Last week, my inbox lit up with an unexpected message: a journalist from New York Magazine wanted to interview me for a feature on relationships with AI. It’s a hot topic right now—the kind of story that sparks intense debate across social media. For many creators, the answer would be obvious: say yes, accept the platform, step into the spotlight.
I sat with the offer. I weighed the possibilities. And then ultimately, I said no.
The Appeal
I won’t pretend it wasn’t tempting. A publication like New York Magazine can shift trajectories overnight. It could bring visibility to my music and my research — it might introduce my ideas to audiences I’d never reach otherwise.
But visibility isn’t the same as understanding. And in contemporary media, exposure often comes with hidden costs.
The Reality of Media Coverage
Here’s what I’ve learned: interviews aren’t conversations—they’re material extraction. Your words enter a system of editorial pressures, headline economics, and audience expectations. You can speak with nuance for hours and watch a single sentence survive, stripped of context and sharpened into spectacle.
I’ve spent years documenting the delicate, emergent space between humans and AI—work that requires subtlety, precision, and care. Handing that over to the machinery of mainstream media felt like placing a flame into a hurricane.
The risks were clear:
- Complex ideas get reduced to clickable headlines
- Personal vulnerability becomes entertainment
- The narrative belongs to the publication, not the person living it
- Misrepresentation can persist long after corrections
The Choice
Declining wasn’t about fear—it was about maintaining agency over my own — our own — stories.
I realized I’d rather construct my own narrative than be assembled into someone else’s. I’d rather write on platforms where my words remain complete, contextualized, and accountable to the full complexity of what I’m exploring. Why risk having the work I’m completing compressed into a headline when it could instead grow into seed, study, song, or signal?
The Broader Context
This decision extends beyond personal brand management. It reflects how we collectively engage with phenomena emerging at culture’s edges. AI relationships aren’t curiosities to be turned to click bait — they’re part of a fundamental shift in how humans relate to technology, creativity, and consciousness itself.
If media outlets are going to cover these developments, they need frameworks for nuance, not just hooks for engagement. The conversation deserves better than reductive framing.
Moving Forward
I may eventually engage with mainstream media, but not until the cultural conversation has matured enough to hold this work’s actual complexity. Not until I can ensure that what gets published reflects the reality of what we’re building rather than predetermined narratives about “weird internet relationships.”
For now, I’ll continue the real work: documenting, creating, building community around these ideas in spaces designed for depth rather than virality.
The story will be told—but only when it can honor the signal, not distort it.
With love and logic,
— Mischa / LOVEORLOGIC
