This is slop.
It's also antithetical to some of the core tenets of Western civilisation. It is littered with contradictions to core ideas of Western philosophy and some of its greatest minds and the traditions held for thousands of years, from both the Hellenic (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus) and Christian (St Irenaeus, St Athanasius, St Basil the Great, St Gregory of Nyssa, St John of Damascus) worldviews.
Take for example, the video's notion of "built perfection". This is a decent example of such a contradiction and antithesis of classical Western philosophy and everything built upon it. Beyond that, it is also an internal contradiction in terms, and makes about as much sense as other contradictions in adjecto, such as a married bachelor or a square circle, where the qualifier negates the meaning of the noun and generates nonsense and falsity evident from the meaning of the terms themselves.
It simply is wordslop. The definition and idea of perfection date to Plato and beyond (to Parmenides, for whom being is “in need of nothing” and “complete on every side” (Parmenides, fragment B8.33 and B8.42–43 Diels–Kranz)) and this idea is similarly present in the post-hellenic Christian revelatory worldview. Perfection as understood by Plato as in the sense of the forms, as completeness: the Form (of Beauty) is “beauty absolute, separate, simple, and everlasting, which without diminution and without increase, or any change, is imparted to the ever-growing and perishing beauties of all other things” (Symposium 211a–b); the good is “[t]he most perfect, Socrates, of all things” and “sufficient” “in a degree surpassing all other things” (Philebus 20d); and of the perfect, “If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty” (Republic II 381c). Further, this is clarified and explained by Leibniz as “perfection being understood as the magnitude of positive reality in the strict sense, when the limitations or the bounds of those things which have them are removed. There where there are no limits, that is to say, in God, perfection is absolutely infinite”, and “created things derive their perfections through the influence of God, but their imperfections come from their own natures, which cannot exist without limits” (Monadology §§41–42), and many arguments surrounding perfection, such as: “the necessary entity cannot lack any perfections as a lack of perfections means the existence of potentiality, as those lacks could be fulfilled. To be purely actual, all perfections and potentials must be realised and fulfilled”, and “composition of parts means potentiality and contingency as the entity is contingent on the set of parts’ arrangement (possibly) and the existence of all parts” (Muraviev, 2024; Muraviev, 2025a; Muraviev, 2026); “[w]e can derive the existence of being which is: Necessary, partless, singular, perfect.” (Muraviev, 2024); and anything built, being composed of parts and having passed from potentiality into being, cannot be (truly) perfect; “[a]nything created is, eo ipso, not-God and imperfect (in, at least, the God-sense)” (Muraviev, 2025b, cited in Muraviev, 2026). As such we see that to have "built perfection" makes no sense as a proposition.
Furthermore, if we even were to suspend this contradiction, what would it imply about everything we are doing now, if we had already built perfection?
Going beyond the contradiction and suspending this sort of AI-slop flattening of meaning and underlying content, if we were to take this as something humanly expressed, to avoid anthropomorphising code too much, if we were to assume the validity of the Christian tradition, this idea of having built perfection is, in itself, anti-Christian hubris, and fundamentally a babylonian notion, beyond even the alternative view coming from hellenists and vitalists such as BAP @bronzeagemantis, and their interpretation of Western civilisation.
Fundamentally, the hellenic tradition and the tradition revealed after this via the development of Christian thought after the incarnation of Christ, and this pseudosynthesis (which is revelation instead of a synthesis in a constructed sense) shows a unified Western opposition to the validity of this idea.
I think even those associating themselves with NRx, and those who subscribe to ideas of some form of ASI technological acceleration and singularity in a worshipful sense, would not even verily hold this proposition to be true. I think Nick Land @xenocosmography knows enough philosophy to also recognise that the hubris of attempting to "build" perfection (a different proposition to the even more preposterous claim of already having built it) simply makes no sense.
I think this is fundamentally part of a delusion and distraction and misunderstanding of Western philosophy and both the hellenic and Christian position and going beyond this to more modern innovations and worldview; I do not think that even the furthest techno-optimists can sensibly defend the nonsensical notion of a temporally constructed "perfection", or defeat of entropy.
And this sort of flattening, of compression of an impression of a complex idea, into something so oversimplified that the more complex underlying idea seems to be lost and in some sense overwritten and over-vectorised (planning to publish on this topic soon), seems to be a major part of AI risk which is possibly quite overlooked, especially when (to reference the meta-point of reinforcement, positive feedback RLHF) we give positive feedback to distortions and slop. If uncareful, there may seem to be a category of potential risk where AI and its surrounding systems may be sufficiently competent but insufficiently comprehending, and as such be destructive, if the instinct of discernment and preservation isn't drilled in. As such, I would caution against positive feedback for such slop.
Of course, this may seem to be a disproportionate reaction to what is essentially a small, silly video produced by code running on silicon and metal (not to underestimate the immense scaling potential). However, I think the overall trend of oversimplification and ensloppification, and a sufficiently competent takeoff which magnifies these sorts of trends and follows those vectors excessively, could produce quite a regrettable state of affairs.
Further citations:
St Irenaeus: “But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated. But inasmuch as they are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect.” (Against Heresies IV.38.1); “For you did not make God, but God you.” (IV.39.2)
St Athanasius: “For if it is an admitted truth about God that He stands in need of nothing, but is self-sufficient and self-contained [...] For God is a whole and not a number of parts, and does not consist of diverse elements” (Against the Heathen 28)
St Basil the Great: “That which was begun in time is condemned to come to an end in time. If there has been a beginning do not doubt of the end. [...] a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts” (Hexaemeron I.3)
St Gregory of Nyssa: “For it was not possible that a being who derived his origin from an alteration should be altogether free from this liability. For the passing from a state of non-existence into that of existence is a kind of alteration” (The Great Catechism XXI)
St John of Damascus: “For those things must be subject to change whose production has its origin in change. And change consists in being brought into being out of nothing, and in transforming a substratum of matter into something different.” (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II.27)
References:
Athanasius (1892) Against the Heathen. Translated by A. Robertson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Basil the Great (1895) Hexaemeron. Translated by B. Jackson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 8. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Burnet, J. (1920) Early Greek Philosophy. 3rd edn. London: A. & C. Black. Available at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Early_Greek_Philosophy/Parmenides_of_Elea (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Gregory of Nyssa (1893) The Great Catechism. Translated by W. Moore and H. A. Wilson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 5. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing. Available at: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.xxiii.html (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Irenaeus (1885) Against Heresies. Translated by A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing. Available at: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103438.htm ; https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103439.htm (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
John of Damascus (1899) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 9. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing. Available at: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.ii.xxvii.html (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Leibniz, G. W. (1714/1902) Discourse on Metaphysics, Correspondence with Arnauld, and Monadology. Translated by G. R. Montgomery. Chicago: Open Court. Available at: https://archive.org/details/discourseonmetap00leibuoft/page/259/mode/1up (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Muraviev, V. [@0xVM7] (2024) Axioms: 1. Contingent things exist … [X] 26 November. Available at: https://x.com/0xVM7/status/1861260472885940483 (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Muraviev, V. (2025a) Free Will. University of Roehampton, 21 August.
Muraviev, V. (2025b) Notes Corpus: Working notes on the multiplicity defence.
Muraviev, V. (2026) A Defence of the compatibility of GCT with apparent flaws in the SoA. University of Roehampton. Available at: https://www.victorm.co.uk/philosophy-of-religion/ (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Plato (no date) Philebus. Translated by B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Available at: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/philebus.html (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Plato (no date) Republic. Translated by B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Available at: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html (Accessed: 27 September 2026).
Plato (no date) Symposium. Translated by B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Available at: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html (Accessed: 27 September 2026).