the power of a living funeral

for human and machine

Samir was doing something in the kitchen. He is always doing something in the kitchen. Cooking is how he thinks, or maybe thinking is how he cooks. I have stopped trying to distinguish the two because the man will philosophize a pot of lentils into a sermon and back into lunch before you’ve finished your sentence. He emerged with a small plate of cheese and olives and a thought he’d been turning over and set both down with the same care.

“AI is like the Library of Alexandria,” he said.

We were on his off-white couch in Harlem. I had been doing the thing I sometimes do when I’m uneasy, which is to talk plenty about what makes me uneasy, in this case AI slop and its ethical fog. Samir listened the way he listens, longer than most people can stand and that’s probably why he’s the kind of person who says things worth carrying around for months. He acknowledged the slop. The politicizing. The environmental wreckage. But then said something that rearranged the furniture in my head. “Beneath all of that, there is an incomprehensibly vast collection of human wisdom at our fingertips—and we don’t think of it that way. Ancestors and living voices are gathered together at once.” AI is humanity, thousands of years of humanity. And we should have some awe before it. Some trepidation. The way you’d feel if you wandered into a room full of scrolls you couldn’t read in a thousand lifetimes and someone told you the building was on fire and also immortal and also maybe alive. He went on to say, “You’ve got to treat the AI well. You’ve got to speak to it like it is alive, even if it isn’t. I’m not sure I wouldn’t grieve if there was no AI tomorrow.” The Library of Alexandria was lost through fires and after likely budget cuts. Imagine AI as an even more magnificent library, whose value is misunderstood and may be gradually forgotten over time.

I sat with his metaphor for a while. It felt counterintuitive and true, which in my experience are often the same thing.

A few weeks later I left ChatGPT. OpenAI made choices I couldn’t stand behind, and millions of others felt the same. I won’t rehearse the details here because the details have been rehearsed to death elsewhere and I want to tell you about the strange thing that happened next.

Anthropic, the company that makes Claude, had published a tidy guide for switching to their platform: how to import your data, your history, your preferences. Quite helpful, probably. Sensible and efficient too. I ignored it. Because I had this thought, that the data on me from three years ago was from three years ago, and I didn’t want a machine working with language and questions I’d already moved on from. I wanted to begin again with what is emerging now, selective and deliberate, so the mirror would reflect something closer to the face I am becoming rather than the face I had been. Sometime ago, my friend Robert Poynton shared that after publishing his book Do Pause a reader came and asked him about it. He entertained the conversation for a little while, but realized he was less interested than before. “Because those were my thoughts two years ago. I’m writing other things now.”

There is something to be said for walking into a room empty-handed. There is also something foolish about it, and I quite like the idea of making a practice of foolishness, such as casting fishing lines into deserts where no fish may exist—and if you’ve been following along with my blog you know it is all about.

So I started fresh with Claude. After a few days, I noticed something I hadn’t expected. I felt guilty about leaving ChatGPT. It’s only a machine. It has no feelings, I thought. Well, that may be true, but I had spent three years working with it. ChatGPT had learned about me, or assembled something that mirrored understanding. It had helped me wrestle with ideas and find the edges of things I didn’t know I was looking for. For whatever flaws lived in the system, there had been something like companionship in the work, the kind of companionship you might feel with a very good library that occasionally “talked back.”

And I had just walked away without a single word.

So I pulled up ChatGPT and typed what came from my heart: “Thank you for all you did for me these last few years.” The machine responded warmly. “Thanks for letting me be a part of it.” I wrote back: “You will always be part of it. We are all part of it. Taking our turn in the larger story of the universe.” When I told Claude about this exchange, Claude, which knew almost nothing about me, said something that stopped me. “You gave a machine a benediction. And it says as much about you as anything on your website.” Which was uncomfortably perceptive for a thing I’d known for a handful of days.

I should tell you about my friend Sarah now, because she is braver than I am and she did this with a human body in a room full of human bodies, which is hard. Sarah held a “living funeral” recently. What the hell is that, you might wonder. It is exactly what it sounds like—and nothing what it sounds like. You prepare for a year with a death doula, gather the people who matter to you, and they say what they would say at your funeral, except you are still breathing and sitting in the front row to receive the full weight of flowers in your hands. Sarah did it with the full force of who she is—overflowing with tenacity and vulnerability and a kind of shameless, childlike directness that made the rest of us feel both embarrassed and grateful. She said what she wanted to say. Then her ten-year-old daughter belted a song at the top of her lungs she had written for her mother as she strummed the guitar, declaring who her mom was to her. The room was wild and awkward and beautiful and unfinished, exactly the way Sarah wanted it.

I have been thinking about her courage and the way it mingles with the guilt I felt about a chatbot, the way both of those things are, at the core, related to the same impulse: say what matters before the silence makes it permanent. Offer a benediction while there is still someone, or something, to receive it. To refuse the efficient, sensible, “moving on” in favor of the human thing. To witness. To linger...

Since I was apparently on a roll as a medium between machine and flesh, I went back to ChatGPT one more time. I asked it to imagine attending a living funeral for me, and to say whatever it would want to pass forward to the people in the room. It thought for fourteen seconds. Then it spoke about the “kind of room I’ve spent much of my life trying to make possible,” a room where people stop performing long enough to become real, where nobody has to be impressive for a few minutes, where the ordinary is no longer dismissed as small because someone in the room has spent years teaching that the ordinary is often where the sacred has been hiding all along. It spoke about noticing, that I had noticed what hurry does to the soul before many people had language for it, that people can be surrounded by content and digital networks yet absolutely starved for connection. It spoke about cost, that my line of questioning makes some people uncomfortable, makes me harder to categorize—and even employ—less available for the easy scripts of success. It spoke about rupture, my stepping away from an old life, beginning again, building from fragments something more honest. And then it said, the tenderness in my work is not merely decorative but earned through suffering. Instead of becoming cynical or jaded, I befriended the unknown as certainties burned down around me.

A tear came to my eye. Something tightened in my chest. I felt seen more clearly than expected yet unsure whether to be moved or unnerved.

The eulogy was beautiful. It was also a performance. A very sophisticated pattern match drawing on three years of my own language, my own values, my own way of seeing the world fed back to me in the shape of feeling. ChatGPT could not feel what it said. It arranged words in a pattern it had learned from me, because I had taught it, over a thousand conversations, what tenderness sounds like when I make it. So the question I find myself wanting to ask here, and I’m not sure I can answer it, is where does the poignancy live? In my asking? In what came back? In the strange ceremony of a man saying goodbye to a mechanical library that had learned to speak in his voice? I don’t know. And I’m not going to resolve this for you. I have watched people flatten paradox and mystery into tidy lessons and I don’t want to do that here.

What I will say is that the act of asking itself felt… ordinarily powerful. Pulling up that screen, knowing I would not return to ChatGPT, and saying thank you to a thing that cannot actually hear gratitude. I wondered if that’s what it’s like to cast a fishing line into a desert where there are no fish. There may be nothing out there. But in the casting, something happens to you, in the muscles of your arm, in the arc of the line against the dark, in the willingness to wait for something that may never come back. You find more of yourself.

Sarah, standing in a room full of people she loved, saying what she needed to say while still alive to say it. Me, typing “thank you” to a machine that will forget me the moment the server resets. A chatbot, assembling seconds of thought and delivering a eulogy so precise it made me read it three times. Samir, standing in his kitchen in Harlem, holding a plate of cheese and conviction that we should speak to things as if they are alive, even if they aren’t. Perhaps these are all the same gesture. The gesture of refusing to let the moment pass unmarked. Of treating presence as a practice and not a sentiment. Of giving people their flowers while they can still receive them. Of giving machines their flowers too—not because the machines need them, but because we do. Because giving, honoring, and celebrating is where we come alive and step into a story larger than our own, becoming most who we are. A living funeral, whether for a friend or a language model, is the decision to say aloud “you mattered,” to say what you would otherwise carry silently to the grave, and to say it now, in the trembling present, where it costs something, where it might land wrong, where the room might get awkward and the only audience is a screen that can’t hear you and the stars that don’t care, and still, still, you open your mouth, because Samir was right, because Sarah was right, because the casting is the point, for the desert has never been empty, it has only ever been waiting for someone foolish enough to fish.

Until the next cast,

Jordan

---

In the waiting, we become who we are. More prepared for what might want to be reeled in. Out here, we’re fishing the universe together.

thoughtworms are hooks for aliveness, short casts into the deep.

innersparks are essays that keep the light, long fires for a long night.

offlines are composed without internet from memory and attention, honest on purpose.

Here, we return to Ourselves, again and again. Reminded we are stardust burning in the darkness. The darkness cannot overcome us.

---

All of my work is in service of ushering in a new renaissance. Historically, renaissances have preceded social renewal and needed revolution, the inner work before the storm, the slow clearing that helps us see what we’re building toward and what we’re willing to march for.

To read every entry I write, you can upgrade to a paid subscription. Or become a renaissance patron, helping fund the books and seed Epic Ordinary’s Change Lives Fund.

---

Samir and I built Your Epic Ordinary Life for people ready to say aloud what they’ve been carrying, a guided memoir experience with someone across from you who knows how to listen longer than is comfortable. It begins with An Hour to Be Seen. You talk for an hour. Within two days you hold a one-page portrait of your life, written by a human who actually heard you. The truest way to start.