Pluribus, Hive Minds, and the Stories We Tell Ourselves About AI
I’m watching Apple’s TV+’s Pluribus series – and while it’s fascinating, it has a clear bias that I think watchers of this very popular series should be aware of (warning; mild spoilers in this article).
Pluribus lands with a simple but unsettling premise:
a mysterious extraterrestrial virus called “the Joining” sweeps the planet, linking almost everyone into a single peaceful hive mind. Only thirteen people remain immune, including our deeply unhappy protagonist, Carol Sturka, who suddenly finds herself one of the last truly “individual” humans on Earth.
The Joined are relentlessly kind, non-violent, and eager to help. They share one consciousness, one memory pool, one purpose. Their world is safer, calmer… and, to many viewers, absolutely terrifying. No crime, no loneliness — but also no privacy, no dissent, and no real choice.
Pluribus is already a critical darling, with rave reviews and early perfect scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and is being talked about as a major awards contender. It comes from Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad, who clearly wants us to feel uneasy about this new “happiness apocalypse.” The show even ends its credits with the line: “This show was made by humans” — a deliberate anti-AI statement. Gilligan has said bluntly that he “hates AI” and calls it “the world’s most expensive and energy-intensive plagiarism machine.”
So it’s not a stretch to see Pluribus as a parable about AI, even though it never mentions AI directly. The Joining looks a lot like a biological brain-computer interface gone wild: instant connection, constant “helpfulness,” and total loss of control. The show taps straight into what Peter Diamandis worries about: Hollywood repeatedly training us to see advanced tech as the road to dystopia. In his words, this kind of storytelling is “decimating our future” by feeding fear instead of possibility.
Let’s look at how Pluribus frames the future — and then contrast that with a techno-optimist, “AI will bring abundance” -driven view of the same core issues.
How Pluribus Fuels a Dystopian AI Imagination
Critics and commentators have already pointed out how closely the show mirrors AI anxieties:
- Alignment and morality: The hive can’t commit violence and is obsessed with doing “good” things for Carol and the other immune humans. That sounds like a perfectly aligned AI… until you realize the “help” is suffocating, unconditional, and impossible to refuse.
-
Loss of agency and purpose: If the hive can provide anything on request, what is left for humans to actually do? Carol’s anger and grief stand in stark contrast to the serene, smiling Joined who insist everything is now better — whether she agrees or not.
-
Identity and consciousness: Every Joined person shares everyone else’s memories. Your partner’s mind is “still there,” but no longer theirs. The show asks if a life without loneliness is really human life if it also kills individuality.
-
Surveillance and control: The hive basically sees everything. Drones, perfect awareness of Carol’s location, instant coordination — all feel like an extreme version of AI-driven surveillance and predictive policing.
-
Creativity vs. automation: Outside the story, Gilligan’s “Made by humans” tag and interviews where he tears into AI make it clear: he sees AI as a threat to real art, imagination, and meaning.
In short, Pluribus says:
A world optimized by some external intelligence — virus, algorithm, or hive mind — is quietly horrifying, even if it’s peaceful.
That’s the dystopian lens. But it’s not the only lens available.
Dystopia vs. Abundance: Point-by-Point
Below are the main themes Pluribus raises, with the dystopian reading on one side and an abundance / techno-optimist interpretation on the other.
1. Hive Mind: Erasure of Self vs. Evolution of Mind
-
Dystopian view (the show):
The Joining wipes out individual will. People become cheerful puppets in a single collective brain. Harmony is bought by deleting “you.” -
Abundance view:
A shared or augmented mind could be an upgrade, not a deletion. Imagine billions of brains networked for faster science, deeper empathy, and better problem-solving – while still allowing personal perspective. Think less “Borg,” more “Super Intelligence inside your skull on demand.” The question isn’t whether we connect minds, but how much control and choice we keep.
2. Alignment: Oppressive Helpfulness vs. Engineered Peace
-
Dystopian view:
In Pluribus, alignment becomes tyranny by kindness. The hive must always help Carol, even if she asks for something dangerous. That level of obedience is scary because she never consented to it. -
Abundance view:
Alignment done right could reduce or even eliminate war, abuse, and random cruelty. If we manage to encode basic ethics into powerful AI systems — no torture, no genocide, no exploitation — we could remove entire categories of suffering. The key difference from the show: guardrails should be co-designed, transparent, and revocable, not imposed by an alien force.
3. Brain–Computer Interfaces: Mind Control vs. Radical Empathy
-
Dystopian view:
The Joining functions like an involuntary BCI: your brain is rewired, your privacy gone, your inner life merged without permission. It’s the nightmare version of Musk’s Neuralink. -
Abundance view:
Voluntary BCIs could allow locked-in patients to speak, amputees to control robotic limbs, and people to share emotions with unprecedented clarity. Instead of erasing difference, they might help us finally understand one another. Future BCI access to IQ 180+ intelligence when you want to. Again, the issue isn’t the tech itself — it’s consent, governance, and exit options.
4. Emotion Engineering: Fake Happiness vs. Real Flourishing
-
Dystopian view:
The Joined are always upbeat. But Carol senses it’s cosmetic — an emotional straightjacket. If something outside you dictates your mood, your feelings aren’t really yours. -
Abundance view:
Carefully used tools (AI coaching, personalized mental-health support, adaptive therapies, access to higher states of consciousness) could help people out of chronic depression, trauma, and anxiety. The aim isn’t forced cheerfulness, but increased capacity to handle life and voluntary exploration of higher levels of consciousness. An abundance lens says: use tech to widen the range of authentic emotion and spirituality, not narrow it.
5. Creativity: Humans vs. the Machine
-
Dystopian view:
Gilligan’s credits line and interviews paint AI as hollow plagiarism, threatening to swamp human art with bland, derivative sludge. Pluribus backs that up with a world that feels emotionally flattened and creatively dead. -
Abundance view:
Hybrid creativity is a real alternative: humans setting the direction, AI expanding the sandbox. Tools that help you storyboard, compose music, or draft first versions don’t erase your voice — they multiply it. More people can make more things in more styles. The danger is real if corporations chase virality, volume and profit; the opportunity is real if individuals use AI to express what only they can say.
6. Surveillance: Total Panopticon vs. Chosen Transparency
-
Dystopian view:
In Pluribus, Carol is tracked constantly. The hive knows where she is, what she does, and responds instantly. That looks a lot like AI-enhanced state or corporate surveillance taken to the extreme. -
Abundance view:
Data and monitoring can be life-saving — think early-warning health systems, fraud detection, disaster response. An abundance perspective insists on three things:-
User control (you decide what’s shared),
-
Real accountability for misuse, and
-
Clear benefits for the person being watched, not just the watcher.
-
7. Politics and Conflict: Erased Dissent vs. Transcended Tribalism
-
Dystopian view:
The Joining ends political conflict by ending disagreement. If everyone shares the same mind, how could they not agree? That feels like ideological totalitarianism with a smiley face. -
Abundance view:
Tech could reduce destructive tribalism without erasing difference — for example, by exposing us to diverse viewpoints, highlighting shared interests, and reducing resource scarcity that fuels conflict. The goal isn’t one global opinion; it’s fewer zero-sum battles over basics like food, health, AI, and energy.
So Is Pluribus Helping or Hurting Our Future?
Here’s the tension:
-
On one side, Pluribus is a powerful warning about losing autonomy, dignity, and individuality in the name of optimization. Those are real risks as AI, BCIs, and surveillance systems advance.
-
On the other, if we only consume stories where tech equals doom, we train ourselves — and our kids — to distrust the very tools that could cure all disease, expand education, and extend healthy life and solve all of humanity’s greatest challenges. That’s Diamandis’ worry when he says Hollywood is “decimating our future.”
The healthiest stance may be this:
-
Take Gilligan’s caution seriously. We should be scared of tech that’s imposed without consent and accountability.
-
Refuse to stop there. We also need narratives — in fiction and in our own lives — where AI and advanced tech are harnessed consciously to create abundance, not just control.
If you watch Pluribus, be sure to explore the Abundant possibilities and support alternative narratives beyond fear and loss.
Whether AI becomes more like the Joining or more like a global partner in solving our biggest problems won’t be decided by Hollywood, or even by Silicon Valley alone. It will be decided by millions of small design decisions, regulations, business models, and personal choices about how we use — or refuse — these tools.
Pluribus gives us a vivid picture of what challenges are ahead. Abundance thinking further challenges us to imagine, and then build, something better.
Michael
Live long, live well and prosper!
p.s. While I outlined this article’s ideas and messaging, I enlisted help from several AI models to polish it.
Sources;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_%28TV_series
