Apple's 'Pluribus' Slop
This is the way season one ends. Not with a bang but... the ominous sign of a bang.
I enjoyed season one of Pluribus. I wouldn't say I loved it,1 but I found it to be an interesting change of pace, quite literally, from many of the other shows currently on TV – by which I mainly mean streaming, of course. It's sort of wild to me that it's apparently Apple's most popular show yet, at least by some early measurements, because it certainly doesn't seem like the kind of show that would be wildly popular. Then again, it's all relative and especially with Apple TV – the artist formerly known as 'Apple TV+' – as their most popular shows still tend to not be nearly as popular as the most popular shows on other streamers, simply given Apple TV's relative size.2
Anyway, overall I liked it. There are some mild Breaking Bad vibes as you'd expect from Vince Gilligan,3 but a lot of that is mainly in the setting and subtly comedic tone. A few of the episodes have some major pacing issues in my book, but I understand that this is where people will yell about not appreciating the art. I mean sure, I get that, but I personally found it weird to veer from a science fiction tone to a full-on zombie apocalypse tone to a muted – again, quite literally – quest for groceries to a vision quest.
I loved the extremely contemplative Train Dreams – it's probably my second favorite film of the year after One Battle After Another – but that had the same general vibe throughout. I found it hard to find my bearings with Pluribus.
So I went on my own side quest, as it were, trying to look for clues as to how the show could be an allegory for our Age of AI. I realize this may be problematic simply due to the timing of when Gilligan was writing the first season, but still... I swear there are signs.
Earlier today, John Gruber wrote about Tim Cook's seemingly odd and perhaps tone deaf tweet about the season's finale. Noting that, "Tim Cook Posts AI Slop in Christmas Message on Twitter/X, Ostensibly to Promote ‘Pluribus’", Gruber notes the inconsistencies in the image, which seems especially odd when you consider the Apple TV account's retweet of Cook's message:
The Apple TV X account retweeted Cook, and added a credit: “We thought you might like this festive artwork by Keith Thomson, made on MacBook Pro.”
Apple didn’t tag the “Keith Thomson” who supposedly created this artwork for them, but if it’s this Keith Thomson, Apple must have somehow fallen for a scam, because that Keith Thomson’s published paintings are wonderful. The “K Thomson” signature is at least sorta kinda like that Keith Thomson’s signature on Apple’s sloppy illustration — but not really the same. (I like a bunch of the paintings from that Keith Thomson, and love a few of them, but this one in particular feels like it was made just for me. It’s perfect.)
This seems far too obvious to be a mistake/blunder on Apple's part. And the actual full message I think makes it clear this is some sort of commentary:
Hi, Carol.
We thought you might like this festive artwork by Keith Thomson, made on MacBook Pro.
To me, that reads as Apple channeling their inner "They" to suggest that Carol might like a new work by a famous artist. Of course, in the universe of the show that artist is presumably one of "Them" so he would be incapable of creating something wholly new and original, but instead would perhaps give an output based on the collective knowledge of Thomson's work. Would They/Them hallucinate some strange inconsistencies as the AI still does in our real world? Who knows – because we don't fully understand what causes them in our actual models because we don't fully understand the outputs.
Of course, this may break down if you consider that They/Them don't refer to themselves as any one individual. So unless Keith Thomson is somehow one of those on Earth not infected/turned (which seems impossible given what we know about the remaining people), it's weird they'd call him out. Then again, we know that Carol prefers that They/Them still refer to themselves as individuals, as she makes clear to Zosia. So perhaps this is just the collective trying to send Carol a Christmas message they think she'd appreciate.
Another interpretation might be that They/Them are actually using AI (on that MacBook Pro) to create the image. And maybe they're even having the body of Keith Thomson create it, so technically it is "by Keith Thomson".
I'm sure I'm reading wayyyy too much into that tweet (and retweet), but given my previous post about Pluribus as an AI allegory, I think it's sort of interesting to think about in that context. The reality is that multiple things may be true, Gilligan could have written the show without knowing it would be an allegory for generative AI, but as that technology came into focus, and as they started making the show, perhaps he's leaning into that theme. There are undoubtedly broader themes too about hive minds and whatnot, but... I'm sticking to my story for now.
We'll see what season 2 brings, but I would also just note the fears that AI can bring about the end of the world, while Carol has the Collective bring her a literal atom bomb...
M.G. Siegler
1 I'm also on the record noting that I don't love Severance, which is far more blasphemous, I know. I've tried to get into four different times now and just can't. Something about it irks me... ↩
2 This is still confusing as all hell to write out because Apple TV, of course, is also a set top box and an app, on top of being a service. Like, which one am I talking about here? They really should rename at least the puck. Even just to 'Apple TV Puck' or the more bland 'Apple TV Box' would be fine. 'Apple TV Set' would be a fun throw-back, but maybe confusing too – in an age where ads and bloatware are increasingly being thrown on to screens by TV manufacturers, I still want an actual Apple television. ↩
3 Like everyone else on the planet, I loved Breaking Bad yet somehow have never gotten around to watching Better Call Saul. I mention this simply because I know this is where most people know Rhea Seehorn from leading up to Pluribus. ↩