
+He documents interventions that stretch, corrupt, invert, or reroute generative processes.
 
-Examples\sidenote{Artworks in this paragraph have not been displayed because of the ambiguity in copyright declarations.} include \citeauthorfull{schmitt2019c}'s \parencite*[]{schmitt2019c} \enquote{Introspections}, where blank inputs are repeatedly fed into image-translation networks (similar to DeepDream) to surface latent hallucinations; the Algorithmic Resistance Research Group’s \parencite*[]{salvaggio2023} \enquote{creative misuse}, from inviting hackers at DEFCON to bypass \gls{llm} guardrails to generating failures and instabilities in diffusion models; 
+Examples\sidenote{Artworks in this paragraph have not been displayed because of the ambiguity in copyright declarations.} include \citeauthorfull{schmitt2019c}'s \parencite*[]{schmitt2019c} \enquote{Introspections}, where blank inputs are repeatedly fed into image-translation networks (similar to DeepDream) to surface latent hallucinations; the Algorithmic Resistance Research Group’s \parencite*[]{salvaggio2023} \enquote{creative misuse}, from inviting hackers at DEFCON to bypass \gls{llm} guardrails to generating failures and instabilities in diffusion models;
-and \citeauthorfull{klingemann2018}'s \parencite*[]{klingemann2018} \enquote{Neural Glitch}, which corrupts pretrained weights to expose hidden computational artefacts as in the \enquote{Golden Gate Bridge} example above (see Section~\ref{sec:nomad}). 
+and \citeauthorfull{klingemann2018}'s \parencite*[]{klingemann2018} \enquote{Neural Glitch}, which corrupts pretrained weights to expose hidden computational artefacts as in the \enquote{Golden Gate Bridge} example above (see Section~\ref{sec:nomad}).
 Other interventions manipulate training itself, as in \enquote{(un)stable equilibrium} \parencite[]{broad2019}, \enquote{Being Foiled} \parencite[]{broad2020}, and \enquote{Strange Fruits} \parencite[]{mal2020}, which invert or destabilise \gls{gan} training to induce uncanny or collapsing behaviours that reveal the fragility of generative architectures. Meanwhile, network bending techniques allow direct intervention in a model’s computational graph during inference, enabling expressive manipulation of internal representations, exemplified in works like \enquote{Teratome}, and \enquote{Fragments of Self} \parencite[]{broad2021} .
 Complementing these practices, \citeauthorfull{rodier2023a} \parencite*[]{rodier2023a} shows how research-creation collectives such as the \enquote{CRAiEDL STEAM Collective} use generative models to surface biases, interrogate representational limits, and examine the politics of algorithmic infrastructures. Together, these artistic approaches constitute a repertoire of methods for subverting the normalising tendencies of generative models and opening experimental spaces aligned with the counter-sequencing logic developed earlier.
 
@@ -463,7 +462,7 @@ Although counter-sequencing may not always produce determinate results, the cris
 
 \section{Chapter 5 Summary}
 
-Chapter 5 synthesised the technical, institutional, and theoretical trajectories developed throughout the thesis in order to articulate how contemporary \gls{genai} systems participate in and exceed the operations of control. It argued that while these models often stabilise meaning and reproduce modulative forms characteristic of control societies, they also harbour internal indeterminacies that can be mobilised for critique, divergence, and micropolitical experimentation. Drawing on \gls{dg}' broader theory conceptualised in \enquote{Capitalism and Schizophrenia} and relating to their concepts like schizoanalysis and nomadology, the chapter reframed resistance at the micropolitical level of subjectivation and desiring-production, showing that the same procedures that sediment meaning also generate misalignments, intensities, and hallucinatory deviations that open spaces for counter-movements. 
+Chapter 5 synthesised the technical, institutional, and theoretical trajectories developed throughout the thesis in order to articulate how contemporary \gls{genai} systems participate in and exceed the operations of control. It argued that while these models often stabilise meaning and reproduce modulative forms characteristic of control societies, they also harbour internal indeterminacies that can be mobilised for critique, divergence, and micropolitical experimentation. Drawing on \gls{dg}' broader theory conceptualised in \enquote{Capitalism and Schizophrenia} and relating to their concepts like schizoanalysis and nomadology, the chapter reframed resistance at the micropolitical level of subjectivation and desiring-production, showing that the same procedures that sediment meaning also generate misalignments, intensities, and hallucinatory deviations that open spaces for counter-movements.
 
 
 The chapter then framed these dynamics through \gls{dg}’s emphasis on immanence of resistance in power structures. \Gls{genai} binds heterogeneous forces into molar wholes, yet it also generates points of friction that can be redirected toward alternative architectures, different planes of human-machine communication, and counter-sequences. The analysis suggested how generative systems might be prevented from becoming rigid in meaning production by introducing artificial curiosity and non-conforming tendencies through interventions such as feature amplification or artificial goals. These openings are small in scale yet structurally significant, and they reshape how subjectivation unfolds within such infrastructures, allowing divergence from the sedimentary tendencies otherwise imposed by modulative control. The chapter, therefore, concluded the study by articulating pragmatic strategies like counter-sequencing and by demonstrating how \gls{genai}, rather than acting solely as a \gls{dispositif} of control, can also operate as a terrain for new modes of becoming and for reconfiguring the micropolitics of subjectivation.

glossary.tex

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@
 \newglossaryentry{assemblage}
 {
 	name = assemblage,
-	description = {A concept developed by Deleuze and Guattari to describe heterogeneous constellations of material elements (bodies, objects, infrastructures) and discursive components (rules, practices, ideas) that function together without forming a unified whole. An example derived from Foucault's analysis is the prison, which combines architecture, guards, inmates, and routines with legal codes and discourses on criminality. Assemblages are contingent, evolving configurations that integrate but do not fuse their parts, and they provide the conditions through which desire and social organisation manifest \parencite[see][66-67]{buchanan2018}.}
+	description = {A concept developed by Deleuze and Guattari to describe heterogeneous constellations of material elements (bodies, objects, infrastructures) and discursive components (rules, practices, ideas) that function together without forming a unified whole. An example derived from Foucault's analysis is the prison, which combines architecture, guards, inmates, and routines with legal codes and discourses on criminality. Assemblages are contingent, evolving configurations that integrate but do not fuse their parts, and they provide the conditions through which desire and social organisation manifest \parencite[see][66-67]{buchanan2018}}
 }
 
 
 \newglossaryentry{epoch}
 {
 	name = epoch,
-	description = {Epochs represent the number of times the entire training dataset passed through the algorithm. \cite{nebius-team2024}}
+	description = {Epochs represent the number of times the entire training dataset passed through the algorithm \parencite{nebius-team2024}}
 }
 
 \newglossaryentry{token}
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@
 \newglossaryentry{neuron}
 {
 	name = neuron,
-	description = {An artificial neuron is the basic building block of \glspl{nn}, inspired by how biological neurons work. It takes several inputs, multiplies each by a weight, adds them together with a bias, and then passes the result through an activation function to decide the output. This simple mechanism allows networks of many neurons to learn patterns and make complex decisions (see \cite[]{mcculloch1943} for the early initiation of neurons.)}
+	description = {An artificial neuron is the basic building block of \glspl{nn}, inspired by how biological neurons work. It takes several inputs, multiplies each by a weight, adds them together with a bias, and then passes the result through an activation function to decide the output. This simple mechanism allows networks of many neurons to learn patterns and make complex decisions (see \cite[]{mcculloch1943} for the early initiation of neurons)}
 }
 
 

main.lof

@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-\babel@toc {british}{}\relax 
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.1}{\ignorespaces An illustration of overlap and interplay between \gls {ai} domains leading to the \glspl {llm} such as ChatGPT (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite [47]{alomari2024})}}{41}{chapter.3}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.2}{\ignorespaces Algorithmic Selection and Relevance Assignment Process (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite [241]{just2017})}}{46}{Item.16}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.3}{\ignorespaces A Simplified Illustration of a \gls {nn} (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite {subramaniam2019})}}{48}{section.3.3}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.4}{\ignorespaces \relax \fontsize {8}{10}\selectfont \abovedisplayskip 6\p@ plus2\p@ minus4\p@ \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 3\p@ plus\p@ minus2\p@ \def \leftmargin \leftmargini \parsep 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus\p@ \topsep 8\p@ plus2\p@ minus4\p@ \itemsep 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus\p@ {\leftmargin \leftmargini \topsep 3\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep \parsep }\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip Dimensionality Reduction via Principal Component Analysis, Image Reconstruction out of 20 Principal Components, and Feature Importance Visualisation using Olivetti Faces Dataset (dataset: \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite {attlaboratoriescambridge2005}, implementation: author's self work, see Annex~\ref {cha:dimensionality_reduction}.) }}{50}{subsection.3.3.1}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.5}{\ignorespaces The original Transformer Architecture with built-in Multi-Head Attention Mechanism in Encoder and Decoder Processes (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite [3]{vaswani2017a}) }}{53}{subsection.3.3.2}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.6}{\ignorespaces Non-convex optimisation: Utilisation of gradient descent to find a local optimum ona loss/cost manifold (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite [3]{amini2018}) }}{56}{subsection.3.3.3}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3.7}{\ignorespaces A simple illustration of how backpropagation updates the neurons among the layers of a \gls {nn} in a backwards manner (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite {3blue1brown2017}) }}{58}{subsection.3.3.3}%
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4.1}{\ignorespaces A speculative illustration of what the abstraction in the inner layers of an image recognition model looks like (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite {wolchover2017})}}{68}{section.4.1}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4.2}{\ignorespaces A human's development of a world model via a language capability (language app) in a natural environment (Animal OS) (cf. \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\cite [268]{matsuo2022}) }}{70}{section.4.2}%
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5.1}{\ignorespaces \relax \fontsize {7}{8}\selectfont X's \gls {llm} Grok arguing against Elon Musk's claims \blx@tocontentsinit {0}\parencite []{grok[@grok]2025} }}{89}{section.5.2}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5.2}{\ignorespaces Claude's Response before and after the Amplification of the \textit {Golden Gate Bridge} Feature}}{98}{Item.22}%
-\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5.3}{\ignorespaces A cat image misclassified as guacamole after the addition of adversarial noise.}}{103}{Item.32}%
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\addvspace {10\p@ }
-\contentsfinish 

main.tex

@@ -1,28 +1,36 @@
-\input{/Users/ubd/Library/Mobile Documents/iCloud~md~obsidian/Documents/rhizome/06_projects/UNI/latex_template}
+\input{/Users/ubd/Library/Mobile Documents/iCloud~md~obsidian/Documents/rhizome/08_templates/latex_template.tex}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Title & Author %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
+
+\hypersetup{ % MY own darker colors
+	colorlinks=true,
+	%citecolor=deepGreen,
+	citecolor=maroon!75!black,
+	linkcolor=persianBlue!75!black,
+	filecolor=persianGreen!75!black,
+	urlcolor=persianBlue!75!black,
+	pdfpagemode=FullScreen,
+}
+
 \title{Nomadic Descent:\\{\Huge Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance/Critique in Control Societies}}
-%\title{The Bureau Virus and the Word Virus:\\{\Huge Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance/Critique in Control Societies}}
-% \title{The Bureau Virus and the Word Virus: Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance in Post-Disciplinary Societies}
-% \title{The Bureau Virus and the Word Virus: Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance in Algocene}
 \author{Utku B. Demir}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 \input{glossary.tex}
-%\makeglossaries
 \makenoidxglossaries
+
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
 
-%\title{The Bureau Virus and the Word Virus: Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance/Critique in Control Societies}
 \title{Nomadic Descent: Generative AI, Subjectivation, and Resistance/Critique in Control Societies}
-%\author{} % UNIWIEN
+\author{} % UNIWIEN
 \input{chapters/0.5-preamble.tex}
 
+\hypersetup{linkcolor=black} % I don't like the toc colors being blue
 \tableofcontents
 \listoffigures
-%\listoftables
+
-%\printglossaries
+\hypersetup{linkcolor=persianBlue!75!black}
 \printnoidxglossaries