Dylan Malik Orchard's Blog

I wrote this for my Masters degree so its put together with that in mind rather than anything else but sharing it here to a: keep a record of it and b: because the topics it covers seem particularly relevant at the moment. The media whirlwind around AI is in full hysterical flow but, from what I’ve seen, a lot of it is either divorced from reality or just completely disinterested in some of the most basic, practical questions behind it. Anyway, this isn’t a grand contribution to the debate, obviously only an amateur picking at the edges, but still – might be of interest to a tiny handful of people.

Is the Generator Class an Emerging Class Formulation?

Introduction

My focus for this essay is to explore the potential for a new class formulation amidst the rapid development of ‘AI’ and algorithmically generated art and content (broadly termed as Generative AI (GAI)). As new forms of production emerge from the process of data collection and access management we’ve already seen extensive shifts in both the public and theoretical perceptions of labour and the potential redefinition of the ‘commodity’. Within this rapid, technology driven shift represented by the Information Economy the search for new structures of analysis and understanding have emerged from both Capitalists and those seeking to challenge it as a dominant economic model. Concepts such as the Precariat, Hacker Class, Vectoralists and Creative Class all seek to consolidate potential group interests and, at times, directly re-constitute traditional Class definitions into a form more readily understood through the prism of a more information, data and generation based economy.

In exploring this topic my initial goal is to define a potential new Class emerging from the most recent notable wave of algorithmic access to new means of production, something I’ll be referring to as the ‘Generator Class’. A group I believe to be distinguished from (and sometimes within) other potential class formulations by their attempted claim to access and privilege within the new generative means of production such as prompt based, algorithmic content generation.

Following on from that I want to explore the structural validity of this potentially emergent Class. As the wide territory involved in new, generative technologies continues to rapidly expand and touch upon issues of intellectual property, access rights and the exploitation of precarious labour there are, I believe, definite questions to be asked about how enduring any attempt at evolving a new class position can be within such a landscape. However I think that the attempt to constitute such a thing is, in itself, indicative of broader potentialities and reactions to shifting economic focuses and realities.

Finally I want to explore the current and potential reactions to this process. Whether emergent economic groupings prove enduring or not the reaction they incite, both active and passive, feeds back into the development of new cultural and economic realities. 

Notes on Terminology

At the outset of planning this essay one of the immediate questions was how to approach the issue of terminology. Obviously any discussion on Class is, at some point, drawn back to Marx and his definitions of Class divisions but in exploring evolving labour relations and Class constructions I chose to hold that as a semi-distant foundation and instead adopt the approach advocated by Wark (and others (Negri & Hardt’s Multitude, Richard Florida’s Creative Class etc.)) of seeking a new language of analysis and structural understanding.

“To come into an awareness of class it to speak another language. It is to refuse the terms that are given and seek other terms, other concepts.”1

Wark goes considerably further in her openness to exploration of new Class formulations than I would consider attempting. Even suggesting that Capitalism has come to an end point and what now emerges is a new system in itself2. Even though the challenge she presents is a major one to anyone writing critically about almost any political understanding there’s also plenty contained within her work which offers ample resources for useful experimentation and speculation. 

“I wanted to speak

the beautiful language

of my century” – Guy Debord3

Citing Debord’s concept of détournement Wark calls for a more experimental, challenging exploration of language when approaching issues such as Class4 and it’s in that spirit that I both opted to approach the topic of this essay (the Generator Class) and also to frame it with a mixed set of references. So with that in mind I’ve decided to use the tools that seem like the best fit for the job at hand, eclectic as they are. From Wark I’ve taken the concept of the Vectoral Class as a framework for an emergent/reconfigured Ruling Class. As a group robustly defined in her work to act as a presence in this new Information Economy I believe it offers more utility within the context of this work even as it (functionally) intersects and often blends with earlier constitutions of the Capitalist hierarchy. Where I differed from Wark however was in opting not to use her idea of the Hacker Class. While her work in defining it has been a definite inspiration to me I found the boundaries of it to be too vast to be practically useful, especially when approaching ideas of creation in regard to automated generation. When talking about immediate issues of division and relations to labour there are so many gradients contained within her formulation that to apply it with definite purpose seems less useful than its value as a broad strokes conceptual playground – an inspiration for détournement.

Instead I chose to balance the Vectoral Class against the Precariat5, a concept that, in its own way, is no less all consuming but which does speak to more definite material positions. Especially in relation to the Generator Class and the Commons. The former (Precariat) I identified as a form of Worker that reflects certain aspects of recognised labour approached by the Generator Class, the latter (Commons) I frame as a more wide reaching and not (necessarily) commodified pool of culture, information and value which takes special prominence with regards to ideas around data harvesting and enclosure. 

The Commons is a useful term in itself but ultimately somewhat lacking I think given that when approached by the Vectoral and Generator Classes it takes on a new data focused exchange value beyond the use and social value it’s commonly defined as holding. They make it primarily an object of information enclosure and extraction, as distinct from other, more egalitarian or historically exploitative, experiences of it. Short of creating an additional term to reflect the newer, immaterial extractive approach to it as a new term though (which would be another essay in itself) I felt sticking with it while nodding to a mediation in its meaning was the best option. 

I also gave consideration to Marx’s term General Intellect6 – “where collective cooperation and knowledge become a source of value”7 but I felt that it somewhat limited the scope of what’s truly being discussed within this essay with regard to data extracted on a vast scale. 

As one last nod to my conceptual and linguistic choices in framing this essay I should mention Platform Capitalism as defined by Nick Srnicek. His structural breakdown of terms such as Cloud Platforms8 approaches similar concepts to both Wark and my own efforts. I think a useful addition to this essay could certainly be had in integrating his work which – in part – is a useful compliment to Wark’s Vectoral Class and the Generator Class but ultimately I felt it would be too expansive a territory to attempt to add. Although the relation between between ideas such as Platform Capitalism, Smart Urbanism9, Platform Urbanism10, Warks Vectoral and my speculative Generator Class would (perhaps) all be interesting relations to delve into elsewhere.

The Generator Class

In framing the concept of the Generator Class there are immediate challenges present. The scope of emerging technologies around AI and algorithmic generation is, potentially, vast and to speak at any given moment is to risk missing a major shift in the next. There are also inherent issues in exploring the new means of production that this group primarily relates to, everything from art, to academia, to programming can potentially be included within their remit but to explore all of them would be a larger work than the reach of this essay can cover. So instead I will, largely, focus on one of the most active and contentious areas of technological expansion that could be said to fall under the remit of the Generator Class – that of art and cultural output. It’s with that example in mind that I’ll primarily be working.

To offer a basic grounding before exploring the wider definition – the Generator Class, as I’m seeking to define it, is constituted of a new cultural, economic and potentially political group which assumes a role somewhat analogous to the small scale manufacturer of previous eras. Using generative tools (variously referred to as GAI or algorithmic generators) such as Chat GPT, DALL-E, Midjourney and many others they represent a low level producer reliant on far larger system of production. To continue with the analogy, while traditional manufacturers may have operated a single factory or mill reliant on major mining or agricultural concerns, the Generator Class operates a largely automated production line reliant on the collection and control of information by what McKenzie Wark defined as the Vectoralist Class. 

To take DALL-E, a text-to-image generator, as an example the project is a capped-profit11 enterprise (under the OpenAI organisation) which has, at various times, received funding from Elon Musk, Amazon and most recently Microsoft ($10b~). Heavily at odds with many practising, non-generative artists there are considerable questions about the source of content (primarily images) used to ‘train’ DALL-E, while its output is relatively unaffected by questions of initial labour input or potential ownership. It’s around projects like this that the Generator Class positions itself, remote from the presence of primary labour individuals use permitted access from major Vectoralists/corporations to generate new content primarily via textual prompts. Output which is in some cases already and certainly potentially commodified and monetised as part of a wider digital (and indeed physical) economy.

This relation to labour places the Generator Class at an odd and contradictory intersection of previously conceived economic groupings. Certainly they stand separate from the Vectoral Class as while they gain access to their information resources they have no more power to control it than do the original generators of such data. The commodities they extract from AI and algorithmic generation are also ultimately subject to the same measures of appropriation and enclosure as those they themselves benefit from. Their capacity to assert copyright or even defend a nebulous concept of a cultural/social Commons as applicable to the vast amount of data gathered by major tech platforms is minimal. And in that respect they find themselves positioned closer to the Precariat, if not partially absorbed by it. Finally they find themselves in proximity to the Hacker Class as defined by Wark, generators of ’new’ content within the information economy/age but it’s in this that they disavow their position as exploitable resource of this potential new economy and instead place themselves as aspirant entrepreneurs of it. 

The Generator Class seeks distinction, in some cases passively and in others actively. Later in this essay I’ll provide some case studies to express this but initially I’d like to explore the key quality that enables this aspirant Class separation from invisible, precarious and even non-participatory workers. Creativity.

Creativity within the new technological landscape of generated content becomes an immediately contentious concept. At this point in time we’re seeing a constant argument between those who seek to recognise new ‘AI’ generated content as original and unique work – an act of creative labour in itself and those who dismiss it as a simple mechanical reconstitution of what already exists, a clever act of imitation mediated by impressive but ultimately unoriginal technological gimmicks. Whilst an assertion of the former is structurally essential to the Generator Class to validate its own position as producers there are clearly defined questions that perhaps undermine it.

There are undoubtedly profound questions to be asked about the potential of AI Art as a source of original and innovate forms of creative work but to focus excessively on them would be to write an essay in itself. Indeed the question of what constitutes Artificial Intelligence in the first place is a wider remit than I’m attempting to claim in this work. Instead I, like the Generator Class, am looking for the functional realities at work in our present moment and seeking the lines of labour and connections and divisions they create. As rich a ground as grander speculation may be it isn’t inherently relevant here.

In this moment then the question is one of what constitutes the new commodities of the Generator Class and what resources those commodities are drawn from and reliant on.

“Much of what passes off for AI today is really a product of coupling big data with statistical analysis. Impressive or even mysterious as some of the outcomes may look, they are the result of advanced calculations performed on large quantities of data.12”

My first example for exploring the extractive as opposed to creative nature of generative art and content is, perhaps counter-intuitively, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. MTurk is a platform for hiring casualised labour to fulfil any given task, although it heavily promotes its capacity as a tool to establish Machine Learning systems. Defining individual acts of human labour as a Human Intelligence Task (HIT) the Amazon project provides a steady supply of workers to tag, provide and sort the data that is ultimately fed into GAI/algorithmic content generators.

“MTurk can be a great way to minimize the costs and time required for each stage of ML development. It is easy to collect and annotate the massive amounts of data required for training machine learning (ML) models with MTurk. Building an efficient machine learning model also requires continuous iterations and corrections. Another usage of MTurk for ML development is human-in-the-loop (HITL), where human feedback is used to help validate and retrain your model. An example is drawing bounding boxes to build high-quality datasets for computer vision models, where the task might be too ambiguous for a purely mechanical solution and too vast for even a large team of human experts.”13

While this service sits in something of a grey area between human and AI ‘labour’ it does reflect a wider structural system of resource extraction. While technological processes may be the end point of the Generator Classes’ commodity production there lays beneath and beyond that a vast network of invisible human labour, producing the data sets that are integral to the creation of seemingly new content. In contrast to my earlier comparison to the small scale manufacturer this process serves to create an even wider distance between the productive and labouring classes – in this case there is no factory or mill, nor is there even a designer to dictate new form – instead that middle ground between resource and commodity production is filled by algorithms whose capacity for original creation is limited to the labour of the Precariat, or Commons, upon whose actively generative work they feed. Indeed while MTurk may act as a useful, if somewhat detached, example of the means of production involved here it largely serves to reflect a broader model. Whilst Amazon has formalised the process of data extraction as a service the same principle of core, human labour is shared by most resource gathering exercises carried out by nascent AI and generative projects. Social Media platforms, large scale retailers, image and text generators – they all function on the input of a mass of people who stand distinct from the Generator Class insofar as they neither profit from nor (in most cases) even agree to participate in this extractive process.

It should be said that while I seek to define the Generator Class in relation to their extractivist nature that doesn’t dismiss their potential to act as a creative element. Nor to define them as an inherently parasitic or exploitative force. Approaches to AI and Art both offer potentialities for the positive existence of a new form of interaction with mass data holdings and their generative potential but as mentioned earlier, the focus of this essay isn’t on potential but instead on existing and emergent relationships. From that perspective, I believe, the Generator Class must be viewed primarily as extractive (and therefor notable in relation to other class groups) even where it might place a reasonable argument at intending otherwise.

“The artist no longer creates work; he creates creation” Nicolas Schöffer

A key argument in the claims to a more utopian – or at least culturally valorised – form of the Generator Class comes from those parts of the Art world which have already sought to actively engage with new technologies as a participant, rather than a resource and who in doing so have tied their own work to the Generator Class as a whole, albeit perhaps unwillingly/unwittingly.

In his project Of the Subcontract Nick Thurstow strikes up just such a position of self-conscious artistic valorisation of the Generator Class’s extractive relation to labour. In a self declared exploration of ‘expropriation14’ he paid MTurk workers to create poetry for a compilation. Again, with MTurk as the tool the labour consists of HITs carried out by flesh and blood workers (albeit ones partially designated to a job by algorithmic processes) but as anonymous contributors they offer a fair representation of the process of production from data itself. MTurk Workers, named as such by Amazon themselves, take jobs through an anonymised process and are graded for their efficiency by the system itself. While human they attempt to fill the gaps that, it seems assumed, AI will ultimately be able to occupy itself. 

In the afterword to Of the Subcontract Darren Werschler suggests the project as a critique of a form of production already existent in the Art world15 in the works of such creators as Damian Hirst who regularly farm out the labour of creation to subordinate workers. An observation that hints at a proto-Generator Class operating on a considerably smaller scale and (generally) at a more immediate reach to the workers involved. Such ‘High’ Art pursuits however, while they hold the novelty of Post-Modernist observation, still retain the class distinctions that help frame the Generator Class. Thurstow, whilst seeking to explore patterns of expropriation (and exploitation) does so from the privileged position of having both the financial ability to mobilise the use of anonymised, precarious workers and the platform access to disseminate the commodified products of their labour. Certainly relative to other forms of expropriation his case represents a largely benign act but it also usefully mirrors a broader pattern that comes with considerably less artistic consideration and considerably more invisibility and exploitation.

Heading further towards that position is the ‘art’ collective Obvious whose work Portrait of Edmond Belamy (2018) was the first GAI piece to be sold by a major auction house (Christie’s). Fetching a healthy $432,500 the piece was the product of a GAI trained on a dataset of 15,000 portraits from between the 14th and 20th centuries. Given the requirements of the data involved there was no direct enclosure of the productive work of living artists but the process of exploitation was to a large degree the same. Acting as participants in the Generator Class those behind the project, Hugo Caselles-Dupré, Pierre Fautrel and Gauthier Vernier, still maintain an authorial influence over the work – which is a discussion that falls into a separate discussion on the merits of AI Art as a concept – but in their comments they adhere to my expectations of the Generator Class by ignoring the original source of the labour fed into the machine.

“If the artist is the one that creates the image, then that would be the machine,’ says Caselles-Dupré. ‘If the artist is the one that holds the vision and wants to share the message, then that would be us.” – Hugo Caselles-Dupré

A sentiment shared by others in the field of AI Art:

“There is a human in the loop, asking questions, and the machine is giving answers. That whole thing is the art, not just the picture that comes out at the end. You could say that at this point it is a collaboration between two artists — one human, one a machine. And that leads me to think about the future in which AI will become a new medium for art.”16

Returning to OpenAI we find a more ubiquitously and less conceptually framed reference for exploitation. It’s openly stated that OpenAI draws data from social media1718 while their dataset for DALL-E remains something of a mystery as they refuse to release details on what it contains. Although the existence of tools like Have I Been Trained19, which allows artists to search for instances of their own work being used to train AI datasets, suggests that data getting pulled may well not be done with the owners consent. Certainly a cursory search for a few key words will bring up a gallery full of quite clearly copyrighted content that’s been pulled. Something which other Generative AIs (GAIs) have openly admitted to, especially when the Shutterstock watermark was to be found clearly on generated images!

Ownership

The issue of ownership in relation to GAIs is, obviously, a major factor and a complex one given the contradictory and sometimes combative nature of both the Generator Class and other new formulations within the emergent tech/AI economy. Intellectual Property as a concrete progression of more traditional forms of private property rights is a necessary factor for the existence of a Vectoral Class in Wark’s terms. Information presents a novel new form of resource as it is, with some extreme limitations, beyond scarcity – without mediation it, quite easily, falls into the potential realm of the Commons. Endlessly replicable in a digital landscape there is no finite nature here. While at certain levels – that of brand, code or drug developement – ownership may trace a clearer line from innovation and investment to product with many of the tools now opening up to the Generator Class there’s a strong interest in selective ignorance of potential ownership as a clear act of emergent Class interests.

For the Vectoral Class the endless need for new datasets and content to feed AI, GAI and instigate more mainstream models of consumption through customer data harvesting makes the concept of ‘ownership’ a relative one. Microsoft will undoubtedly enforce IP and copyright over its brand and its products but in funding Open AI and its various projects they show a measure of indifference to the rights of others. Indeed when it comes to our Cultural Commons as collective dataset they show themselves to be quite willing to enclose content from the digital landscape not just in mobilising harvested data to serve AI but also in somewhat obliquely restricting rights over the final GAI generation. DALL-E for example makes a contractual claim to ownership of generated images but doesn’t assert copyright20, although it’s questionable whether they practically could anyway. 

Legal questions aside however the functional truth may be closer to traditional relations within IP and copyright laws – ultimately rights come secondary to the ability to enforce them. Workers generating content, even those in the Generator Class, are unlikely to have any viable rights against major corporations – at least not individually.

Where Vectoral actors have their own interests in taking a slightly contradictory approach to IP and copyright rules those in the Generator Class follow their lead. In order to commodify their output whether through direct marketisation (sale of NFTs, licensing rights, production of physical products etc) questions of origin and primary labour pose challenges that are best not faced. A happy and intended collective ignorance which serves all sides – for now – except of course for the vast majority of workers who find their work appropriated without consent, payment or acknowledgement.

Is the Generator Class a Viable Class Constitution?

That the Generator Class exists is, I think, a fair assertion to make. The (im)material means of production that define it are there, the exploitations of those means are evident but as ever with this new and constantly evolving sphere of new technology that doesn’t necessarily lend any permanency to them as a social-cultural-economic group. Just as new technologies throw up the potential for their creation as a Class it also sows the seeds of challenges to it. Data resource and commodity ownership, as mentioned above, remain vaguely defined and often contested. The Precariat/Commons which is extracted from is in an already combative relationship with the Generator Class – not just over ownership but also over more philosophical concepts such as the nature of art and creativity. Even the Vectoral Class which by its ownership of platforms, (questionably) data and the actual infrastructure (computational and storage) stands as a key beneficiary of a new intermediate, extractive class has no necessary commitment to it. Some platforms have already banned works from GAI sources21 and it’s easily conceivable that should GAIs and the extractions of the Generator Class stray away from asset stripping a largely faceless Precariat/Commons and begin infringing on the copyrights and IPs of major corporations then the relationship may easily sour. A common joke from artists opposed to GAI is that the quickest way to kill it is to get Micky Mouse featured in the database – Disney will do the rest.

Another factor that could potentially undermine the position the Generator Class seeks to claim is within the tools themselves. AI datasets already exist that have no human factor in their production of content, either Generator Class or Precariat. 

“The invisible world of images isn’t simply an alternative taxonomy of visuality. It is an active, cunning, exercise of power, one ideally suited to molecular police and market operations.“22

In his project A Study of Invisible Images Trevor Paglen focuses on ‘Machine Vision’, by which machines generate images for the reference of other machines – especially notable in facial recognition technologies, self driving cars, surveillance and policing23. How far this can and will be applied to commodity production remains to be seen but it does have the potential to pose wider threats to various economic groups and potentially even our perceived system of Capital itself – a notion Wark might perhaps say is further proof of our progression beyond it (and feel validated in suggesting that something worse might be coming). This however is still just a potential threat and one positioned towards a still emergent class. 

Through GAI the Generator Class has already shown itself to be incredibly mobile in its claiming of economic space. Each failure (such as NFTs) is met with an emergent possibility for new interactions with labour (GAI art, illustrations, writing, animation, digital assets, film etc). And while the issue of ownership may provide a more daunting challenge should it ever be truly pressed by the Vectoral Class it does still leave both Public Domain and Creative Commons content as viable resources for data extraction. 

In moving to occupy new spaces the Generator Class shows its rapid sense of evolution too. As mentioned earlier it already has certain practitioners within the world of High Art. One where authorial identity as a factor of authenticity is unlikely to be surpassed by either issues of primary labour, which have been debatable since Duchamp, or ownership – where concessions to a Precariat or anonymised and rightless labourer are long understood as viable (see Damian Hirst and others who have work fabricated).

The Generator Class is also coming to terms with repeated waves of new tools that open up new potentialities. As a recent example Clarkesworld, a prominent Sci-Fi publisher, has just closed submissions as a glut of GAI stories were being submitted24. Editor-in-Chief at Clarkesworld – Neil Clarke – cited Hustle culture partnered with access to generative tools (most notably ChatGPT) as a key trigger to this. A suggested connection that offers further intersection points for the Generator Class as variably Precariat-Entrepreneur25-Emergent class. It’s a progression in GAI that goes even further in blurring the speculative lines of ownership, Commons and labour. While visual artists have at least some vague tools for detecting whether their work has been pulled to train databases or may be able to recognise similarities to their own works writers have little recourse in either respect. A short story generated to emulate the style of Isaac Asimov may come out as predictably derivative, but without a mass shift towards openness by the Vectoral Class as owners of the tools generating it there’s virtually no clear way to know if it actually is trained on his work (or the endless imitations and interpretations of it already created by a multitude of other writers).

It’s a problem only primed to worsen too. Microsoft and Google have both ploughed billions into ‘chatbot’ development. In Academia for example the potential for GAI essay writing is an already recognised threat with myriad companies offering essay generation services26 and institutions struggling to find counter-measures against such submissions. Again, we have here the Generator Class inserting itself as a mediating force in the process – one which it’s, rather optimistically, suggested could ultimately take a role as moderator of its own permitted output but which practically seems more inclined towards Hustle Culture grifting than concessions to social needs.

“In this case, that would mean companies establishing a shared framework for the responsible development, deployment or release of language models to mitigate their harmful effects, especially in the hands of adversarial users.” – Rob Reich, Stanford Professor of Political Science27

There are myriad other use cases of AI being used to create new services, content and even whole commercial sectors – certainly enough to write more than a couple more essays about – but my main purpose in citing the examples I have thus far is to show the mobility of this Generator Class. Unestablished as it may broadly be it exists in a landscape offering ample opportunities to find and reinforce its own foundations. Does that make it viable in the longer term? That much I think remains debatable. Ultimately submissive to the Vectoral Class the Generators are reliant on their indifference, view of potential profitability and inability to achieve the same eye for the opportunity as a wider class formation does. Stepping back a few years you have perhaps the most prescient suggestion of how that situation may progress in the form of Content Creators. YouTube and social media in general have made massive use of individuals willing to accept access to the tools of communication/production as fair substitute for wages for years now. YouTube as a particular case made $28.8b in revenue in 2021 with the overwhelming majority of their top revenue generating channels being (relatively) independent Content Generators28. While I would differentiate these creators from my speculative Generator Class on the grounds of their use of technology I’d say there are certainly grounds for comparison and even a direct, Proto-Generator Class definition. After all, while their content is ‘original’ those acting as independent wealth generators for YouTube as Vectoral Class actor are heavily reliant on the algorithmic and user data assets of the company – relying on that analytic data service to promote themselves they may represent the more organic arm of the Generator Class.

What the example most usefully shows however is that the Vectoral Class ultimately has a relatively transient interest in actual content creation or generation. When Google or Microsoft set aside billions of dollars in order to train new AI generators with new datasets their interest isn’t in mobilising it to their own productive ends, control of the tools – ownership of the means of production – is an end in itself. The Commons and the Precariat will provide the labour for that model, the Generator Class will extract the value.

The Future of the Generator Class

In writing about the Generator Class I’ve attempted to define an emergent class entity, one bringing its own interests and its own relations to the means of production, labour and a similarly emergent (re)formulation of a/the Ruling Class. Like Wark I believe that experimentation with and exploration of class forms against an ever shifting technological, social and economic landscape has value in itself. While I’d never suggest that my own speculations are as comprehensive or insightful as hers I do think the act of at least trying to think about the structures generated by emergent technologies is an important process. Just as important though is seeking out the reactions to these potential re-constitutions and creations surrounding new means of production, exploitation and enclosure. Where technology, most notably AI in this case, creates vast new frontiers it also creates new conflicts.

As with so much of this essay though I can largely only speculate about potential paths of travel. 

Emergent resistance to a commodity focused model of the Generator Class exists both within and without the class formulation itself. Art, as generally my core example, has already seen a large number of its practitioners set themselves against GAI tools. Art sharing platforms provide a fertile battleground for that as each one takes its own position on generated content. Getty29 has banned GAI ‘Art’ completely while ArtStation – a leading portfolio site – hasn’t just refused to do that but has even cracked down on attempts by artists to protest the decision30. Clarkesworld, as mentioned, have reacted by closing submissions in the face of GAI writing but, while they currently seem confident of their ability to spot such efforts, their task will only grow harder as the technology progresses. In all cases the overarching interests of the Vectoral Class remains the defining factor. Individual artists and creators can protest, smaller platforms can formulate policy – just as universities and the like can – but as long as the behemoths of the tech world continue to funnel money, resources and interest towards the creation and exploitation of new datasets then the conflict is being fought amongst those effected, more than those creating the conditions.

Those are just surface level expressions of the issue too. The vast majority of what the Generator Class extracts and what their foundational tools seek to enclose isn’t anywhere as easily outlined. I believe it’s in the realm of the Commons that the real questions of control and exploitation lay. While the vast majority of people remain so vulnerable to having their labour – or indeed their very existence – commodified to feed an information hungry system the question of how that system manifests is almost a secondary one. The Generator Class is not the Ruling one, those submitting stories to Clarkesworld, utilising the vast data stores of YouTube and Google or monetising their extractions from DALL-E aren’t irrelevant by any means but conflict against them by the majority of primary labourers is too narrow an engagement to reflect the grand scale of what’s going on. 

“The barbed wire remains invisible” – Evgeny Morozov31

In writing about privacy within his article The Real Privacy Problem Evgeny Morozov talks about the balance of personal data privacy as both an individual and political issue. He speculates about individual actions of rejection in the face of data harvesting. His invisible barbed wire is the personal enclosure created by our algorithmically mediated social, economic and political lives. 

Perhaps it’s necessary to take that observation and drive it further – not to see invisible barbed wire that encloses us as consumers but instead an invisible factory that exploits us as workers; as social, economic and cultural producers. In relation to democracy Morozov also suggests a balance point between the right to privacy and the transparency required for democracy – another logic worth expanding as we look to find our own balance between the Commons and the self-ownership of our own social and intimately personal output.

Still the issue of class conflict surrounding the Generator and Vectoral Class ends with two vast questions left to answer. The first being the immediate and practical – how are the exploitations of these new classes to be met? Confronted with enclosure and exploitation what immediate ground do we want to hold? Are we the artists protesting against the misuse of our creative and lived labour? Or are we Artstation, eager to pursue and exploit these new generative means of production?

The second is the broader and more abstracted question of ownership and the Commons. Lawrence Lessig, writing in his book Free Culture prior to this latest boom in AI and GAI said:

“Think about the amazing things your kid could do or make with digital technology — the film, the music, the Web page, the blog. Or think about the amazing things your community could facilitate with digital technology — a wiki, a barn raising, activism to change some- thing. Think about all those creative things, and then imagine cold molasses poured onto the machines. This is what any regime that requires permission produces.“32

At the time it was a semi-utopian argument, a defence against the enclosures of an earlier Vectoral Class which sought to limit the flow of data and lock creativity into heavily mediated IP and copyright laws. Standing here, near enough 20 years later, it seems that his Utopia has been almost entirely outflanked by new technology. The big brands, the big owners, the Big Vectoralists have grown no less militant in their pursuit of their own rights. Meanwhile the liberated Creative Commons Lessig aspired to has come to fruition in at least some warped sense – our creativity, our productivity and to a degree even our selves are no longer defined by permissions. The information economy has liberated it all, but only to the service of some. 

Commons for thee, but not for me.

Bibliography

Lessig, L. Free Culture Penguin Press 2004

Lindholm, C. Culture and Authenticity, Blackwell Publishing, 2007

Loving, G. Sad by Design: On Platform Nihilism Pluto Press 2019

Srnicek, N. Platform Capitalism Polity Press 2016

Wark, M. A Hacker Manifesto Harvard University Press 2004

Wark, M. Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse? Verso 2021

Zylinska, J AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams Open Humanities Press 2020

1.  Wark. M Capital Is Dead. Is this Something Worse? Verso 2019 p50

2.  Wark. M Capital Is Dead. Is this Something Worse? Verso 2019 p26

3.  Wark. M citing Debord, G in Capital Is Dead. Is this Something Worse? Verso 2019 p21

4.  Wark. M Capital Is Dead. Is this Something Worse? Verso 2019 p33

5.  Standing, G The Precariat Contexts Volume 13: Issue 4 2014

6.  Marx, K. Fragment on Machines (from The Grundrisse) p706

7.  Srnicek, N citing Vercellone, C. Platform Capitalism Polity Press 2017 p27

8.  Srnicek, N Platform Capitalism Polity Press 2017 p37

9.  Sadowski, J. Cyberspace and cityscapes: on the emergence of platform urbanism Urban Geography Volume 41 2020 p449

10.  Sadowski, J. Cyberspace and cityscapes: on the emergence of platform urbanism Urban Geography Volume 41 2020 p450-451

11.  Coldewey, D. Open AI shifts from nonprofit to ‘capped-profit’ to attract capital TechCrunch.com 2019 https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/11/ope...

12.  J. Zylinska AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams Open Humanities Press CIC 2020 p25

13.  Amazon Mechanical Turk Use Case – mturk.com

14.  S. Voyce Of the Subcontract: An Interview with Nick Thurston Iowa Review 2014

15.  D. Wershler cited J. Zylinska AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams Open Humanities Press CIC 2020 p123

16.  Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium? Christies.com https://www.christies.com/features/A-...

17.  D. Cooper  Is DALL-E’s art borrowed or stolen? Endgadget,com 2022 https://www.engadget.com/dall-e-gener...

18.  WebText – https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/we...

19.  https://haveibeentrained.com/ – During research for this essay I even found instances of my own artwork being included in harvested datasets! https://haveibeentrained.com/

20. A. Guadamuz DALL-E goes commercial, but what about copyright? technollama.co.uk 2022 https://www.technollama.co.uk/dall%C2...

21. Quach, K. The Register 2022 https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/2...

22. Paglen, T. A Study of Invisible Things Brooklyn Rail 2017 https://brooklynrail.org/2017/10/arts...

23.  J. Zylinska AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams Open Humanities Press CIC 2020 p88

24.  Acovino, V. Sci-fi magazine ‘Clarkesworld’ stops submissions after rush of AI-Generated stories NPR 2023 https://www.npr.org/2023/02/24/115928...

25.  In the most generous conception of the term.

26.  One of which I experimented with to write a version of this essay, the results were – happily – terrible.

27.  Reich, R. Now AI can write students’ essays for them, will everyone become a cheat? The Guardian 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

28.  Iqbal, M. YouTube Revenue and Usage Statistics 2023 BusinessofApps.com 2023 https://www.businessofapps.com/data/y...

29.  Vincent, J. Getty Images bans AI-generated content over fears of legal challenges TheVerge.com 2022 https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23...

30.  Weatherbed, J. Artstation is hiding images protesting AI art on the platform TheVerge.com 2022 https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/23/2...

31.  Morozov, E. The Real Privacy Problem MIT Technology Review 2013 https://www.technologyreview.com/2013... 

32.  Lessig, L. Free Culture The Penguin Press 2004 p305

Nearing the one year anniversary of my kidney donation I was getting a little bit reflective so, after reading back through my blog posts at the time, I thought I’d throw them all together in a little mini-book. It’s not too long, most of it’s just pulled from this site, but I have added an intro and a one year on update, as well as doing some editing and throwing in a couple of quick illustrations. If you’re thinking of donating it might offer some insights into the process, or at least my specific experience of it (your mileage may vary). If you know someone who is it might be of use too, I can’t say really. Beyond that it’s there for anyone who’s interested too, you never know. It’s Creative Commons licensed so you’re free to download and share it wherever you like (as long as it’s not for profit and you attribute it to me).

I might get a few printed copies done too, mostly because I wouldn’t mind having one, but if any else is interested then just let me know – could maybe sell some off to raise money for a related charity, or just sell them at cost, I don’t know really.

Anyway, fill your boots.

I’ve got no real intro to offer for this but just as a bit of background… it’s a project I did for my Masters which was primarily intended as a printed zine. I did get a small number of them run up but otherwise the PDF is here free to download and share (in line with the Creative Commons license) so have at it…

Should add for the unaware – the focus here is London, if you’re struggling to recognise the sites/context.

It’s been just over two months now since I had surgery. Perhaps a month and a half since I checked out after my second, infection related, hospital stay. In theory I’ve got another month off work, a month away from any commitments at all in fact. In reality though there’s not much escaping life and even though I’d be happy enough to continue in my semi-holiday/retired mode the list of things to do and obligations is already getting longer and I can’t avoid life any longer. A few more weeks and, some aches and tiredness aside, I’ll be completely out of the donation process, the whole thing will shift from ‘what’s happening now’ to a memory of whatever shape and weight it ends up being.

It’s a weird phase in the whole process. The nervous build up is long since passed, the worst of the pain has abated, I’ve met pretty much everyone I know and their excitement and nerves about what I did have faded into a vague background awareness that I did it. I still get the odd stranger being surprised by my kidney donation when it comes up but that won’t last much longer either really. Some people do somewhat define themselves by being an altruistic donor – and why not to be fair. It’s a big thing to do and their enthusiasm for the process, their pride in having undergone it and their evangelising about the positives of it are all completely legitimate reactions to have on this side of things. It’s also incredibly helpful. The same people who I got my answers from before the operation, those in the support groups especially, are still there helping through the next group of people who’ve chosen to donate. They’re committed to it, whether through a strong sense of achievement or a personal connection to recipients and I’ve nothing but admiration for their attention and support of the vaguely defined community of donors.

For me though that’s not really a path I’d choose, it’s not how I choose to process the donation into my day to day life and self identity. I’m proud of what I did, no doubt, but it’s a tricky kind of pride for me. I know I did a thing and when people say it was a good thing I won’t deny it makes me smile, it’s nice to feel like you’ve contributed something positive to the world. But really it was nothing. Well, not nothing, but relative to what a lot of people do it was an irrelevant sacrifice. So far it’s represented a tiny portion of my life, some (well, quite a lot of) pain and a lot of sitting around drugged up to the eyeballs. And that’s it. The process began, there were some steps to it and now it’s over. Compare that to other people, other people I know and plenty I don’t whose own efforts to do good things, to look after those around them have vague beginnings and seem never to end and… I don’t know, donating doesn’t amount to all that much.

I don’t mean for that to sound negative, although I’m aware it does a little bit. I am proud of what I did and while I don’t think it was a huge act I do know it was worth something. Certainly to the recipient at least but I don’t feel like it’s a defining act for me. It doesn’t make me good or altruistic or anything like that, although I’d like to think they way I live my life generally might. It certainly isn’t something I’d choose to define myself by as some people do for perfectly fair reasons. Ultimately though I’d like the wider scope of my life not to rely on one positive act for justification but instead for that act to be representative of the rest of my self, although admittedly I’m generally far too lazy to top that one act. 

At any rate, at this point my future relationship to donation seems like an interesting one, to me at least. I might not look to it as a pivotal act or anything but I’m curious as to how I’ll relate to it down the road, how it’ll fit into the rest of my life and my sense of self. None of which I can even find grounds to speculate on at this point to be honest. Only time will tell.

PS: Just for a practical update to follow the reflection… My recovery is going well, so far I’ve had no more issues of real note (touch wood) and the main thing left to notice is stomach muscles stitching themselves back together. Lift too much and I notice it, get nudged in the gut and I definitely notice it, have the cat stand on me and you can guarantee he’s flying across the room a second later. None of that’s a real problem though, just part of the recovery and nothing unexpected. As it stands I’ve no more hospital appointments either and only a visit to the GP a year or so down the line to even remind me of the op which is all to the good really. Beyond that there’s not much else to report, I’m tentatively starting to work again and the mundane is quickly taking over – I’m back to drawing nonsense pictures and selling stuff. My involvement in the process is rapidly winding down, until next time at least…*

*Give it 15-20 years and, assuming I’m not a decrepit wreck, I’m entirely up for donating another chunk of myself, believe they can take a whole load of your liver and you’ll still be fine. Bit of a break first though…

Just adding a list of all the articles I wrote regarding my kidney donation process…

Hack & Slash – Living Organ Donation

Kidney Business – Living Donation

Keeping it Renal – Living Donation

Spilling My Guts – Living Donation

Spilling My Guts Part II – Living Donation

The Countdown Starts – Living Donation

Clock Watching – Living Donation

Mission Accomplished – Living Donation

It’s been just about a month now since I went in for surgery and, for the most part, all is well. It has however been an exhausting process and one pretty riddled with shitty luck and some disappointments.

First things first though, my kidney donation was a success. Last I heard – and probably all I will hear – is that my kidney was deep inside some lucky soul who to their (I’m guessing) joy is now pissing liberally all over the place thanks to a small lump of my guts. So, that’s a nice thing. Unfortunately it’s taken a month for me to get a real chance to sit down and think about what’s happened and what I’ve done because the intervening weeks have been some pretty brutal ones.

Post surgery my recovery was, seemingly, all good. When you wake up you’re straight onto the strong stuff, a Fentanyl drip in my case with instructions to mash the button as much as you like to deal with the pain, which I did. From there it’s a few days of blood tests, catheters, nurses walking you around like a geriatric toddler and various people expressing far too much interest in your urine and bowel movements. All on a ward where people are in various states of despair and where sleep, when not assisted by heavy opiates, is a luxury. All to be expected though and that early stage was exhausting, uncomfortable and just fine with me.

I was checked out of the ward quickly enough and went off to stay with family for a few days before heading back to my own place. All good really, my stomach was a mess, getting up was an ordeal and walking further than the kitchen wiped me out but again, that’s what you’re signing up for in the aftermath of a pretty major surgery. Unfortunately it was during that period that the bad news for this last month started to mount up in earnest though. My Uncle, who’d, ironically, had surgery on the exact same day as me in a different hospital and for entirely different reasons passed away. His surgery was successful but post-op complications got him and, well, that was that. I haven’t got much to say about that really, but it did make it harder for my family and my being crooked in the middle of it obviously didn’t make things any better. But such is life.

The next bit of bad news came when, after being back at my own place for a few days, ambling around in the nip and being generally useless in a quiet and comfortable way I started to get hit with a lot of pain. My initial assumption was that it was routine post op issues – I’d been warned about gas and fluid build ups that could do some damage, as well as the basic pain entailed in having someone cut through your stomach and start tearing bits out. So with that in mind I left it 24 hours or so before I called into the hospital, fortunately a delay that didn’t do any harm but which certainly didn’t help either. At any rate the second I called into the ward I’d been on, one specialising in transplants, they told me to come in and get checked out so I did. As a quick word to the wise should you ever find yourself in a similar situation – if you’ve got drugs at home, take them with you. Yes, hospitals have a shitload of donkey strength pain meds on hand but until they check you in, you can’t have them. And if you find yourself waiting 3 hours for a scan while you’re in a lot of pain then you really are going to want something. That was a bastard of a day, although oddly enough not the worst pain I’ve ever been in. In fact it was maybe the one time in my life I’ve been thankful for Cluster Headaches because when it comes to giving you a frame of reference for suffering they’re a definite 10 and even as I was completely fucked I could at least say it could be worse.

So, once the scan was done they got me straight onto the ward and hooked up to the good stuff again which was a little slice of heaven in comparison to what had come before. Next up came the initial diagnosis which was appendicitis. What’s that got to do with your kidney? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It also had nothing to do with me, because that’s not what the issue was although they got as far as the porter wheeling me off for surgery to have my appendix whipped out before the doctors realised that much. Apparently the scans weren’t definite and, after arguing amongst themselves, they’d revised the diagnosis to one of Colitis, an inflammation of the colon and appendix. Something which taking my appendix would have done nothing to solve, although to be honest I’d have been happy enough just to have the thing out on the off chance it helped.

The next few days were hard ones. A hospital ward can be a tough place to be at the best of times, such as they are, but when you’re not entirely sure what’s going on and they’re not entirely sure how to treat it the hours can go by very slowly. Add onto that the people around you who can’t sleep because of their own crippling (and very audible) pain, the ones who have no control of their functions, the snorers, the dickheads who view headphones as optional (seriously, take them in with you if it ever comes up, people listening to shit at full volume deserve to suffer) and the fact that you’ll be woken up at least 3 times a night for obs, blood samples or just because something is beeping in your vicinity and the whole experience ground me down to the bone. I was nil by mouth for most of that stay and my initial doctor was, well, someone I didn’t get along with, to put it diplomatically. I think over the course of my second stay on the ward – about 5 days – I went through every surgeon, doctor and consultant in the hospital, each of them guessing at what the issue was and how best to treat it. Hence the nil by mouth bit, even once they’d put me on antibiotics they still weren’t sure if they’d want to operate so they kept their options open. A cautious approach for them, a miserable one for me and certainly the toughest period I’ve had during all of this but there y’go.

Eventually they committed to the Colitis diagnosis which also had fuck all to do with donating a kidney, in theory at least. My assumption was that an infection got in during surgery but the odds of Colitis hitting in such close proximity to a donation are infinitesimally small apparently so I can’t testify to that and the doctors certainly weren’t willing to say anything decisive. At any rate they discharged me eventually, the pain was still present but once they’d decided against surgery there wasn’t much reason to keep me in and I didn’t make a great secret of how much I hated being on the ward. And I should add that that’s not a slight to anyone working there, the nurses and the rest were grand but a miserable place is a miserable place nonetheless. Plus there’s a sort of infantilisation that takes over when you’re in hospital for any length of time. You can hear it in peoples voices, the shift from regular, independent human being to a slightly cloying, pleading tone as things get harder and nursing staff especially become not just people who are doing a practical job but almost emotional carers. It’s a reliance that I dislike to be honest, I find sympathy hard to deal with and pain especially is something I’m far more comfortable managing by myself rather than with an attentive audience.

Anyway, since I got out things have been getting substantially better. There was a day where I had to go back in as the pain flared back up again and they did say it was 50/50 on whether they re-admitted me but I was quick to refuse the offer and head home on the promise that I’d be liberal with the pain meds and not push myself too far. Since then though I’ve had more blood tests and the Colitis has cleared up, so all my physical problems now are just standard recovery stuff. Sore muscles, limited energy, no strength etc. Blissfully predictable really, not enjoyable, but entirely manageable and my narcotics regime has gone from prescribed opiates and fists full of pills to Guinness and naps.

The only other downside – and bad news comes in threes they say – is that my loss of earnings claim was largely ignored and I got a little over half of what I applied for. There are reasons for this, not good ones in my opinion, but reasons nonetheless. I can’t deny that it’s pissed me off a fair bit, claims should be processed before surgery or evidence should at least be rejected in advance instead of leaving people in recovery having to worry about it. If I had the energy I’d argue the point but at this stage I genuinely can’t face the prospect of back and forth discussions with some NHS finance department dickhead who’s unlikely to have much, if any, sympathy for me. Besides, being broke is never a novelty and I’ll get by one way or another. To anyone considering donating though I’d say be a bit more demanding about financial stuff before going under the knife, it’s really not a system geared towards looking after people with limited resources. Anyway, beyond leaving a bit of a bad taste I’m not dwelling too much on that aspect. Donating was obviously never about the money and even if things are harder due to this I’m still proud of what I’ve done and that’s what I want to focus on, nothing else.

I am proud too. Over the last month the act of donating has been obscured by a lot of other stuff and with the complications and set backs I’ve had my share of shitty luck but, frankly, fuck that. I’m happy with what I’ve done, I hope the recipient is too and that’s what matters here. The rest will pass and the good part will remain. As always I wouldn’t suggest anyone else donate a kidney – it’s an entirely personal choice and I don’t think anyone should be proactively advocating for it – but I can say that even with all the hard parts I don’t regret my choice at all… So, there y’go.

P.S. Definitely not recommending living donation for anyone (unless they want to do it) but you can register for normal, after-death donation here or to give blood here – which you should definitely do if you can.

P.P.S There’s a lot more I’d like to say, lots of thoughts about the process and details that might be helpful to anyone else considering an altruistic (or any) donation but today I just wanted to get all the practical stuff down really. A bit more time, a bit more rest and I’ll give some more thoughts.

Well, the day’s getting closer. I’m writing this on Saturday night and surgery will be first thing on Thursday morning. Or at least I have to be at the hospital first thing (7am), when they’ll actually take me into surgery I’m not sure. I’ve been told but, like a lot of things I get told, it just drifts like tumbleweed through my mind and disappears out the other side.

Waiting is an odd experience. A couple of days before I went into quarantine/shielding I went for a quiet pint with myself to try and clear my head and think through the whole process and these final steps. Can’t say I’m feeling overly confused or lost in it all, in fact day to day it just seems like a mundane process – like planning/going to work only less arduous. But there are still some thoughts pushing to be heard. Or questions looking for answers rather.

One of the main things that confuses me is the scale of it all. Personally it doesn’t feel like a very big thing to be doing. As I said, it’s a practical process, there’s nothing in it that feels particularly profound or special. At times I can see it as something grander and that’s nice, there’s certainly some pride to be found in that, but those moments are fairly rare because, to be honest, I don’t look for them much. Seems a bit, well, smug I suppose, or self-aggrandising. A bit of which is probably allowed, but still. Where I do see the scale is when I think of the person on the receiving end.

I went in to the hospital the other day for some final tests, to get a run down from the transplant nurse and to meet a surgeon, although not mine unfortunately. It was a fairly boring day, the surgeon I was supposed to meet, the one who’ll be cutting me up, was delayed, instead I got a junior surgeon who didn’t have much to say. The guy who took my dozen or so blood samples cocked it up to the point where they had to get an older woman who knew her business to take over (always go for the older woman in a hospital, she will know the way). I also ate a crap sandwich in the canteen. One interesting thing did happen though.

The transplant nurse spoke to us as a group, myself and two other donors who were getting a general run down on events to come. We chatted a little bit before hand and then we all had to introduce ourselves too. Was a first for me, talking face to face with donors. Unlike me though they were both donating to family and that’s… a hell of a thing. People tend to be impressed by an Altruistic donor (someone who donates to a stranger) but their path is, I think, far harder than my own. One woman especially was donating to her 6 year old son who’d been diagnosed, from birth, with kidney issues. Granted there’s far less of a choice in that than I have, in fact I doubt she saw in choice in her own sacrifice at all and the joy/comfort to come from it must be pretty profound as she’ll get to watch him grow up healthier and happier than he ever could without that kidney. But consider the sheer weight of this process for both of them. The fear of the transplant being rejected, the worries about the recovery, being isolated from each other in separate parts of the hospital, the debt owed even on top of giving that kid life. That’s a really big thing. And for my recipient I guess it’s no less grand but maybe it is less so for me.

That’s not a bad thing either, sure it’s a blessing in a lot of ways. I’d despair at being so close up to an experience as big as that, I infinitely prefer being a step removed and safe(r) from the worries and stresses of it. But seeing at least a glimpse of those involved in transplants, it makes you wonder just how big a thing you’re doing for that stranger out there. Ultimately it’s not a question that needs answering but still, sticks in your mind.

Anyway, quarantine. It’s going fine so far. I’ve always been very good at occupying myself and, while I go a bit funny without human contact, it’s not in a way that I don’t kind of enjoy. Plus work still needs doing, the flat still needs cleaning, the garden clearing – there’s all sorts of stuff I can procrastinate my way out of doing so it’s much the same as usual really. Albeit a little bit more solitary.

It’s also a glimpse of what’s to come after my recovery, although not a very clear one. I’ve another 2 weeks of shielding to do after the surgery and then ages signed off of work (12 weeks or so). I’ll be able to do a lot less by then but I’ve got ideas on things I can do – write, draw, prepare for my upcoming Masters (got onto a Masters course btw!). How realistic those plans are I don’t know, can only guess at how I’ll feel really. As to the surgery itself? Thought of it makes me queasy to be honest. Getting sliced up, catheter up in my junk, having nurses actively focusing on when I’m going to have a shit. Doesn’t bare thinking about really, which is why I mostly haven’t thought about it. No point in doing so as far as I can tell, dwelling on it all doesn’t make it any less necessary after all.

So, 4 more days and off we go.

P.S. Definitely not recommending living donation for anyone (unless they want to do it) but you can register for normal, after-death donation here or to give blood here – which you should definitely do if you can.

Well, the balloon has gone up, the bomb has dropped, the cat’s out of the bag and other such nonsense. I have a match and I have a date, my kidney has a new home to go to.

After all the waiting these final steps have come around dizzyingly fast. I got a call in the middle of last week telling me that they had a match from the recipient list and asking if they could book me in for surgery. I’d been expecting a call although getting a positive match was still in doubt and the wait to hear was… a thing.

I should probably mention the bit just before that call first though really. The week before they’d called me and said they wanted to test me for a potential match from Tier A, which means someone who’s waited a (very) long time or who has other issues that have led to previous/potential rejections of donor kidneys. That was a confusing turn along the path to be honest, going in I think I’d researched and expected to be part of the standard matching cycle and then the start of a donation chain. In fact, daft as it is, I’d started getting a little bit… I don’t know really, competitive? Not with anyone because I’m doing no more than others, but the prospect of being part of an extended chain of donations seemed like a bigger thing than a direct match, where you donate to one person in isolation.

Absurd, I know, but thoughts come as they come and that was one of them. It’s a bit like the low level arrogance of doing a manual job or something, sometimes you create an arbitrary measure of it like speed, or how much you ache afterwards and get the vague idea that by being quicker or more wiped out you’re doing something above and beyond. When all anyone else looks at is whether the boxes got shifted or the hole got dug. Only it’s considerably more ridiculous than that, because I’m only donating one kidney and effecting one life, a chain would have had zero effect on or relevance to that. But there you go, we’re all daft in our own way, that was mine.

Anyway, I went in for the initial blood test, had a long week of waiting and then got the call. It was an interesting one. My co-ordinator confirmed the match and then, to be honest, I blanked out for a bit. I’ve got another appointment before the big day comes, a meeting with the surgeon and I think someone else too – part of the medical formalities before they’re happy to go ahead. At the time though I was kind of staring vaguely around me and thinking ‘fucking hell’. And I’m still partially thinking that.

It’s not a ‘fucking hell’ that comes with any doubts, every reason I had and decision I’ve made about donating still stands but knowing exactly when it’s happening still puts you in a spin. There’s a lot of practical stuff to focus on for now, my surgery is set for the 26th of May, so about 4 weeks from now and sorting out work, sorting out the first stages of my recovery, sorting out people to help me, it all needs doing. And doing it is, I think, a good thing to focus on. Granted so far I’ve mostly just procrastinated and talked about all the things I need to do but the thinking and procrastinating is actually a pretty helpful way to fill the time in itself.

There are bigger thoughts hovering just out of sight too, bigger emotions that need a bit of attention as I go forward. I had a moment where one of them came into focus the other day in fact. It dawned on me that out there, somewhere, is someone who’s had their own call. Someone who’s had news that their surgery is going ahead too, their surgery where they’ll get themselves a shiny new kidney with barely any miles on the clock. I don’t know who they are, I never will in fact but that’s a hell of a thing isn’t it? Going beyond the practical steps you’ve taken and considering the life they’re ultimately reaching into, well, it’s humbling in a way and supremely comforting in another. It takes the routine tests and form filling and gives it an end point, a goal you can imagine which has something a bit profound about it. I reckon in the long run I’d like to spend more time with that thought but, for now, I feel a bit reluctant to indulge it. Those practical bits are still between me and that end, that’s where the focus needs to be.

The other big one to confront is the surgery itself. More than one person has asked me if I’m scared or nervous and of course I am, frankly it’d be weird as hell if I weren’t. Some stranger’s going to cut me open and yank out one of my internal organs, if that doesn’t make you nervous then chances are you shouldn’t be doing something like this in the first place. But so what really? Fear about taking a step towards something positive is one of life’s plus points in a lot of ways. You feel it, take the step anyway and then there you go, you’ve done something good. If there were no nerves involved then it’d be a lot less meaningful. Although that said it’s still one of those big thoughts I’m trying to sidestep for now, my path to the actual operation only really involves going in and getting knocked out, at least as far as I want to consider it. Which I reckon is fine.

Anyway, there you have it, that’s where I am at the moment. Planning and waiting. Organising and waiting. Procrastinating and waiting.

I might invest in a deckchair for my recovery.

P.S. Definitely not recommending living donation for anyone (unless they want to do it) but you can register for normal, after-death donation here or to give blood here – which you should definitely do if you can.

P.P.S. First plan for when I’m back on my feet is a kidney tattoo next to my upcoming scar, because why not?

Writing this just after my last post so might be best to check that out first…

After my psych interview the next (and last) big step on my adventure in kidney donation was the HTA interview. The HTA is the Human Tissue Authority and, when you’re going in as a Non-Directed Altruistic Donor (giving a kidney to a stranger) they’re the ones with the final say on whether you get the go ahead.

As with the psych interview there was a fairly nerve racking wait for this one if only because it seemed to take so long to come. I mean, it didn’t really, this whole process has been really efficient but when you know that there’s only one major barrier to pass things do seem to drag a bit. Unlike the psych test though I felt a lot less uncertain about it. I more or less knew (and was reassured by the incredibly helpful Facebook donor group) that it was retreading a lot of old ground as far as the questions went and it would also be taking into account all the stuff I’d done so far. The HTA representatives job is more of a final once over than anything, an additional layer of confirmation that you know what you’re doing, why and aren’t being coerced or paid to do it. And while I’d be more than happy if anyone wants to slip me a few grand on the side I’m also good without and pretty clear on my reasons for going ahead.

This interview was easy as really, it didn’t take long, the interviewer was nice and friendly as well as being very positive about the whole thing. The only downside was that, yet again, it was a remote meeting and for some reason it was on a platform called Blue Jeans (or similar), which doesn’t work on anything apparently. Still, technical issues aside we got through it and she told me that she was happy to give me the go ahead. Which brings my story up to date really. I’m currently waiting for the HTA to process their paperwork, whatever that may be, and then I’ll be going into the April matching cycle hopefully. Which means more medical tests to find me a match. What those tests are I’m still not sure and when the surgery will happen is similarly a mystery. Both the kidney unit and people who’ve donated have given me rough guides to when it might happen – late June onwards basically – but there’s a lot of uncertainty around it all. Usually they try to get things lined up as quickly as they can but with so many moving parts it’s hard to be too precise. I’ll hopefully be going into a chain, which means that my donation will trigger others and that means that everyone involved has to stay healthy for the duration. If someone comes down with Covid (or anything) then surgery can be delayed, if I get sick, it can be delayed. In fact a week before I go under I’ll have to quarantine regardless which will be fun I’m sure.

So, that’s a little annoying. I’ve never been a great one for uncertainty, I like to know what’s happening when, which runs a bit contrary to how I live my life – basically as one long act of procrastination, but there you go. Things will be going ahead though, all being well and I’m trying to remind myself that beyond waiting and not obsessing about it there’s nothing at all I can do to speed things up so no point worrying about it.

On a side note, for the uninitiated, a ‘Chain’ means that when I donate a load more people do to. Basically a lot of people who need a kidney have friends or family who are willing to donate one. That doesn’t mean they’ll be a match though. So instead of donating to their friend/partner/parent/sibling those willing people say they’ll donate to a stranger when their friend/partner/parent/sibling gets their own kidney. The person they donate to then has someone do the same, so you can build a line of transplants that goes through a fair few people. The starting point for that process though is the feckless likes of me, with our free, non-directed kidney. So my donation, with a bit of luck, will trigger a chain. Of course it might not, there’s also the possibility that there’ll just be a match for me who needs a kidney in a hurry and that’ll be that. Doesn’t much matter either way from my point of view, someone’s getting a high quality, barely used, one-careful-owner kidney whatever the case. Also, here’s a couple of pictures to explain it better than I have…

So there you go. That’s where things stand at the moment, I’m waiting for news on the next step and, gradually, trying to organise myself for it. Sorting work out will be a big thing, the NHS does cover loss of earnings but being self employed means that’s always a matter of luck as much as anything. I’ll have to submit earnings from a comparable period so we’ll see. I also need to plan out my recovery period, figure out how best to look after myself. Some people can, apparently, get back to work and life in next to no time. As my job involves a fair bit of physical work I have to err on the side of caution a bit more though, might be off for up to 3 months even if the recovery all goes well. Certainly can’t do any heavy lifting for a while and that’s unavoidable with what I do. Still, worse things in the world than doing nowt for a while. Something to think about though.

I’ll finish up with a listening suggestion which, next time, I might write some thoughts about. It’s over on BBC Sounds and it’s called ‘The Anatomy of Kindness‘. It’s not specifically about Altruistic Donation but it does include an interview with a kidney donor and a fair bit of related stuff. It’s interesting although I wouldn’t say I’m entirely sold on some of the conclusions/theories involved. Still, more on that next time.

Been a while since my last post on the kidney donation process and a fair bit has happened over the last couple of months. All of it, fortunately, good.

The first big step after my last post, or at least the first one that comes to mind, is the mental health interview I had. Like most non-blood taking meetings in this process it was done remotely thanks to the joys of Covid, this time over the phone.

It was just about my biggest worry as far as the process of applying to donate goes. I’m lucky enough not to have any particularly dramatic history of mental health issues but, as with most people, there have been hard times. Although to be honest the prospect of going over them really wasn’t what concerned me. For the most part I think I’m a fairly honest and emotionally articulate person, where I’ve struggled in the past I’m generally aware of the causes and have no real issue explaining them. Which is essential with this stage of the donation process I think, you need to be honest during the interview because ultimately as a donor you’re unavoidably stepping into unknown territory. It’s not enough to assume that you can deal with the potential hurdles and outcomes of the process, although self confidence is certainly a key factor, you need to measure your own expectations against the expertise and experience of others.

For example one of the questions was about potentially comparable experiences I’d had in the past and how I’d dealt with them. Initially I said there were none. To have gotten this far I’ve had to prove that I’m pretty healthy (even if I’m completely out of shape) so while I vaguely assumed I could deal with any issues that might come up I didn’t think I’d been through any problems relatable to surgery and the potential complications following it. Talking it out though – and having the psychiatrist overtly state it – I realised that I probably did have a greater frame of reference for what might happen than I assumed. I have, unfortunately, had experience with episodic Cluster Headaches, aka Suicide Headaches. Episodes are mercifully few and far between, once every couple of years maybe but when they come they’re a pretty dismal thing to endure. A month or so with 4-5 crippling headaches a day, like some evil bastard driving a screw driver through your face from the inside. I’ve been diagnosed so there’s some relief to be found in the donkey strength pills they give me when the bad times come but still, it’s a thing. It isn’t, however, a thing I give much thought to unless I have to. I certainly don’t consider it some sign of my ability to endure suffering though, I don’t view going through those periods as a marker of inner strength or anything like that. But within the context of donating I suppose it is and having someone else push me to acknowledge that is helpful in a way.

Sure, I think taking that sort of view of your own experiences can be helpful to most people because in my experience we seldom see what we go through as anything greater than what it is. Be it mental or physical problems we tend to face them as immediate obstacles and not reflect on what they change or expose about us. We forget how much just keeping going can be a measure of personal strength. In fact even as I talk to people about my own plan to donate I’ve heard people infinitely stronger and more capable than myself say they couldn’t do it, or that I’m brave for going through it all. Always comes as a surprise to me because from where I stand a lot of people go through vastly more than me and to donate a kidney would be a walk in the park by comparison. Not that I’d ever suggest that anyone else should do it of course, it’s an entirely personal choice.

Anyway, that aside I still found this call to be the most daunting one so far. If there’s a downside to the way the process of being an Altruistic Donor is dealt with it’s in the vagueries of the details. From more or less day one I knew this meeting was something that would happen but up until I was on the call I had very little idea of what it actually involved. The purpose of it is to establish whether someone is competent to make the decision to donate, isn’t being pressured and will be capable of dealing with any complications that may arise. Asked how I could prove any of those things before that phone rang I’d have said I had absolutely no fucking idea. I’ve certainly thought a lot about what I’m doing but I still had only the faintest of ideas of what a psychiatric review would entail. How do you prove that you’re competent? How can you judge whether past experiences are relevant, which of them are going to be a positive or a negative, what possible issues arising from the surgery and recovery they want you to show yourself aware of and able to deal with? To be fair there’s nothing you can really tell a person about this stage to prepare them, it’s a conversation, not a test. But it is also a test, if you see what I mean, and there’s no escaping that no matter how reassuring and encouraging those involved are. So I suppose there’s no way not to have nerves about it, especially in comparison to nice easy blood tests and x-rays.

Take my word for it though, the inevitable nervousness only lasts until you’re in the interview and while it may feel a lot more demanding than the practical medical tests it’s ultimately more or less the same. You need to be honest and the outcome will be the outcome, you can no more pretend to be right for donation than you can pretend to have a healthy kidney and while the questions are definitely probing they’re not being asked to catch you out.

I’ll leave this post there I think. Having left it so long since the last update I’ve plenty more to add but I’ll save that for next time rather than ramble on for too long.