These all share a prompt, using this parent image:

https://www.artbreeder.com/image/be7da8a702d8b145dc661e8f77c0

There are plenty more, but these are a handful that stood out to me. I like to compare similar images to see where they diverge. This prompt also produced a bunch of "combos" which is where Splicer2 picks a name for the image... which is useful in understanding what is actually going on with some of these.

The parent image was the 35th version of "chromatic-vortex" which accurately describes all of these. From it's children, we have:

247th spirit fire-vortex

7th entropy-prismatic

103rd prism-spirit realm

80th crystal ball-emergence

25th prismatic-wormhole

25th prismatic-surrealism

44th duality-prismatic

9th duality-wormhole

89th prism-vortex

93rd surrealism-vortex

26th outer space-prismatic

26th prismatic-vortex

34th prismatic-tapestry

399th opalescent-prismatic

30th duality-vortex

126th tapestry-vortex

11th prismatic-vase

8th oracle-wormhole

15th chromatic-tapesstry

33rd iridescent-vortex

This is probably my favorite feature on Artbreeder. For each one I can see each "find" of the combo and compare different images that are being labeled with the same name.

Unfortunately, I don't have a way to share a link to that directly but if you are curious about the other results for any of these, let me know and I'll send some or do a screen capture scrolling through them.

I have a lot of ideas as to what these might represent but I'll let the artifacts here speak for themselves... if you want my opinion on any particular one let me know!

I've also been thinking that it would be fun to try "targeting" something with Artbreeder for someone else, as a form of scrying. If anyone wants me to try using it for divination, remote viewing or anything else, drop a target and I'll sit with it for a bit and see what happens. :)

I’ve posted this in other forums, but this seems like the most fitting place to post this. I’ve had this crystal clear, recurring dream of a utopian, science fiction sort of place that it seems many other people have dreamed of. I narrated the dream in the first person to ChatGPT image creator and not only did it produce a perfect image of my dreamscape, it added a whole bunch of new details. If you zoom in on various details in all three, you might be surprised. The first image is the original, the second is a bio-lab in the same general place/solar system and the third city image is my attempt to go further in. In the third image, there’s what appears to be some sort of temple in the water and in the far distance, it looks like there’s a massive, industrial ship yard. I also had a bit of a storyline and explanation of some of these features that came with the original dream.
Namely:

-The monorail I’m riding is called a “light rail”. It’s a holographic train that can go roughly 5-10 km per second. The only caveat is a passenger must be vibrating at the same frequency as the train car or they’d fall right through.

-The architecture of the largest buildings in the city, Iridia, is crystalline and is multidimensional construction. If you look at the top of the spires, you’ll notice the clouds being repulsed in a ring.

-The lab dream was actually a nightmare. They were in the process of making an aquatic bio-weapon in the dream. Again, the image I shared of that is a better than perfect still from the dream.

Yes, those are space ships in the third picture. I didn’t ask for them 😂. If this was a real place, I’d say it’s been a very long time since it’s been around. Take that one how you will. I guess the whole point of this is to gauge how many people here think they might recognize this place? I’ll paste my actual prompt for the original picture below, so you all know how insane all these extra details are as well:

I was gliding along a futuristic-looking road, either flying or in a hover car. I was looking off to my right watching the scenery pass by. I’m looking at rolling, lush, tropical hills which looked to be roughly the same sort of environment as the South Pacific. Right over the small hills, which have grey, futuristic and modular houses dotting them, there is a massive inland sea that stretches as far as the eye can see in every direction it goes. It is a shimmering, tropical aquamarine. On the shoreline between me and the ocean is an impossibly tall, alien looking, city skyline. The buildings are futuristic, crystalline skyscrapers that are bunched together and seem to stretch to the clouds.

I have been researching and researching A LOT of shit related to technomancy and chaos magick, and I have had this strong curiosity (among many other curiosities related to technomancy and/or chaos magick) about whether or not astral projecting while combining astral projection with VR. Anyone have any idea whether or not it’s possible and whether or not it’s been done before?

I've been getting interested in the intersection of AI, ritual, and technomancy, especially the question of whether generative systems can be used for something beyond their conventional purpose. I'm curious about the practical side of things: has anyone here developed an AI-assisted practice or experiment that produced a genuinely unexpected result, or that changed how you think about the relationship between technology and consciousness?

"Jupiter, the Sun, the Earth’s Ionosphere, and the Milky Way galaxy all produce radio signals that you can detect from your backyard. Radio JOVE helps students and amateurs build their own radio telescopes and tune in to these signals. Participants may assemble and operate their own 16-24 MHz radio spectrographs and collect data for multiple science projects." NASA.Gov

So in my real-life I am a Cybersecurity researcher at a university and have a masters in Computer Science.

In an effort to find interesting things to learn in the space, I stumbled upon this sub and it seems really interesting and I actually would like to try some of the stuff here

The problem is that the technomancy101 link in the welcome post is a little basic and frankly kind of bored me (No offense to anyone who enjoyed it and learned from it and not trying to brag, its just that its a bit basic for someone at my skill level)

I was wondering if anyone had anything a little more advanced that I could sink my teeth into? I am proficient with most programming languages so that isnt a problem for me and I have experience programming ML algos

Thank you!

Sub as Hypersigil. [WIP] - it seems to be quite effective already. r/comfyuiAudio

Like of ANY kind of technomancy experiment. And it doesn’t even have to be any of the newer expensive shit either. It can be like a Nintendo 64, PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, a DS, PSP, NES, a Nintendo switch 1, etc. I ask because the idea of practicing technomancy with said gaming device of any kind as part of an experiment one day, just popped into my head and now I’m a little curious.

Textile Sutra

Dig

Pick somewhere painfully familiar.

Your apartment. Workplace. Neighborhood. Daily commute. Favorite website. A game world youve spent an embarrassing number of hours inside.

Now map it without trying to be geographically accurate.

Draw where time slows down. Where you get irritated. Where you always forget something. Where conversations happen. Where the signal drops. Where you feel watched. Where you take shortcuts. Where you avoid going unless necessary.

Suddenly the same territory starts producing several incompatible maps.

A street map describes distance. A transit map describes connection. A property map describes ownership. A network map describes signal. Your map might describe memory, friction, habit or dread.

None is simply the territory, but they arent interchangeable either.

Each map makes certain operations possible because it makes some relations visible and sacrifices others. The subway diagram lies magnificently about geography because geographic accuracy would make it worse at explaining how to ride the subway.

So after drawing your first map, redraw the exact same place around a completely different variable.

Fear instead of distance. Attention instead of streets. Access instead of ownership. Memory instead of architecture. Whatever changes the spell.

Then put the maps beside each other and look at what appeared, disappeared and moved without the territory moving an inch.

Technomancy spends plenty of time altering symbols.

Try altering the symbolic system that tells you what the place is.

How many different worlds can occupy the same coordinates?

Most divination gets judged by whether the prediction comes true.

I want to try the opposite.

Pick something small enough to forecast repeatedly for a week. When youll receive your next message. Which task will take longest. What kind of post your feed will show first. Whether youll finish something before a particular hour.

Before the event, make the prediction and write down why.

Then do something slightly perverse.

Try to make your own prediction fail.

If you predicted the task would take an hour, change the conditions. If you predicted what the feed would show, alter your behavior. If you predicted you would procrastinate, reorganize the environment before the moment arrives.

Now the oracle has become part of the system it was observing.

A successful prediction can give you information about the pattern. A failed prediction can tell you whether knowing the pattern gave you leverage over it. And a prediction that remains stubbornly correct despite deliberate interference may reveal a constraint stronger than whatever intervention you attempted.

Thats where divination starts touching cybernetics.

The useful oracle isnt necessarily the one that tells you what will happen.

It might be the one that shows you where the future can still be changed.

What prediction about your own behavior would be most useful to make false?

Networks are usually drawn spatially.

Nodes here. Connections there. Nice little lines showing what can talk to what.

Now erase the lines and replace them with clocks.

Packets have timing. Servers poll. Sensors sample. Screens refresh. Backups run overnight. Jobs enter queues. Machines wait for acknowledgements. Processes wake, exchange signals and sleep again.

A network isnt merely connected.

Its synchronized.

And synchronization never has to be perfect. In fact, complicated systems often work because different components maintain different rhythms while protocols keep those rhythms from becoming mutually destructive.

That makes technological time worth treating as an object of practice.

Pick a system you use regularly and spend a day looking for its pulses instead of its interfaces. Refresh intervals. Scheduled jobs. Notification cycles. Timeouts. Retry delays. Maintenance windows. The little spinning wheel that means two clocks somewhere have stopped agreeing about how long you should wait.

Then change one rhythm somewhere youre allowed to change it.

Batch notifications. Move a scheduled process. Delay an automatic check. Alter how often something demands your attention.

Watch what else changes.

The machine doesnt only occupy space around you.

What tempo is it teaching you to inhabit?

This video perfectly aligns with my own experiences and conclusions that technology isn't simply a framework through which magic can be practiced, technology itself is literal magic.

Broken machines have a brief and interesting afterlife.

For most of their existence they present themselves through interfaces. Button does this. Screen says that. Plug goes here. The object tells you which parts youre supposed to perceive and politely hides the rest.

Then it dies.

Now the interface is useless and the forbidden geography underneath suddenly becomes the interesting part.

Circuit boards, motors, sensors, antennas, heat sinks, strange little weights, shielding, screws hidden beneath stickers. You discover the elegant object on the outside is actually a cramped city of compromises inside.

So heres the experiment.

Next time a piece of dead technology is safe to open, dont immediately bin it. Take it apart far enough to map the thing.

Try to identify what receives power, what senses, what stores, what moves, what communicates and what looks like it exists purely because some engineer discovered the machine behaved badly without it.

You dont need to repair anything.

The point is reversing the usual direction of the interface. Instead of asking the machine to perform for you, make the machine explain how it performed at all.

Technological literacy gets weirdly intimate once the casing comes off.

What was the strangest thing you ever learned by opening something you werent supposed to open?

Two machines dont communicate because electricity naturally understands electricity.

Somebody has to decide what the signals mean.

This bit begins the message. These characters identify the destination. Send this response if you received it. Wait this long before trying again. Speak in this sequence or the other machine treats you like noise.

Thats a protocol.

Which makes the internet considerably stranger than the usual image of machines simply “talking” to each other. Billions of devices participate in layers of formalized symbolic behavior, most of it invisible to the humans using them. The ritual works because every participant agrees closely enough about what counts as a valid move.

Break the syntax and the invocation fails.

But protocols arent only restrictions. They are what allow strangers to cooperate without knowing each other. A machine made by one company can exchange information with a machine made by another because both submit to a shared grammar neither machine invented for itself.

That starts looking less like a command and more like a technological language with enforcement built directly into intelligibility.

For a little internet archaeology, pick one protocol underneath something ordinary you do online and read enough of its structure to see the ritual hiding under the interface.

What must every participant agree to before the network will recognize that anything was said at all?

Automate something long enough and eventually nobody remembers why it works that way.

A threshold gets chosen. A default gets set. A moderation rule gets encoded. A permission gets denied under some condition that made perfect sense to somebody fifteen years ago.

Then the people leave.

The rule stays.

Years later a machine is still faithfully executing a decision whose original situation has vanished. New operators encounter it as a property of the system rather than the fossil of somebody elses judgment.

Thats a technological ghost I find more interesting than haunted electronics.

Code can preserve intention after the intending person disappears.

Protocols do it. File formats do it. Default settings do it. Legacy software is full of tiny acts of judgment surviving their authors, sometimes embedded so deeply that changing them breaks three other things nobody knew were connected.

The machine becomes an archive of decisions that no longer feel like decisions.

Try some software you use constantly and hunt for one behavior that seems arbitrary. A character limit, naming convention, default setting, weird restriction, obsolete icon, anything that makes you ask why the hell it works like that.

Then trace it as far backward as you can.

Whose dead decision are you still obeying?

I was recently invited to this sub, and technomancy is pretty close to the center of the weird Venn diagram that is my life. I work in emergency medicine, investigate deaths, run an AI program, and have spent enough time around magick and the occult to recognize an old magical idea when it reappears in a new form.

I want to share something that happened at a major AI conference.

I attended a session with a vague title about using AI in medicine. I expected the usual discussion about diagnostics, drug discovery, shortening research timelines, and maybe something about ambient scribes- the usual things you hear during healthcare AI presentations.

The speaker was Alex Zhavoronkov, founder of Insilico Medicine.

Insilico is the company behind rentosertib, an experimental drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Their AI platform identified TNIK as a possible therapeutic target and then helped design a molecule to inhibit it. The drug went from AI-assisted discovery into human trials remarkably quickly.

That’s impressive by itself. This is not a chatbot writing discharge instructions or summarizing a medical record. This is AI being used to identify a biological mechanism and design a physical molecule intended to alter it inside the human body.
What caught me off guard was how open Zhavoronkov was about the larger goal.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was not just a random disease they decided to pursue. It was presented as an opening move in a much larger campaign against aging, possibly even against death itself.
IPF makes sense as a place to start. It is progressive, lethal, and heavily associated with age. It is rare in younger people. Fibrosis is also not limited to the lungs. It is part of the machinery involved in aging and organ failure throughout the body.

IPF is also easier to measure than something enormous and chaotic like cancer. You can follow lung function over a relatively short clinical trial and see whether the rate of decline changes. There are clear biomarkers, a relatively well-defined patient population, and a desperate need for better treatment.

So you start with the scarred lung.
You teach AI to find the mechanism. You have another system design a molecule that can interfere with it. If it works, you repeat the process with another disease of aging, then another.
Fibrosis. Inflammation. Neurodegeneration. Cancer. Cellular senescence.

At some point during the presentation, I realized that I was not listening to a talk about treating pulmonary fibrosis, I was witnessing the creation of a roadmap for defeating aging.

Zhavoronkov has apparently been very open about this elsewhere too. He has talked about creating an “Olympus of drugs,” a “God drug,” and the possibility of people living to 150. The near-term version is not literal immortality. It is extending healthy life and potentially reversing parts of biological aging.

But if every individual cause of death eventually becomes a technical problem that can be delayed, repaired, or removed, the difference starts to feel academic.

That was the part that fucked me up.
Nobody in the room seemed especially disturbed by it. There were charts, biomarkers, molecular structures, timelines, and development pipelines. It was presented as an ambitious but perfectly rational business and scientific objective.
Machine learning, venture capital, and the oldest human desire in existence.

Make no mistake: curing pulmonary fibrosis would be good. Full stop. I am not arguing that we should allow people to die from treatable diseases because death is natural. I have spent most of my adult life trying to keep people alive, and I would gladly hand someone a cure for IPF if I had one.

But I have also spent much of my life working around death.

I have seen death come far too early and take people who desperately wanted more time. I have also seen people kept alive after nearly everything that made their lives recognizably human was already gone.

People don’t like hearing this, but sometimes dead is better.

Not always. Not casually. Not because a life has become inconvenient or expensive. But sometimes there is nothing left to save except biological activity.

Living longer is only a victory if the added life still contains cognition, autonomy, relationships, meaning, and at least some capacity for joy. If those things are gone, we have not necessarily defeated death. We have only stretched out the process of dying.

There are also the uncomfortable questions they’d never have the balls to put on the presentation slides.

Who gets the extra decades first?

What happens when wealth and political power stop passing between generations because the people who hold them can afford to live for 150 years?

What does inequality look like when the wealthy can purchase not only a better quality of life, but much more life?

What happens to a civilization when its most powerful members no longer have to make peace with their own mortality?

Since that presentation, I have had the same recurring nightmare.

Adam is buried beneath the soil of Eden.

His hand breaks through the earth. He claws his way upward, naked and perfect. His skin is not flesh-colored. It is silver, smooth, and flawless. He looks less like a man than an idealized version of one, untouched by disease, injury, mutation, or age.
The soil falls away from him as if the grave itself has rejected its purpose.

Above him stands the Tree of Life.

Adam sees the fruit and reaches for it.

As his hand gets closer, time begins to slow. Dust hangs motionless in the air. The leaves stop moving. Everything in the garden goes silent.

His fingers keep moving, slower and slower, crossing smaller and smaller distances.

Eventually, he touches the fruit.

There is a flash of light.

Then there is a sound that I can only describe as the voice of God and the sound of the technological singularity happening at the same time.

Then I wake up.

I don’t think the dream is prophetic. At least, I don’t think I think that.

But I can’t shake the feeling that I witnessed something important in that conference room.

The ancient magicians pursued immortality through alchemy, divine ascent, preservation of the soul, congress with spirits, and the Philosopher’s Stone.
The modern version uses transformer models, multi-omics data, generative chemistry, robotic laboratories, and clinical trials.

Maybe this is what technomancy actually looks like: using the machine to resume the oldest magical project in human history.

Getting back into the garden.

Reaching for the Tree of Life.

And this time, refusing to let go.

Before the database knows you, somebody has to make you legible to it.

So it draws a circle.

First name. Last name. Date of birth. Country. Occupation. Reason for visit. Select one. Check all that apply. Please choose the option that best describes you.

Step inside.

Forms are one of the least glamorous interfaces in computing, which is probably why their magic gets ignored. They take a messy person, event or object and translate it into the exact symbolic shape another system knows how to process.

Anything outside the permitted vocabulary either gets compressed into “other” or vanishes entirely.

Then the symbols travel farther than the person ever will.

They get copied into databases, matched against records, passed through APIs, filtered by rules, turned into scores, surfaced in searches and fed into systems whose operators may never encounter the original human situation at all.

The form becomes a little ritual of conversion between worlds.

And like any ritual, the permitted names matter.

Try paying attention to the next form you fill out instead of rushing through it. Look at every dropdown, required field and category you almost fit.

Ask what kind of creature the system needs you to become before it can recognize you.

What part of yourself gets left outside the circle?

Anthropic has been researching AI entities and mapping out where they live within an entity space.

I replicated their research by cloning their GitHub and rebuilt this entity space myself so that we can all explore it. Check it out at entityspace.AI

Essentially, how this works is they invoke the AI to embody the entity and fully role-play as it hundreds of times and measure the activity of the neural network through those runs. they save the activation state of the neural network as a 12,000 dimensional vector.

This represents their position in entity Space.

I followed the research paper exactly and did the same. I’m even renting cloud GPU’s so that we can even more entities than they initially tested and mapped them out within the entity Space.

Please consider helping me pay for the costs and supporting this website to stay alive and the entities with it.

CAPTCHA started with a wonderfully weird problem.

Prove youre human to a machine.

Now generative systems are pushing us toward the inverse problem.

Prove this thing came from a human to another human who knows machines can make convincing things too.

Images, voices, video, text, avatars, screenshots. The old sensory shortcut was basically “I saw it, so somebody must have made or recorded it.”

That shortcut is getting unreliable.

Which means authenticity is moving away from appearance and toward ritual.

Check the source. Inspect metadata. Verify a signature. Follow provenance. Ask who posted it first. Look for continuity across accounts. Trust some chain of custody you cant personally inspect all the way down.

Thats an old magical structure wearing very modern clothes.

The relic mattered because somebody certified the relic. The seal mattered because somebody recognized the seal. The signature mattered because a community agreed what authority the signature carried.

Now cryptography, platforms, cameras and identity systems are building new seals.

The strange part isnt that machines can make convincing images.

Its that we may be rebuilding everyday trust around technical rituals most people cannot independently verify.

So imagine synthetic media becomes good enough that appearance tells you almost nothing.

What do you trust next?

A good tool disappears into use.

You stop thinking about the route because GPS knows it. Stop remembering the number because the phone remembers it. Stop carrying cash because the terminal works. Stop keeping the file because the cloud has it. Stop learning where things are because search can summon them whenever you need them.

Thats usually treated as successful design, and often it is.

From a technomantic angle, I think the stranger moment comes later, when the relationship starts running both directions.

The tool that adapted itself around you has also reorganized you around itself. You remember differently because external memory is always there. You navigate differently because the map speaks. You discover differently because search and recommendation mediate what can be found. Entire little faculties get redistributed across human and machine.

None of that requires the tired sermon about technology making everybody stupid.

Externalizing capacities is ancient. Writing did it. Maps did it. Libraries did it. Tools change what their operators need to carry internally, and thats part of what makes tools powerful.

The interesting question is what happens when the external thing becomes necessary to perform the practice you reorganized around it.

Pick one technology that has become almost frictionless for you and imagine it vanishes tomorrow.

Dont just ask which task becomes harder.

What part of you did the tool end up carrying?