As the latest tech bubble booms in the form of ‘AI’ automation, the last one, NFTs and “blockchain” technology, continues to implode spectacularly. In fact, if the implosion of the NFT bubble had been any larger, it would have been spotted by Han dynasty astronomers in 185 CE.
Meanwhile, as AI continues to gain momentum, the “d*ad internet theory” gains traction every day. Whereas most of the NFT grifters have seemingly disappeared into the hedges, just like in the Homer Simpson meme, they are now reemerging as proponents of an AI-driven future, filling our feeds with the most heinous engagement-baiting slop that we have seen thus far. They’re creating false profiles and identities of “rich-lister” tech bros, like we have never seen. For ego, for glory, but mostly for monetizing engagement at a viral scale on social platforms.
These homunculi have embraced both forms of ‘NFT-grifter’ and ‘AI-slopper, ‘ weaponizing all forms of algorithms, buzzwords, and grindsets in order to make their way onto your feed for your eyes to
Users who were familiar with the user and their possibly sordid history were quick to correct inaccuracies with “community notes,” a feature added to X (formerly Twitter) in 2021 but made more widespread in 2023. These allow users to provide context that is missing from viral tweets, enabling readers not to be misled.
According to these corrections, the person pictured in the photo that the user shared was not themselves but an owner of another, ironically, visually similar NFT. The notes also linked to an older GQ article, published in 2021 and written by journalist Rachel Tashjian, who referred to the user as an ‘art prankster’, delving into a CIA graphic redesign that the user had attempted to take credit for in order to achieve viral acclaim.
The user succeeded in garnering a following engagement then, and they have succeeded now in what was likely the same goal.
It seems that while this internet user may be the owner of the NFT they claim to have bought and sold at a huge loss, they’re definitely not who they say they are. They have pieced together an identity using someone else’s photos, AI-generated images, and one in their post that featured an arm with a watch that they claimed to own. They claimed that this was “proof” of their success despite their huge losses.
They claim the watch in the photo is a Rolex, as a means of flaunting their supposed success and wealth. The issue is that they are unaware of what a genuine Rolex looks like. The AI-generated image, intended to resemble a Rolex, actually depicted an Audemars Piguet, another luxury watch brand, but clearly not a Rolex.
Therein lies the problem with AI: It excels with approximations and with patterns, but consistently will provide you with inaccuracies and poor predictions that follow in the same pattern.
Strangely enough, according to the GQ article, this user is a real person in the sense that they have/had real design credits attached to their name for real clients at some point. However, they clearly have fallen into a pattern of online grifting that GQ called
The user has since made their profile, and thus the post, private.
What is real here? Well, seemingly nothing. And what was the point? Seemingly engagement for profit. As I said before, the “d*ad internet theory” is getting stronger every day, and to put it in the user’s own words, “Social online platforms are games that are played within the attention economy — authorship and sincerity are murky as is.”
