*deep breath in*
the fears 👏 have always 👏 been (in one way or another) 👏 parallel 👏 to 👏 desire 👏
let me explain.
so many of the statements given by actual avatars center around some sort of need that was met by their entity. Lots of them even had a positive relationship with the fear that drove them.
Jane Prentiss is an excellent example - the Corruption has always been about a form of toxic and possessive love, but she personally has a deep desire to be “fully consumed by what loves her,” and finds a perverse joy and relief at allowing herself to be a home
Jude Perry is another - she fucking loved watching people’s lives be utterly destroyed. The Desolation only offered her a power of destruction on a grander scale, and then gave her a more intense rush of joy as she did its work. When she tells Jon that he needs to feed the Eye before it feeds on him, it’s almost as an afterthought; she was happily feeding the Desolation long before it burned her into a new existence.
Simon Fairchild. Every time that old loose bag of bones wanders into the picture, he is having a fucking EXCELLENT time playing with the Vast. He loves showing people their own insignificance, and he loves luring them into situations where he can throw them into the void as he smiles and waves.
Peter Lukas (hell, the whole Lukas family (except Evan. RIP Evan.)) hated. people. all he wanted was for them all to go away, to leave him alone. The Lonely only fulfilled that desire.
Daisy, Trevor, and Julia, all devoted to hunting those things they deemed monstrous.
Melanie, holding tight to that bullet in her leg because on some level, she wanted it. It felt good, it felt right, it felt like it fit right alongside the anger and spite that drove her to success.
Annabelle Cane first encountered the Web when she was a child, running away from home in order to tug on her parents’ heartstrings in just the right way to have them wrapped around her little finger. Later on she volunteered to be the subject of an ESP study. Hell, she’s the one who dangled the “Is it really You that wants this?” question over Jon’s head in S4.
And that brings us to Jon, beloved Jarchivist, the Voice that Opened the Door. Ever since he was a child targeted by the Web, he was looking for answers. He joined the Magnus Institute’s Research Department looking for them, he stalked his coworkers in search for them, he broke into Gertrude’s flat and laptop out of desperation for them. And when he realized that all he had to do was Ask to get truthful answers to his questions? It was only natural for him to jump at that opportunity.
Elias told S3 Jon that he did want this, that he chose it, that at every crossroads he kept pushing onwards, and the inner turmoil that caused was one of the focal points for Jon’s character through the rest of the podcast.
There’s a certain line of thinking in many circles about the power of the Devil: he’s not able to create anything new. All he’s able to do is twist and warp that which was already present, making it something ugly and profane while still maintaining the facade of something desirable.
Jon didn’t choose the Eye. But he did wander into its realm of power, exhibiting exactly the qualities it was most capable of hijacking and warping to its own ends. Jon didn’t choose the Apocalypse. But Jonah picked at him little by little, pointing him towards each Fear individually. Jon didn’t want to release the Fears. But the Web tugged on his strings just so and laid a pretty trail for him to follow until he reached its desired conclusion.
Jon didn’t choose ultimate power, or omniscience, or even his own role as Head Archivist. But he said “yes” to the right (wrong?) orders and kept on pushing for the right (wrong?) answers. He wanted to succeed at the work he had been assigned. He wanted to protect his friends. He wanted to rescue them when they were lost. He wanted to prevent the apocalypse, to save the world. He wanted to know why he was still alive, when so many had died right in front of him.
The Great Wheel of Evil Color that is the Entities might not fit as neatly into categories in this universe - maybe there was no Robert Smirke trying to impose strict categories on emotional experiences, or maybe the ways they manifest in the world has turned on its head (goodness knows many of them have been showcased and blended in some very fun and new and horrifying ways so far) - but their fundamental foundations seem to be the same. Hell, in episode one we learned that there had been enough individual incidents to create a distinction between “dolls, watching” and “dolls, human skin.”
Smirke’s Fourteen isn’t going to be relevant as common parlance, RQ said that already, but I don’t think that means the Fears themselves (and their Dream Logic-based rules) are different - I think it means that the levels of understanding, language used, and personal connections among people “in the know” are going to be entirely unfamiliar
211 notes
·
View notes
The real AI fight
Tonight (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."
Last week's spectacular OpenAI soap-opera hijacked the attention of millions of normal, productive people and nonsensually crammed them full of the fine details of the debate between "Effective Altruism" (doomers) and "Effective Accelerationism" (AKA e/acc), a genuinely absurd debate that was allegedly at the center of the drama.
Very broadly speaking: the Effective Altruists are doomers, who believe that Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") will someday become so advanced that it could wake up and annihilate or enslave the human race. To prevent this, we need to employ "AI Safety" – measures that will turn superintelligence into a servant or a partner, nor an adversary.
Contrast this with the Effective Accelerationists, who also believe that LLMs will someday become superintelligences with the potential to annihilate or enslave humanity – but they nevertheless advocate for faster AI development, with fewer "safety" measures, in order to produce an "upward spiral" in the "techno-capital machine."
Once-and-future OpenAI CEO Altman is said to be an accelerationists who was forced out of the company by the Altruists, who were subsequently bested, ousted, and replaced by Larry fucking Summers. This, we're told, is the ideological battle over AI: should cautiously progress our LLMs into superintelligences with safety in mind, or go full speed ahead and trust to market forces to tame and harness the superintelligences to come?
This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:
https://locusmag.com/2020/07/cory-doctorow-full-employment/
As Molly White writes, this isn't much of a debate. The "two sides" of this debate are as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Yes, they're arrayed against each other in battle, so furious with each other that they're tearing their hair out. But for people who don't take any of this mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics seriously, these two sides are nearly indistinguishable, sharing as they do this extremely weird belief. The fact that they've split into warring factions on its particulars is less important than their unified belief in the certain coming of the paperclip-maximizing apocalypse:
https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/effective-obfuscation
White points out that there's another, much more distinct side in this AI debate – as different and distant from Dee and Dum as a Beamish Boy and a Jabberwork. This is the side of AI Ethics – the side that worries about "today’s issues of ghost labor, algorithmic bias, and erosion of the rights of artists and others." As White says, shifting the debate to existential risk from a future, hypothetical superintelligence "is incredibly convenient for the powerful individuals and companies who stand to profit from AI."
After all, both sides plan to make money selling AI tools to corporations, whose track record in deploying algorithmic "decision support" systems and other AI-based automation is pretty poor – like the claims-evaluation engine that Cigna uses to deny insurance claims:
https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims
On a graph that plots the various positions on AI, the two groups of weirdos who disagree about how to create the inevitable superintelligence are effectively standing on the same spot, and the people who worry about the actual way that AI harms actual people right now are about a million miles away from that spot.
There's that old programmer joke, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't." But of course, that joke could just as well be, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't understand either":
https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/11/the-ten-types-of-people/
What's more, the joke could be, "there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand hexadecenary, those who understand pentadecenary, those who understand tetradecenary [und so weiter] those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't." That is to say, a "polarized" debate often has people who hold positions so far from the ones everyone is talking about that those belligerents' concerns are basically indistinguishable from one another.
The act of identifying these distant positions is a radical opening up of possibilities. Take the indigenous philosopher chief Red Jacket's response to the Christian missionaries who sought permission to proselytize to Red Jacket's people:
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5790/
Red Jacket's whole rebuttal is a superb dunk, but it gets especially interesting where he points to the sectarian differences among Christians as evidence against the missionary's claim to having a single true faith, and in favor of the idea that his own people's traditional faith could be co-equal among Christian doctrines.
The split that White identifies isn't a split about whether AI tools can be useful. Plenty of us AI skeptics are happy to stipulate that there are good uses for AI. For example, I'm 100% in favor of the Human Rights Data Analysis Group using an LLM to classify and extract information from the Innocence Project New Orleans' wrongful conviction case files:
https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html
Automating "extracting officer information from documents – specifically, the officer's name and the role the officer played in the wrongful conviction" was a key step to freeing innocent people from prison, and an LLM allowed HRDAG – a tiny, cash-strapped, excellent nonprofit – to make a giant leap forward in a vital project. I'm a donor to HRDAG and you should donate to them too:
https://hrdag.networkforgood.com/
Good data-analysis is key to addressing many of our thorniest, most pressing problems. As Ben Goldacre recounts in his inaugural Oxford lecture, it is both possible and desirable to build ethical, privacy-preserving systems for analyzing the most sensitive personal data (NHS patient records) that yield scores of solid, ground-breaking medical and scientific insights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eaV8SWdjQ
The difference between this kind of work – HRDAG's exoneration work and Goldacre's medical research – and the approach that OpenAI and its competitors take boils down to how they treat humans. The former treats all humans as worthy of respect and consideration. The latter treats humans as instruments – for profit in the short term, and for creating a hypothetical superintelligence in the (very) long term.
As Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax reminds us, this is the root of all sin: "sin is when you treat people like things":
https://brer-powerofbabel.blogspot.com/2009/02/granny-weatherwax-on-sin-favorite.html
So much of the criticism of AI misses this distinction – instead, this criticism starts by accepting the self-serving marketing claim of the "AI safety" crowd – that their software is on the verge of becoming self-aware, and is thus valuable, a good investment, and a good product to purchase. This is Lee Vinsel's "Criti-Hype": "taking press releases from startups and covering them with hellscapes":
https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5
Criti-hype and AI were made for each other. Emily M Bender is a tireless cataloger of criti-hypeists, like the newspaper reporters who breathlessly repeat " completely unsubstantiated claims (marketing)…sourced to Altman":
https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464030855880383
Bender, like White, is at pains to point out that the real debate isn't doomers vs accelerationists. That's just "billionaires throwing money at the hope of bringing about the speculative fiction stories they grew up reading – and philosophers and others feeling important by dressing these same silly ideas up in fancy words":
https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464024432217299
All of this is just a distraction from real and important scientific questions about how (and whether) to make automation tools that steer clear of Granny Weatherwax's sin of "treating people like things." Bender – a computational linguist – isn't a reactionary who hates automation for its own sake. On Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 – the excellent podcast she co-hosts with Alex Hanna – there is a machine-generated transcript:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2126417
There is a serious, meaty debate to be had about the costs and possibilities of different forms of automation. But the superintelligence true-believers and their criti-hyping critics keep dragging us away from these important questions and into fanciful and pointless discussions of whether and how to appease the godlike computers we will create when we disassemble the solar system and turn it into computronium.
The question of machine intelligence isn't intrinsically unserious. As a materialist, I believe that whatever makes me "me" is the result of the physics and chemistry of processes inside and around my body. My disbelief in the existence of a soul means that I'm prepared to think that it might be possible for something made by humans to replicate something like whatever process makes me "me."
Ironically, the AI doomers and accelerationists claim that they, too, are materialists – and that's why they're so consumed with the idea of machine superintelligence. But it's precisely because I'm a materialist that I understand these hypotheticals about self-aware software are less important and less urgent than the material lives of people today.
It's because I'm a materialist that my primary concerns about AI are things like the climate impact of AI data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems – not science fiction-inspired, self-induced panics over the human race being enslaved by our robot overlords.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space
Image:
Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg
CC BY 3.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en
287 notes
·
View notes
Armand’s treatment and how it impacted his life.
(‼️ Spoilers for Wakfu Season 4 and its first four episodes ‼️)
One thing that saddened me a lot when I was watching episode 4 was how Armand revealed to Amalia that he had wished he could go on adventures with her and the brotherhood sometimes.
This surprised me at first but I soon realized that it made perfect sense.
Armand was always jealous of her but I initially thought that it was only because she had the most attention from people, even their father. But Armand is the type to keep his thoughts to himself which would explain why despite how we see him looking at Amalia with a disapproving look, we never really got to hear him express his thoughts to her. His reason for wanting to go on adventures with her is also made clear: not only does he want to explore the world because it seems like fun since his sister always felt happy because of it, but the major reason is that he wants his father to look at him just like how he looked at Amalia.
When he finally tells her all of his thoughts and what he wants, we can’t help but feel like what he wishes to have can no longer be granted. Their father died not long ago, it is now too late to do anything.
Armand could’ve spoken up during all those years Amalia went to go on adventures. He had all the time in the world because he was always beside his father at all times.
But no matter how close he was to him, Armand never had the strength to speak his thoughts just like how Amalia dared to do so. It’s ironic really, Armand had the time and the moment to tell his father everything and yet, he didn’t because he didn’t think it was in his right to speak about himself and what he wanted to try.
The years of constantly seeing how his sister was getting loved by the people, how she was being viewed and called a hero by the very same people he was working hard to protect in his own way, how their father kept praising her constantly for whatever she did, how she kept getting adoration for adventuring and risking her life to save her people, while he was instead cooped up in the kingdom learning and practicing how to become king, left him in a position where he believed Amalia always had the upper hand on anything even when he wanted to express himself.
He had learned that every time he proposed an idea or even said some of his thoughts out loud during a particular situation, he would always get shut down by either his sister or his father, sometimes even both (the time when he decided to use a barrier of vines to block Ogrest’s tears but his father told him that his attempts were just “alright” when they were actually very effective for some time, the time where he told Amalia that she can’t leave while his father is terribly sick but his father supports Amalia and encourages her to go with Yugo, the time when Armand stated that none of the rulers had come to support them but his father cuts him off by saying that the queen of Bonta at least brought Joris to them which made Armand’s words sound minuscule and not as serious as the prince intended, etc.)
Granted, sometimes he deserved it (like the time when he got slapped by Eva when he was disrespectful to Dally in the OVAs or the time he did not listen to Amalia’s warnings when she told him Nox was coming and when she tried explaining who Yugo and Adamaï were back in Season 1 but not being listened to despite having Eva to back her up) but the majority of the time, he was trying his best to please his father and barely got a good comment for it.
So it wouldn’t be far-fetched to think that Armand never spoke about what he wanted to his father because he had a strong feeling that the answer wouldn’t be a good one.
As if things couldn’t get any worse for him, when his father takes his last breath and Armand was the only one there for him, who has been by his side all this time, who has devoted his entire life to training, learn and work hard to be like his father, he had only words for Amalia.
To hear his father only speak about his youngest sister and not mention him at all, must’ve terribly broke him on the inside. Even when his father was on his deathbed, he did not address everything that Armand did for him.
And it’s sad to see this happening.
Even though his relationship with his father and sister was mostly shown in the background, it was pretty obvious that their family had some issues that no one wanted to address in the room.
I feel like, in a way, we can somehow relate to Armand.
To feel like we can’t speak our minds properly because of a sibling or a figure in our lives who has shown to be better than us, even when we do work very hard to get noticed we barely get any comments or praises of the same size as theirs, to feel like we don’t matter as much as them so we should just stop talking and let them have their spotlight at all times.
And when we finally get the chance to gain our confidence or get into a position where we don’t feel as self-conscious as we used to before, we come to find out that it’s already too late to express ourselves to the people we’ve been waiting to truly be honest to, because they’re already gone or have moved on from you.
Armand’s case is a bittersweet and albeit depressing one.
What could have been a story of adventure, even if just for one day, was never realized. What could have been an experience that could have felt like a lifetime never happened. What could have been an adventure where he finally has his fun and gains a unique brotherly sisterly duo bond in combat would never become a reality. And what could have been a special moment in his life where he gets to personally know his sister’s friends would always stay a dream.
If only he knew that even a brotherhood member, Evangelyne, has a sister, Cleophee, who had her fun in the group. And even if it was just for a few days, a few moments, Eva’s sister had cemented her place in the Brotherhood and became an official member. To think that even if he had stayed a bit in the group, he would have not just become a part of their lives, but also become a part of their brotherhood.
But despite it all, Armand kept his chin up and looked forward to the future. He did not wallow in his sadness or blame Amalia for his silence during all these years. Instead, he pulls her up and tells her to not be saddened by their father’s departure, especially in front of his tomb tree, and consoles her as they hug.
Unlike anyone else, I believe Armand was able to push his selfish thoughts away (which involved blaming his sister for everything) and instead behaved like a king, someone who, despite not gaining everything he wanted in life, kept going and faced forward for what was to come.
Even though he has not been abandoned by his family, he did feel like he might've been behind everyone else at some point in his life.
He may have not been a part of the brotherhood but he’ll always have a place in his sister’s heart after what he did for her.
And I believe that his competence and his will to protect his kingdom without leaving for adventure would make him get along greatly with a certain white dragon.
57 notes
·
View notes