/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

A look at the potential future of personalized, AI-generated entertainment, and how it could both submerge human originality and enable new forms of expression

We're used to algorithms guiding our choices.  When machines can effortlessly generate the content we consume, though, what's left for the human imagination? X: @newyorker . LinkedIn: Pinja Pakalen , David Szauder , and Kieran Knowles Bluesky: @olivermantell , @raynewman , and @hern . Forums: Hacker News X: @newyorker : Joshua Rothman considers the potential future of personalized, A.I.-generated entertainment and tests out several forms of content—including podcasts, walking tours, and media criticism—produced for an audience of one. https://www.newyorker.com/... LinkedIn: Pinja Pakalen : I came across a great New Yorker article called “A.I. Is Coming for Culture”.  It looks at how AI is showing up everywhere: comedy, music, podcasts, even art—and what that means for creativity. … David Szauder : I rarely make illustrations, but when The New Yorker reached out, I couldn't say no. It was also published in print.  Self-irony...  https://lnkd.in/... Kieran Knowles : Loved this article by Joshua Rothman in the The New Yorker  —  Somehow manages to weave the line between existential threat, optimism and deep humanity. … Bluesky: Oliver Mantell / @olivermantell : Thought-provoking article (I think it passes a basic test about articles on ‘the future’: that it gives meaningfully interesting perspectives on the present and the past...) [embedded post] Ray Newman / @raynewman : This article is interesting, to a point, but mostly maddening.  For example, the author feeds ChatGPT some of his wife's writing then asks it to interpret a painting as she might.  The very idea made me feel queasy.  —  www.newyorker.com/magazine/202... Alex Hern / @hern : I don't like to say “never” but this is one of the predictions of the AI sector that seems most off to me.  People like experiencing the same culture as their friends; “personalised”, beyond the level of a game, seems like a dead end [embedded post] Forums: Hacker News : A.I. Is Coming for Culture Expand More For Next Unexpand More For Next

New Yorker Joshua Rothman

Context & Ripple Effects

This essay extends an earlier concern that AI text tools were already increasing the supply of books and articles while weakening demand for some human-written work: the documented expansion of AI-authored text becomes a question about entertainment made for an audience of one.

It also follows a related experiment in style imitation, where generated “insights” could feel hollow or approximate: that test of an LLM writing in an author’s style frames why personalization may not be equivalent to originality. The New Yorker piece matters because it tests the issue across formats rather than treating it as an abstract writing problem.

First-order effects

  • The article gives creators, audiences, and cultural institutions a concrete set of personalized AI formats—podcasts, tours, and criticism—to assess, moving the discussion from algorithmic recommendation toward generated consumption.
  • It raises an immediate editorial question for publishers and critics: whether a tailored output’s usefulness can coexist with a recognizable human voice and point of view.

Second-order effects

  • If generated entertainment becomes a routine option, services with both distribution and detailed audience context could gain leverage over creators whose work competes with an expanding pool of tailored substitutes.
  • Creators and publishers may put greater emphasis on provenance, editorial judgment, and distinctive authorship as ways to differentiate from scalable personalized output; concerns about AI prose’s recurring stylistic quirks make that distinction more salient.

Third-order effects

  • The larger risk is a cultural market organized less around shared works and more around individually generated feeds, potentially changing how audiences discover common reference points; broad adoption beyond interactive media remains uncertain.
  • If the pattern holds, human creative work may be valued less for supplying abundant, adaptable content and more for trusted authorship, deliberate constraint, and experiences that remain socially shared.

The trend: This is one data point in the shift from AI that selects among culture to AI that generates culture on demand for each user.

Discussion

  • @newyorker @newyorker on x
    Joshua Rothman considers the potential future of personalized, A.I.-generated entertainment and tests out several forms of content—including podcasts, walking tours, and media criticism—produced for an audience of one. https://www.newyorker.com/...
  • @olivermantell Oliver Mantell on bluesky
    Thought-provoking article (I think it passes a basic test about articles on ‘the future’: that it gives meaningfully interesting perspectives on the present and the past...) [embedded post]
  • @raynewman Ray Newman on bluesky
    This article is interesting, to a point, but mostly maddening.  For example, the author feeds ChatGPT some of his wife's writing then asks it to interpret a painting as she might.  The very idea made me feel queasy.  —  www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
  • @hern Alex Hern on bluesky
    I don't like to say “never” but this is one of the predictions of the AI sector that seems most off to me.  People like experiencing the same culture as their friends; “personalised”, beyond the level of a game, seems like a dead end [embedded post]
  • @jmperezmarzabal Jose Manuel Pérez Marzabal on x
    Netflix's algorithm has become a mirror of the zeitgeist: pushing the mainstream until everything feels the same. Similarly, Spotify's curation leans toward the already popular. Discovery gives way to homogenization—flattening culture instead of expanding it.
  • @radsechrist Rad Sechrist on x
    My theory why Elio and bad guys had a hard time vs KPop Demon Hunters. Kids don't turn on Netflix or go to a movie unless they see people talking about it on YouTube. People posting on YouTube are in their 20's, so animated films need to appeal to 20 year olds first.
  • @eyeswideopen69 @eyeswideopen69 on x
    If you love cinema and quality television, this is an essential read. And don't be put off by the headline, there are some silver linings amid the algorithmic gloom. A brilliant read in any case. Cap doffed to @phlode — easiest follow of the day. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
  • @killer1loop Stefano Garavelli on x
    When the streaming giant began making films guided by data that aimed to please a vast audience, the results were often generic, forgettable, artless affairs. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
  • @philtinline Phil Tinline on bluesky
    Would be quite funny if this destruction of creativity provokes some creative destruction.  [embedded post]
  • @berthac Dr Bertha Chin on bluesky
    There's a reason why films like K-Pop Demon Hunters is now the most-watched film on the Netflix (hint: it's not about K-pop).  It's about what resonates with audiences (and fans!) in the end. www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ a...
  • @arjun Arjun Basu on bluesky
    When we had to go out for most of our movies, there was effort involved, and so we thought twice about what we watched.  Now we don't.  And we're all watching completely fine but totally meh movies all the time now.  To paraphrase an old beer commercial: Tastes meh, less filling.
  • @abdecker @abdecker on bluesky
    When Netflix began making films guided by data that aimed to please a vast audience, the results were often generic, forgettable, artless affairs  —  One more reason why not to subscribe to these streaming giants  —  www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ a...
  • r/movies r on reddit
    Bland, easy to follow, for fans of everything: what has the Netflix algorithm done to our films?