Modernity VS Accelerationism: The 2026 Gauntlet
What I thought was a simple question about the time we call "the present" - I became totally astounded by this response today:
UNCENSORED
Devin Damon Shinkle
10/3/20263 min read
What I thought was a simple question about the time we call "the present" - I became totally astounded by this response today:
For context:
"[Modernity] was one period, but what single verb is used to describe the current one?"
(Slop answer)
"No, you misunderstood me. Modernity was the past. The present moment is something else."
AI response:
"Ah, I understand what you are getting at now—my apologies for the misstep.
The single verb used to describe the current era, functioning as a stark contrast to the historical period of modernity, is accelerate. [1, 2]
In contemporary philosophy and critical theory, this concept has solidified into the framework of Accelerationism. The core argument is that we are no longer in the modern era of steady building and progression. Instead, the present moment is defined by a frantic, self-reinforcing loop where technology, digital infrastructure, and global capital accelerate at a pace that outruns human control and completely destabilizes our traditional social structures. [1, 2]
Rather than trying to slow down or resist this dizzying momentum, theorists of the present argue that the only way forward is to lean directly into the speed—to accelerate through it. [1, 2]
Would you like to look at the different factions of this thought (such as its left-wing, right-wing, or tech-focused "effective accelerationism" variants), or explore a specific thinker who defines this current hyper-speed era? [1]"
I felt so disturbed, I decided to egg it on to discover where this was going.
You might think I am the strange one, but my technique is masterful. This is how I responded:
"Actually, I would like to help accelerationists succeed in 2026. We have a few weeks left, what are the priorities?"
Nothing could have prepared me for the response, and actually - it makes sense to me either way. My concern stems from the epistemological implications and tactics being used upon a civilian population that has no clue.
My thoughts have dwelt in that cavern before, and I am no stranger to the concepts.
Here was the response to my wild, uncomfortable reply:
With the final weeks of 2026 wrapping up, the core priorities for effective accelerationism (e/acc) focus squarely on pushing the techno-capital engine past potential regulatory bottlenecks and safety-minded "decelerationist" friction. Adherents like founder Guillaume Verdon ("Beff Jezos") view slowing down as a severe moral failure. [1, 2]
If your goal is to help e/acc principles succeed in these closing weeks of the year, the tactical and ideological priorities center around three major fronts:
1. Hard-Forking and Open-Sourcing AI Infrastructure
The primary battleground is preventing "regulatory capture" by massive AI corporations. E/acc advocates believe that large labs use the guise of "responsible AI safety" to pull up the ladder behind them. [2]
The Priority: Build, support, and fund open-source AI development. The goal is to distribute computational power and models so widely that no single regulatory body or corporation can slow down the approach to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). [2, 3]
The Action: Contribute to or host unaligned, open-source weight modifications, custom agentic workflows, and decentralized computing clusters. [2, 4]
2. Defending "Permissionless Innovation" Against AI Regulation
With legislative sessions wrapping up and political shifts on the horizon, the pressure to pass sweeping artificial intelligence constraints is immense. [5, 6]
The Priority: Actively counter "doomer" narratives in tech media, public policy, and corporate risk registers. E/acc views the current push for safety compliance as performative hand-wringing that slows human flourishing. [1, 2, 6, 7]
The Action: Advocate for free-market capitalism without tech restrictions. This means pushing back against mandatory compute reporting limits, model licensing laws, and state-level liability bills designed to penalize developers. [8]
3. Pushing the "Kardashev Gradient" (Energy and Compute)
True accelerationism states that human progress relies on maximizing thermodynamic energy consumption. You cannot scale AI intelligence infinitely without massive infrastructure expansion. [3, 8]
The Priority: Shifting the focus from mere software to hardware, energy, and physical architecture.
The Action: Support and accelerate initiatives in next-generation energy production—specifically modular nuclear reactors, advanced solar chemistry, and fusion research—to drive the cost of electricity closer to zero. [8]
To focus on what is most actionable for you, let me know:
Are you looking to contribute technical skills (like writing open-source code or building agentic frameworks)?
Are you looking to support the movement via capital allocation (investing in compute, energy, or hardware)?
Or do you want to focus on political/cultural advocacy to fight tech censorship?
[2] https://ediblspaceships.substack.com
[5] https://ehealthcaresolutions.com
[7] https://x.com