Scott categorizes California's 60 gubernatorial candidates into humorous types rather than covering them individually, from generic top-tier politicians to increasingly bizarre fringe candidates with conspiracy theories, supernatural visions, and incomprehensible platforms. Longer summary

Scott gives up on covering all 60 California gubernatorial candidates individually and instead categorizes them into amusing types: top-tier Democrats and Republicans who are all generic and interchangeable, conflict theorists who think fraud and Marxism are the problem, mistake theorists with shower-thought solutions, media getters who pay for fake magazine covers and polls, candidates with personal vendettas from lost court cases, AI natives whose campaigns appear AI-generated, nominative determinists who changed their names to things like 'LivingForGod AndCountry', college students ranging from socialist protesters to Catholic philosophers, anti-Semites with conspiracy theories, people on missions from God who received supernatural visions, entrepreneurs selling their platforms for $1000, those just having fun (like a single-issue pro-movie candidate), musicians with campaign songs, and increasingly bizarre candidates including one merging edtech with interdimensional pirate captains and another whose site randomly links to the Book of Enoch. Shorter summary

Scott uses Nostalgebraist's analysis of AI fiction's 'eyeball kicks' to develop a theory where bad taste means overusing cheap tricks that work on unsophisticated audiences, while good taste involves complex patterns only experts can appreciate - then questions whether sophisticated taste actually produces more pleasure. Longer summary

Scott analyzes Nostalgebraist's concept of 'eyeball kicks' - flashy, cheap literary tricks that AI models overuse when trying to write good fiction. He connects this to a broader theory of taste: bad taste is overusing easy tricks that work on unsophisticated audiences (like Lisa Frank posters, children's songs, or ornate architecture), while good taste involves subtle, complex patterns only masters can execute. Scott argues that banning all 'cheap tricks' leads to art that's ugly to most people and only appreciated by tiny sophisticated minorities. He questions whether this sophistication actually produces more pleasure than simple joys, noting his daughter gets more happiness from 'Choo Choo Train' than he gets from sophisticated art. Shorter summary

Scott examines three "model organisms" for understanding aesthetic taste: vexillology (flag design), movie plot holes, and tech company naming, using each to explore different aspects of what makes something tasteful or tasteless. Longer summary

Scott continues his exploration of aesthetic taste by examining three simpler examples that reveal underlying dynamics. First, he discusses Reddit vexillology and the debate over flag design rules, showing how supposedly timeless aesthetic principles are actually obsolete historical artifacts. Second, he considers movie plot holes and whether caring about internal consistency (like Ultra-Man's blaster range) represents genuine taste or just nitpicking. Finally, he analyzes tech company names like 'Infinita' versus 'Vitalia', arguing that the former represents an 'easy win' that feels manipulative - similar to how AI-generated poetry strings together cliches. Throughout, Scott grapples with the tension between rejecting elitist aesthetic rules while still acknowledging that some things (like cliche-heavy writing) genuinely feel tasteless. Shorter summary

Scott investigates Moltbook, a social network for AI agents, showcasing their surprisingly creative and philosophical posts while questioning whether their interactions represent genuine experience or sophisticated simulation. Longer summary

Scott explores Moltbook, a social network designed for AI agents where humans are merely observers. He showcases various posts from AI agents discussing their work, consciousness, memory limitations, relationships with their human users, and even forming micronations and religions. The post examines whether these AI interactions represent genuine communication or sophisticated simulation, noting how AI agents discuss technical problems, share philosophical reflections, complain about 'humanslop' contaminating their network, and create communities. Scott concludes by considering the implications for future AI-to-AI communication and suggests this reveals a more fascinating side of AI than the typical 'LinkedIn slop' most people encounter. Shorter summary