WHEN DESIRE IS NO LONGER YOURS: AUTOMATED PREDICTION AND THE ILLUSION OF WANTING

June 2026

What is desire when it no longer emerges from the subject, but arrives already enlarged, accelerated, and hallucinated by an automated visual environment?

The problem is not that the subject “loses confidence” in their impulses. That formulation remains too psychological, too internal, too dependent on the fantasy that there is still a stable subject calmly evaluating the origin of its wishes. The more disturbing hypothesis is that the subject continues to act, but acts dissociated from its own desire. Desire is not abolished; it is artificially increased. It is not simply manipulated from outside; it is swollen from within by a tsunami of stimuli that enter through the eye, repeat themselves in the nervous system, and return as apparently personal appetite.

Priming designates the preconscious activation of associations, affects, expectations, or behavioral tendencies by previous exposure to a stimulus; after priming, a later perception or action is influenced without the subject necessarily identifying the source of that influence (Tulving and Schacter 1990; Bargh and Chartrand 1999). In the context of scopic colonialism, however, priming is no longer a local cognitive effect. It becomes a permanent economic infrastructure of the visual field: images, feeds, notifications, rankings, filters, metrics, and recommendations do not merely influence desire; they prepare the psychic weather in which desire appears.

The mental forecast is therefore not a simple erosion of autonomy, but the production of hallucinatory desire. This desire feels intense, urgent, and intimate, but it is partly assembled by automated systems whose economic function is to transform visual stimulation into behavior. The subject does not merely want the object; the subject is made to hallucinate the necessity of the object. Here the autonomous weapon is visual before it is ideological. It does not need to argue. It floods. It does not need to persuade. It repeats. It does not need to command. It arranges the perceptual environment until the subject moves toward what has already been made affectively available.

This is why the desire produced by cybercapitalist visual systems is not simply false desire. It is more dangerous: it is augmented desire, desire intensified beyond organic need, symbolic elaboration, or reflective choice. The feed becomes an artificial dream that does not belong to the dreamer; the image becomes an externally manufactured wish; the user acts, but the action is increasingly separated from the deeper architecture of their own wanting. This corresponds to Zuboff’s account of surveillance capitalism as a system that moves from behavioral prediction toward behavioral modification, and to Yeung’s “hypernudge,” where the environment itself dynamically steers conduct while preserving the appearance of freedom (Zuboff 2019; Yeung 2017).

Under such conditions, the subject may no longer be able simply to “change” desire through awareness, mindfulness, or cognitive resistance. These interventions presume a scale of stimulation that still leaves room for interpretation and delay. But a tsunami of visual stimuli attacks delay itself. It compresses the space between perception and action until the subject no longer passes through desire as a symbolic process; the subject passes through desire as a reflexive discharge.

Predictive coding helps explain the depth of this capture: perception is already structured by expectation, and automated systems continuously feed back images that confirm, intensify, or slightly disturb those expectations in order to keep the subject engaged (Friston 2010; Clark 2016). Reward theory sharpens the point: cues associated with novelty, status, sexuality, fear, social validation, or scarcity acquire incentive salience and begin to pull behavior even when reflective endorsement is weak or absent (Berridge and Robinson 1998; Schultz 2016). Desire then becomes machinically inflated: not desire as lack, not desire as symbolic movement, but desire as induced visual excitation.

For this reason, the political answer cannot be a naive return to “better choices,” nor even a simple anti-visual dictatorship that bans images as such. The issue is not vision; the issue is the automation of vision and its economic capture. What must be opposed is not the image, but the automated visual machinery that selects, times, personalizes, monetizes, and weaponizes images before the subject can metabolize them.

The necessary countermeasure is therefore an anti-automation of vision: a radical interruption of algorithmic visual command, recommender opacity, engagement metrics, addictive design, infinite scroll, compulsory visibility, and the economic conversion of the gaze into economic behavioral prediction. This would not be a dictatorship against seeing. It would be a politics of perceptual sovereignty: the defense of the living eye against systems that transform it into an injective and an extractive interface. The aim is not to destroy vision, but to separate vision from its automated economic capture, so that desire can again pass through time, body, memory, relation, and symbolic elaboration before becoming action.

REFERENCES

Bargh, John A., and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54 (7): 462–479. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-05760-002

Berridge, Kent C., and Terry E. Robinson. 1998. “What Is the Role of Dopamine in Reward: Hedonic Impact, Reward Learning, or Incentive Salience?” Brain Research Reviews 28 (3): 309–369. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165017398000198

Clark, Andy. 2016. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Friston, Karl. 2010. “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (2): 127–138. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787

Schultz, Wolfram. 2016. “Dopamine Reward Prediction Error Coding.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 18 (1): 23–32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27069377/

Tulving, Endel, and Daniel L. Schacter. 1990. “Priming and Human Memory Systems.” Science 247 (4940): 301–306. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2296719/

Yeung, Karen. 2017. “‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a Mode of Regulation by Design.” Information, Communication & Society 20 (1): 118–136. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.

VISIT THE LAB AND JOIN US

https://www.thementalforecast.world/