In the past 5 years, home office have become the reality of many people. After COVID hit, many jobs had to adapt to this idea of working from home. What people wouldn’t expect is that many of these jobs would never go back to “normal”. Many companies realized that it was more beneficial to have their employees working from their homes, since they could avoid the cost of maintaining an office. Furthermore, the comfort of not having to commute every day was definitely appealing for everyone, besides not having to worry about transportation, traffic, food, or even clothing. Because of that, after the pandemics, many of these jobs remained remote. According to a 2023 working paper by researchers at Harvard Business School and the University of Illinois, survey data from U.S. firms and workers shows that the shift to remote work was not temporary but became a persistent feature of post-pandemic labor arrangements (Bartik et al. 2023), showing how home office came to stay.

The Collapse of The Boundary

This change collapsed a huge established boundary in our society, the one between our personal and professional space/life. Activities and subjects that were before kept inside offices and among coworkers moved to domestic spaces such as bedrooms and living rooms, being shared with family members. As a result, it gets harder to cross the line between personal and professional life, possibly causing loss of privacy and identity (work becomes who you are), besides constant availability, and, consequently, faster burnout. Therefore, home office has been making many people’s lives easier, however it has a side effect that has to be considered. Is it worth it?

How was it possible?

But let’s take a step back for now. We know that COVID marked the rapid increase of home office jobs, but technology - video conferencing platforms, cloud storage, messaging systems - is what made this shift possible, while economy is what allowed it to persist. When I say that, I mean to answer the question some might have: “why didn’t society just ‘go back to normal’?”. And the answer is because economic incentives reinforced this change. As I mentioned before, companies could cut the cost used to maintain offices while workers benefited from the flexibility provided by home office. This allowed both employers and employees to accept the collapse of the boundaries between their personal and professional lives.

Connecting to Course Themes

When trying to relate this to what we’ve discussed these past weeks, the first thing that comes to mind is the character Case from Neuromancer (Gibson, 1984). His ability to work depends on his nervous system. When it’s damaged, he is no longer able to work. The Cyberspace, where Case works, is accessed through his nervous system - there’s no physical office. This means that there is no boundary between his professional and personal life. And that’s what all of this is about. Just like Case had his nervous system damaged because of work, modern workers might be risking their personal lives as professional demands enter intimate spaces.

Important implications

Who benefits: employers, Tech companies, workers (do they actually?). Who is impacted: workers’ privacy, mental health. Finally, I want to clarify that this is not a rejection of home office. I am actually a supporter of this work style and want to pursue it myself. However, I believe it is a very important topic to be taken into consideration.

Sources

Bartik, A. W., Cullen, Z. B., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. T. (2020). The rise of remote work: Evidence on productivity and preferences from firm and worker surveys (Working Paper No. 20-138). Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/download.aspx?name=20-138.pdf

Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books.

AI: no use of AI for this assignment

Boundary Collapse Between Physical and Digital Worlds

A central theme in cyberpunk is the collapse of boundaries that once seemed stable, whether it’s the line between human and machine, or the borders that separate nations. As we talked about in class, cyberpunk worlds often expose how technology makes physical borders feel almost symbolic, while digital networks stretch across continents without friction. One boundary that has shifted dramatically in the past five years is the line between physical borders and digital borders. Today, work, crime, identity, and even citizenship can move freely online, regardless of geographic separation. In many ways, our world is inching closer to the same boundary collapse that cyberpunk fiction uses to critique power, globalization, and inequality.

Digital Labor and the Rise of Borderless Work

One clear example of this shift is how remote work has restructured global labor. Since the pandemic, companies routinely hire workers across countries without requiring physical relocation, turning the internet into a borderless workplace. Digital platforms now allow employees and contractors to live in one nation while working for another, blurring which country’s laws, wages, and protections apply. At the same time, governments are rethinking the meaning of citizenship. Estonia’s e-Residency program, which gives “digital citizenship” to people around the world, has expanded rapidly and now includes more than 110,000 global participants who run businesses within Estonia’s digital system without ever crossing a physical border (e-Residency, 2024). This is a real-world illustration of how digital systems can extend a nation’s influence beyond its physical territory, creating a new form of digital belonging that cyberpunk worlds often imagine.

Cybercrime, Cyberwarfare, and the Erasure of Geographic Limits

Another example comes from rising cybercrime and cyberwarfare, which operate completely independent of geography. Attacks on hospitals, banks, and infrastructure now routinely originate from actors across the globe. According to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (2024), cross-border ransomware attacks have surged and increasingly target essential services, making national boundaries meaningless barriers in digital conflict. Countries can be harmed, threatened, or destabilized without a single physical soldier crossing a border. This collapse of distance aligns with what we have discussed in class: in postglobal and posthuman settings, the “enemy” or the “threat” is no longer tied to a physical space. Instead, power flows through digital systems that exceed human-scale borders.

Forces Driving the Shift: Technology, Economics, and Politics

Technology, economics, and politics all drive this collapse. Technologically, global networks allow information, money, and identity documents to move faster than states can regulate. Economically, remote work, global outsourcing, and digital entrepreneurship encourage multinational structures where labor and profit are distributed across continents. Politically, governments are racing to control cyber threats, regulate digital residency programs, and determine whose laws apply when conflict unfolds online (Anderson & Rainie, 2022). These forces echo the course themes in your cyberpunk class: technology destabilizing old systems, globalization altering power, and digital life challenging traditional categories of belonging, citizenship, and control.

Consequences and Inequities in a Digitally Borderless World

The implications of this shift are complicated. People with access to education, stable internet, and digital skills benefit the most—they can work globally, earn higher wages, and participate in digital economies that cross borders. Governments like Estonia also benefit by expanding their global influence without territorial expansion. But others are left behind. Workers in lower-income countries face wage competition from international labor markets, and communities without strong digital infrastructure lose opportunities entirely. Meanwhile, cyberattacks disproportionately harm hospitals, schools, and municipalities that lack cybersecurity funding, revealing uneven protection against digital threats. All these changes raise difficult questions: Who is responsible for security when attacks ignore geography? Should nations extend rights or protections to digital citizens? How do people maintain identity and belonging in a world where borders matter less online?

Cyberpunk Themes Reflected in Modern Global Realities

Like many cyberpunk narratives, our real world is reshaping the meaning of borders, power, and citizenship. The collapse between physical and digital borders reveals a future where geography still matters, but not nearly as much as the networks that connect us. These shifts challenge us to think critically about who gains control, who becomes vulnerable, and how we prepare for a world where digital boundaries increasingly define our lives more than the physical ones ever did.

References

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2022, February 7). Changing economic life and work. Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/02/07/5-changing-economic-life-and-work/

How many Estonian e-residents are there? Find e-Residency statistics. (2026, January 14). E-Residency. https://www.e-resident.gov.ee/dashboard/

Reports, E. (2025). ENISA THREAT LANDSCAPE. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025 10/ENISA%20Threat%20Landscape%202025%20Booklet.pdf

Personal Privacy in the Digital Age

One of the defining features of cyberpunk fiction is the breakdown of boundaries between humans and machines, nations and corporations, and especially between public and private life. What once felt like a dystopian exaggeration is increasingly becoming reality. Over the past five years, the boundary between personal privacy and corporate/governmental surveillance has shifted dramatically. The line separating what belongs to the individual and what can be collected, analyzed, and sold has grown thinner than ever before. A clear contemporary example of collapsing privacy boundaries is emerging in Edmonton, where police have launched a pilot program using body cameras equipped with AI to recognize faces from a “high-risk” watch list in real time. What was once seen as intrusive or ethically untenable—the use of facial recognition on wearable devices—has now moved into operational testing in a major Canadian city, prompting debate from privacy advocates and experts about the societal implications of such pervasive surveillance.

Expanding Data Collection

Today’s apps and platforms gather far more than basic profile information. Social media companies track users’ locations, browsing habits, interactions with AI tools, and even behavioral patterns across different websites. For example, updates to privacy policies from major platforms like TikTok and Meta now allow broader data harvesting, often as a condition for continued use. Many users unknowingly exchange massive amounts of personal information simply to stay connected.

## The Rise of Biometric Surveillance Facial recognition technology has moved from science fiction into everyday life. Law enforcement agencies increasingly use AI-powered systems to scan crowds, identify individuals, and track movements in real time. While these tools are promoted as improving public safety, they blur the boundary between public presence and constant monitoring. People can now be identified and recorded without their knowledge or consent.

## Uneven Legal Protections Some governments have attempted to respond with new privacy laws, such as the European Union’s AI regulations and stricter data protection frameworks in countries like India. These laws aim to limit how companies collect and use personal information. However, regulations remain fragmented and often struggle to keep pace with rapidly advancing technologies. This leaves significant gaps where corporations can continue exploiting personal data.

What’s Driving This Shift?

Technology

Advances in AI and big data analytics make it incredibly easy to process enormous amounts of personal information. Facial recognition, predictive algorithms, and personalized advertising rely on constant surveillance to function. ## Economics Personal data is now one of the most valuable resources in the digital economy. Companies profit from targeted advertising, AI training, and personalized services built entirely on user information. Privacy has effectively become a currency.

Who Benefits—and Who Pays the Price?

Beneficiaries

• Tech corporations that profit from user data

• Governments that gain expanded surveillance capabilities

Those Impacted

• Everyday individuals losing control over personal information
• Marginalized communities disproportionately targeted by surveillance technologies
• People wrongfully identified by biased AI systems

Associated Press. (2024). AI-powered police body cameras, once taboo, get tested on Canadian city’s “watch list” of faces. AP News.1[https://apnews.com/article/21f319ce806a0023f855eb69d928d31e

Ever wonder who watches surveillance cameras beyond federal agents, police, and security personnel? Artificial intelligence has become quiet yet incredibly advanced—capable of tracking personal information and recognizing faces with astonishing accuracy. But where does AI store this information, and who has access to it?

Before the rise of AI, surveillance systems relied on continuous 24/7 recording that had to be carefully monitored by human caretakers. These individuals ensured that footage was not distorted, corrupted, or lost due to limited storage space. According to the Security Industry Association, AI can monitor and analyze network traffic in real time, strengthening network security and identifying suspicious activities such as unauthorized access attempts or unusual data transfers. When these activities are detected, users can take immediate action to block or contain potential threats.

While many argue that AI improves security, it also introduces significant challenges. One major concern is security breaches, as AI systems themselves can become targets for cyberattacks. Another issue is compliance, which is essential to avoid legal consequences and requires adherence to national and international regulations governing the use of AI. Addressing these concerns may require collaboration not only with AI technologies themselves but also with AI developers, cybersecurity professionals, and regulatory experts. AI holds the promise of a more holistic approach to security; however, many people place trust in AI without fully understanding where their data is stored or how it is used.

This shift reflects a cyberpunk-like reality where high technology is paired with low transparency where advanced technologies coexist with humans in everyday life. Surveillance cameras are now embedded into our devices, networks, and infrastructure, allowing AI to operate with minimal human oversight.

Facial recognition has advanced significantly over the decades and has blended seamlessly into daily life. According to Critical Tech Solutions, AI facial recognition combines imaging, pattern recognition, and neural networks to analyze and compare facial data. This process typically involves three steps: capturing facial data, converting faces into digital templates, and matching and verification.

As we progress in today’s world, AI will continue to grow smarter, stronger, and more human-like. It is ultimately our responsibility to establish boundaries to ensure that AI does not override human authority or become a tool for harm.

Sources

Dorn, M. (2025a, November 18). Understanding AI facial recognition and its role in public safety. Tech Deployments Made Simple by Critical Tech Solutions. https://www.criticalts.com/articles/ai-facial-recognition-how-it-works-for-security-safety/

Dorn, M. (2025, December 30). How ai surveillance transforms modern security. Tech Deployments Made Simple by Critical Tech Solutions. https://www.criticalts.com/articles/how-ai-surveillance-transforms-modern-security/

Galaz, V. (n.d.). Sciencedirect.com | Science, Health and medical journals, full text articles and books. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0160791X21002165

James Segil, M. S. (2024, April 23). How ai can transform integrated security. Security Industry Association. https://www.securityindustry.org/2024/03/19/how-ai-can-transform-integrated-security/

https://chatgpt.com/share/697574ec-b270-8003-8613-1bbb06691394

ChatGPT was used to craft an AI image and to revise my original thoughts to a more clear and organized writings.

Dear Sir, Madam, or Algorithm,

I assume you are reading this. Not because I have done anything remarkable, but because in a world shaped by digital systems, observation has become routine rather than something exceptional.

Five years ago, I still thought of privacy as something I possessed, imperfectly, maybe, but meaningfully. I assumed that my movements, conversations, and online habits were largely my own unless I chose to share them. That assumption has quietly worn away. Not through a single policy change or technological breakthrough, but through countless small decisions like agreeing to terms of service, enabling location access, and storing personal information in the cloud.

There was no clear moment when the boundary disappeared. It simply stopped being visible.

What has shifted most in recent years is not the existence of surveillance, but its structure. Governments increasingly rely on private companies to collect and organize personal data and then access it through legal requests or market transactions. According to reporting by Proton, authorities worldwide, particularly in the United States of course, have dramatically increased their requests for user data from major technology firms, often with limited transparency and oversight (Koch, 2025). In this arrangement, corporate data collection and state surveillance are no longer meaningfully separate.

This shift reflects a broader normalization of data as a form of currency. Individuals exchange personal information for convenience, connectivity, and access to digital services. Companies monetize that data. Governments acquire it. Each step is justified as efficient, legal, or necessary. However, when taken together, they blur the line between consent and compliance.

The American Civil Liberties Union has documented how U.S. agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security have purchased location data from brokers rather than obtaining warrants, effectively bypassing constitutional safeguards (Venkatesh & Yu, 2026). While the proponents argue this practice operates within existing legal frameworks, it raises important questions about whether privacy protections remain meaningful when personal data is treated as a commodity.

Similar patterns appear beyond the United States. In Jordan, authorities reportedly used phone-extraction tools to access activists’ devices, targeting political dissent through technological means (Kirchgaessner, 2026). These cases highlight how surveillance technologies are easily transferred across borders and contexts, and how they often impact those already vulnerable to state power.

Even technical protections such as encryption, which are framed as firm barriers to access, prove now to be conditional. In early 2026, Microsoft confirmed that it provided encryption keys to U.S. authorities when legally compelled to do so, prompting concern among privacy advocates about precedent and potential misuse (O’Brien, 2026). Security, it seems, depends less on technological limits than on institutional trust.

To be clear, surveillance systems are frequently defended on grounds of public safety, efficiency, and national security. These concerns deserve serious consideration. Yet the collective effect of extensive data collection and expanded access warrants equally serious scrutiny. Who benefits from this visibility? Who bears the risks? And how should societies balance collective security with individual autonomy?

I do not offer simple answers. What I do offer is a sense that we have crossed a boundary without fully acknowledging it. Privacy has now been redefined and negotiated continuously in ways that are often invisible to the people most affected. It is well on its way to completely vanishing.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Warm regards,

One of your many data points

References: Kirchgaessner, S. (2026, January 22). Jordan used Israeli firm’s phone-cracking tool to surveil pro-Gaza activists, report finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/22/jordan-israeli-spyware-gaza-activists

Koch, R. (2025, February 27). Authorities worldwide can see more than ever, with Big Tech as their eyes. Proton. https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-data-requests-surge

O’Brien, T. (2026, January 24). Microsoft handed the government encryption keys for customer data. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/news/867244/microsoft-bitlocker-privacy-fbi

Venkatesh, A., & Yu, L. (2026, January 12). DHS is circumventing Constitution by buying data it would normally need a warrant to access. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/dhs-is-circumventing-constitution-by-buying-data-it-would-normally-need-a-warrant-to-access

In the last five years, the most significant boundary to collapse is the one separating human-generated communication from algorithmic output. In 2021, we could still reasonably assume that an email, a news article, or a social media post was the product of a human mind. By 2026, that certainty has vanished. We have entered a state of "posthuman communication" where the majority of digital text is either written, refined, or summarized by non-human agents.

The Corporate Interface: Large-scale enterprises now utilize "Agentic Workforces." According to recent industry data, over 70% of customer-facing communication is now handled by LLM-driven agents that mimic human empathy and tone with near-perfect precision.

The Dead Internet Theory: Credible studies from 2024 and 2025 suggest that over half of all web traffic is now bot-to-bot, creating a "hyperreal" environment where simulations of human interaction precede actual human engagement. The primary driver is economic efficiency. In a "high-tech, low-life" global economy, human cognitive labor is expensive and slow. Corporations have a massive incentive to replace the "Poet" (the reflective human) with the "Infantryman" (the efficient AI agent) to maximize output. This reflects Norbert Wiener’s "Second Industrial Revolution," where the devaluation of the human brain follows the earlier devaluation of human muscle.

This mirrors Jean Baudrillard’s concept of Hyperreality. When an AI writes a heartfelt apology or a stirring political speech, the "map" (the simulation of emotion) becomes more important than the "territory" (the actual human feeling). We are seeing the "unholy alliance" between cybernetic control and corporate globalization, where the goal is a seamless, friction-less world that no longer requires a "natural" human essence to function. Who benefits? Multinational corporations that can scale "intelligence" without the overhead of human employees.

Who is impacted? The "cognitive infantry"—writers, coders, and administrators whose unique human perspective is being commodified into training data. If we can no longer distinguish between a human soul and a sophisticated feedback loop, does "authenticity" still have market value, or is it merely an obsolete aesthetic?

The 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness: While focused on animals, this document is the philosophical bedrock for challenging biological exclusivity in consciousness.

Wiener, N. (1950): The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society.

One specific boundary that has shifted greatly in these past five years is the creative spark within human beings. The creative bone seen all throughout different time periods of civilization is dying out. I attribute this lack of creativity to the rapidly developing world of artificial technology. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing our world significantly and we are seeing shifts between boundaries in our society. AI can definitely be beneficial, but I am going to focus on how harmful its impact is and how boundaries are collapsing and eliminating crucial aspects to human life. The boundary I am analyzing relates more to the divide between human and non-humans, the collapse of this boundary is seen through the human over-reliance on artificial intelligence. It is causing there to be a lack of distinction between the two, specifically when it comes to creativity.

One change that has been seen, due to this boundary shift, the transformation of humans into borgs. A borg is described as a collective of cybernetic beings who assimilate other species into their hive mind. A news article published by Forbes, written by Nelson Granados, analyzes this transformation caused by the boundary shift. He includes data collected by behavioral experiences that studied how AI collaborates with humans and complements each other to make decisions. “Gupta and his colleagues show that over-reliance on AI can lead to a decrease in the diversity of thinking, leading to suboptimal collective performance” (Granados 2022). An example of this is human beings immediately going to a source of Artificial Intelligence to come up with a solution, idea, or anything that requires a creative skillset. The article discusses how this is prevalent on social media, many apps are AI-driven and users can become victims to self indulging in an endless cycle of AI-regulated content. Specifically news feeds, so those who’s main source of news is from social media which is very common are seeing their diversity of thought lessen due to the AI-enabled news feeds. This goes to show that AI is not simply becoming more advanced, humans are just losing originality and unique knowledge. I think this shift is being driven, obviously by technology, but also by culture. Chat GPT specifically is a part of many people’s daily lives. I am observing a shift from the commonly said phrase “Just Google It!” to “Ask Chat..” when inquiring about something. Chat Gpt requires a significantly less human analysis and inquiry than Google would for trying to develop anything creatively. This class discussed how certain technological systems within societies that involve cyberpunk cause humans to have a decline in cognitive skills ultimately reshaping societies. This raises concern and debate on whether we want to continue to pay the price of losing creativity as a society for easier ways of gathering information. In some aspects humans do benefit from Artificail Intelligence, but I believe that is more detrimental in the long term. Simply for collapsing the boundary between authentic human thought and artificial intelligence. Are we willing to risk what makes us humans for something which seems beneficial for the short-term?

Imagine this: You’re scrolling your TikTok “For You Page” and come across an R&B song. Your algorithm has been pushing this artist all week, but you have yet to see the artist. It sounds good, so you don’t mind it. You want to see what else the artist has to offer, so you do some searching. Come to find out, that song and all the others that you’ve heard are completely AI-generated. The soulful song you heard had no soul at all. There were only prompts uploaded by a white man to create a song that sounded like a counterpart of Ari Lennox or SZA. There was no real artist creating this music. But then again, what constitutes “real” or “fake”?

AI in Songs So Far and Artist Response

AI usage in songs can range from production to vocal tracks to complete song generation from AI. A popular song on TikTok called “I Run” by HAVEN was going viral during the second half of 2025. It sounded like a pop hit with vocals reminiscent of the R&B artist Jorja Smith. After confirming that the song was in fact not her, listeners continued to dig deeper and ask more questions, all while engagement pushed the song to more people’s algorithms. It was confirmed that the vocals were AI-generated, which prompted it to be removed from TikTok and streaming platforms due to legal issues. Jorja Smith and her label’s legal team pursued legal action, alleging that HAVEN used her vocals and lyrics to train the AI used to make the song. HAVEN then re-recorded the song using an actual singer and released it back to the public.

“Real” artists have also used AI in their songs beyond just creating beats or mixing and mastering tracks. During the Kendrick and Drake beef, there are two instances I would like to point to: Drake’s track “Taylor Made Freestyle” and the joke track “BBL Drizzy.” The rapper released “Taylor Made Freestyle” to his social media in 2024 as a surprise diss track. The track included AI-generated vocals from Snoop Dogg and Tupac, West Coast rap legends, as a dig at Kendrick. Regarding the track “BBL Drizzy,” this viral AI-generated sensation was released in the midst of the beef by a comedian on social media. It poked fun at the allegations against Drake for getting cosmetic surgeries through a soulful AI-generated song. The song was then sampled by famous producer Metro Boomin, and he left an open verse for fans to rap over.

Why Is This Happening?

Although this generative AI can be used for fun jabs like “BBL Drizzy,” cases like that of Jorja Smith and real artist impersonation are very unfortunate. There are multiple driving factors as to why artists might use AI. Producers and artists can use AI software to help with equalizing tracks, mixing and mastering, and other production steps. This cuts down on work time, as they can put hours of work into a click of a button. Artists also cite AI helping them with writer’s block when creating songs.

While this is not too bad, when looking at larger labels, AI-generated artists create an opportunity to make a profit without having to pay. Human artists come with emotions, needs, pushback, creative control, and price. However, an AI artist does not require the same care and money to be put into them to make a song fit for virality. Companies are able to pocket the funds that they would usually use to nurture human artists. While there has been no widespread usage of AI artists in the industry, this speculative point is not far from becoming a reality.

Streaming Platforms

Specifically looking at Spotify, the top streaming platform, there have been issues regarding their platform and AI. Most notably, they do not disclose AI usage on songs. Even if they are aware that a song is completely AI-generated, listeners are not given this information, and the lack of transparency is a problem. In addition to this, they use many AI-generated songs to pad their playlists that they push to all users on a daily basis. It is widely known that Spotify does not do a good job of fairly paying artists their royalties for streams on the platform. By replacing real music with that created by AI, an avenue opens for the platform to continue to pay artists little to nothing for their art. The usage of AI on their platform points to a larger issue of marginalizing and devaluing real, human artists.

Connection to Course Themes and Looking Forward

When thinking of cyberpunk as a genre and framework, capitalism, technology, and devaluing the human are all integral factors to the creation of those worlds. When thinking about AI usage in music, it encompasses all of these ideas and pushes us closer to the worlds we are reading about in class. The usage of technology is devaluing cognitive labor. AI-generated music may sound good, but it lacks the emotion and experience that real artists have that help them to create their music. Spotify’s actions of pushing AI-generated music on their top playlists as a means of pocketing more profits relate to the importance of capitalism and consumerism in this genre. They care more about creating the illusion of choice and turning higher profits than they do about transparency and fairness between them, users, and artists. Looking towards the future, there needs to be stronger regulations on AI. It is important that we as consumers of art emphasize our want for real art—not “AI slop,” as TikTok users have called it. There is true value in the creativity, artistry, and love that artists put into their music. Listeners identify with the emotions that artists portray, and that cannot be generated by AI. How would you feel if your favorite artist was not a living, breathing human being?

AI usage: AI was used to edit the grammar of this post. https://chatgpt.com/share/6975437b-0d34-800d-a227-0e8d65bfe895

Sources: AI-Generated Music: A Creative Revolution or a Cultural Crisis? (2024, October 15). Rolling Stone Culture Council. https://council.rollingstone.com/blog/the-impact-of-ai-generated-music/ Beaumont-Thomas, B. (2026, January 22). Liza Minnelli uses AI to release first new music in 13 years. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/jan/22/liza-minnelli-uses-ai-to-release-first-new-music-in-13-years Berger, V. (2024, December 30). AI’s Impact On Music In 2025: Licensing, Creativity And Industry Survival. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2024/12/30/ais-impact-on-music-in-2025-licensing-creativity-and-industry-survival/ Gomez Sarmiento, I. (2025, August 8). AI-generated music is here to stay. Will streaming services like Spotify label it? NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/08/nx-s1-5492314/ai-music-streaming-services-spotify Hess, T. (2025, December 5). HAVEN. vs. Jorja Smith: How “I Run” will shape AI music’s future. The FADER. https://www.thefader.com/2025/12/05/haven-jorja-smith-i-run-shape-music-ai-future Lund, O. (2026). Bars, Beefs & Butt Lifts: Drake vs Kendrick vs AI - The Skinny. Theskinny.co.uk. https://www.theskinny.co.uk/music/opinion/drake-kendrick-lamar-bbl-drizzy-ai-

The Shift: The Engineered Body (2020–2025)

In the past five years, especially after COVID, there has been a sharp rise in demand for cosmetic procedures and bodily modification. Viewers see their favorite celebrities—such as Tom Cruise or Kylie Jenner—who have stuffed their faces and bodies with Botox and implants, now almost unrecognizable compared to the people they were years prior. Their ethnic features and phenotypic ancestral history embedded in their genome are so easily disguised by the prick of a needle and the incision of a scalpel. Tom Cruise’s Super Bowl ad, in fact, went viral for his “stretched” face. One viewer noted:

“Tom Cruise on this #SuperBowlLIX talking about pressure — there is no greater pressure than that of his skin trying to stay stretched on his face.” (The Express, 2025)

What makes this moment so telling isn’t just celebrity vanity, it’s how normal this level of bodily editing has become. The human face is no longer treated as something fixed or inherited. It’s something adjustable. And this isn’t just a Hollywood problem. According to CC Plastic Surgery (2025), cosmetic surgical procedures rose by roughly 5% in 2023, while minimally invasive treatments like Botox and fillers increased by 7%. Nearly 1.6 million cosmetic surgical procedures were performed in the U.S. that year alone, with younger adults increasingly seeking “preventative” treatments.

Biology, once destiny, now feels like a rough draft. Cultural Contradictions: “Natural Beauty” in the Age of Surgery Society’s opinion on cosmetic surgery, at least on social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, appears to be quite opposed to the idea, constantly promoting natural features and the beauty of aging. Ironically, public figures who preach “natural features” have been exposed on several occasions for cosmetic procedures they themselves have undergone. For example, Tyra Banks. Years of media pestering about her alleged nose job led her to truthfully confront the public that she had received a rhinoplasty early on in her career. This contradiction, publicly celebrating authenticity while privately modifying the self, shows how deeply normalized cosmetic intervention has become. We’re told to love our natural faces while being surrounded by faces that are anything but.

Cyberpunk in the Flesh: The Body as Hardware

The unsettling part about all of this is not just the culture or vanity, but how closely it mirrors cyberpunk theory in the present day. In cyberpunk worlds, the human body is not seen as a unique creation but as fixed hardware that can be upgraded at any time. Age becomes a concept. Genetic traits become an identity the individual designs. We are long past fiction when a magical syringe can erase wrinkles—proof that a person has lived, and alter features that can no longer be identified as lineage. Yet society insists this obsession with appearance is ridiculous and vain, even as the market for bodily enhancement explodes. Cyberpunk is obsessed with collapsed boundaries, especially the line between the human and the manufactured. Plastic surgery is that collapse in slow motion. We’re not installing robotic arms or neural implants (yet), but we are editing our flesh to match digital standards. The face in the mirror is now chasing the face on Instagram filters. Biology is no longer destiny, it’s a draft. Posthumanism, one of the core ideas behind cyberpunk, argues that technology is redefining what it even means to be human. And honestly, that sounds dramatic until you realize how normal it’s become to “fix” your face the same way you’d update your phone. Whether that be Botox as maintenance, fillers as enhancement, or surgery as rebranding. The human body is starting to look less like something you are and more like something you manage.

The Upgrade Shop: Beauty as a Consumer Product

In cyberpunk movies like Blade Runner, bodies are modified, faces are customizable, and identity is something you can swap out. We’re not living in neon megacities yet, but cosmetic clinics already function like real-world upgrade shops. Walk in with insecurity, walk out with a new version of your face. Pay enough money and you can buy proximity to a beauty ideal that didn’t even exist before social media flattened everyone into the same algorithm-approved look. And the wild part is how quietly normalized it all is. It’s no longer “extreme” to get work done, it’s framed as self-care and preventative maintenance. But cyberpunk always warned about this exact slippery slope: when enhancement becomes optional at first, then expected, and eventually required just to keep up.

Implications: The Posthuman Face

So when people joke about Tom Cruise’s stretched skin or Kylie Jenner’s unrecognizable face, they’re not just mocking celebrities. They’re reacting to a future that feels off, uncanny, and way too close. A future where the boundary between natural and artificial has dissolved. A future where your face isn’t really yours anymore. It’s a project. A product. A performance. Who benefits? The cosmetic surgery industry. Influencers. Corporations monetizing insecurity. Who is impacted? Young people. Women disproportionately. Anyone whose social value is now tied to appearance. The cyberpunk future isn’t about robotic arms. It’s about waking up and realizing your face is no longer yours.

Sources CC Plastic Surgery. (2025). Why plastic surgery demand is rising in the U.S. https://www.ccplasticsurgery.com/blog/why-plastic-surgery-demand-is-rising-in-the-u-s The Express. (2025). Tom Cruise’s face sparks concern after Super Bowl ad. https://www.the-express.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/163179/tom-cruise-face-concern-super-bowl-ad Scott, R. (Director). (1982). Blade Runner [Film]. Warner Bros.

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” When I first heard that line in Blade Runner, it felt like pure science fiction. But recently, it feels less like fantasy and more like a description of the world we are slowly entering. Over the past five years, the boundary between humans and machines has shifted in ways that feel personal, cultural, and deeply unsettling. The line that once separated human intelligence from artificial systems is no longer clear, and that change forces us to rethink what it means to be human.

What Has Actually Changed

Five years ago, artificial intelligence felt distant and technical. It helped with search engines, recommendations, and data analysis, but it did not feel present in everyday life. Today, AI writes essays, creates art, generates music, and holds conversations that feel almost human. Generative AI tools have become part of daily routines for students, professionals, and creators.

The rise of generative AI after 2022 marked a major turning point. Machines stopped being just tools and started acting like collaborators. According to MIT News, generative AI systems are now being used across many industries and can produce human-like text, images, and ideas, but they also raise concerns about bias, misinformation, and job displacement. You can read a clear explanation of how generative AI works and why it matters here: Explained: Generative AI

This shift feels different from past technological advances because it touches something deeply human. When a machine can write something thoughtful or emotional, it becomes harder to say where human intelligence ends and artificial intelligence begins.

Why This Boundary Is Shifting

Technology is the most obvious reason for this change. Advances in machine learning, massive datasets, and computing power have made AI systems more capable and accessible. But economics also plays a role. Companies invest heavily in AI because it promises speed, efficiency, and profit. Cultural forces matter too. People are curious, excited, and sometimes afraid of AI, which only accelerates its spread. Politically, governments struggle to regulate AI fast enough, leaving ethical questions unresolved.

This is where cyberpunk becomes especially relevant. In Neuromancer, William Gibson imagines a world where human minds merge with digital systems and cyberspace becomes a new reality. Case’s experience shows how fragile the boundary between human consciousness and technology can become. In Blade Runner: The Final Cut, replicants challenge the idea that humanity is defined by biology. Roy Batty’s memories and emotions feel real enough to blur the line between human and machine.

Both works show societies where technology evolves faster than morality and law. That pattern feels familiar today.

Who Benefits and Who Pays the Price

The benefits of this shift are real. AI can improve healthcare, expand access to knowledge, and help people solve problems in new ways. Students, researchers, and businesses gain powerful tools that were unimaginable a decade ago.

But the costs are unevenly distributed. Workers worry about automation. Artists worry about originality and ownership. Marginalized communities can be harmed by biased algorithms. Power increasingly concentrates in the hands of a few tech companies, echoing the corporate dominance seen in cyberpunk worlds.

In Blade Runner and Neuromancer, technological progress benefits elites while ordinary people struggle to adapt. That is not just fiction anymore. It is a pattern we can already see in real life.

What This Means for the Future

The collapse of the human–machine boundary forces us to ask uncomfortable questions. If machines can create, communicate, and influence decisions, who is responsible for their impact? If they can imitate emotion, does that change how we define empathy and consciousness?

Cyberpunk does not just predict technology. It warns us about what happens when society fails to question it. We are not fully living in a world like Blade Runner or Neuromancer, but the similarities are becoming harder to ignore. The line between human and machine is fading, and whether that future becomes empowering or dangerous depends on how seriously we confront the questions it raises now.

References

Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books.

Scott, R. (Director). (1982). Blade Runner: The Final Cut [Film]. Warner Bros.

Zewe, A. (2023, November 9). Explained: Generative AI. MIT News. https://computing.mit.edu/news/explained-generative-ai/