An activity gets translated into something the system can represent. That representation becomes the target of optimization. Over time, the constraints that once kept the process tied to its purpose begin to weaken. The system becomes better at processing the representation while becoming less reliable at producing the outcome. A patient can move cleanly through the billing system without getting better, just as a student can leave with a score that says little about what was learned. What the system can measure begins to stand in for what it was supposed to accomplish.
And three more censored Ask Reddit threads. Questions that are critical of individuals, like "What's the worst thing you've seen a person do in whatever context" are rarely removed, but negativity about the system is predictably smacked down. Reddit is supposedly left wing, but to blame individuals and not the system is flat out authoritarian bias. Removed: What businesses do you think are quietly declining because younger generations aren't interested in them?
Apparently some moderator is protecting fictional bad individuals: Any movies where the villain wins?
And my favorite: What piece of 'obsolete' technology do you refuse to get rid of because it is still vastly superior to its modern replacement? I'm about to go for a walk listening to mp3s on a Sansa Clip player with wired headphones.
]]>
The closer we examined that first draft, the more the story's centre seemed absent. The protagonist was active, but lacked interiority. The worldbuilding had colourful details that somehow failed to build consistently. Certain hallmark sentences recurred over and over ("Not X, but Y..."). And the pacing was off, with important story beats given oddly little narrative weight.
Yeah, human writers can do all of those things. I think the most reliable way to tell human writing from AI writing, is that human writing is harder to read.
Related: my novel, The Days of Tansy Capstone, has now benefited from a year of polishing. As far as I know only one person has read the whole thing. I've been filling out some underwritten parts, I rearranged part one, and I just fixed a major story error in the Time Pit chapter.
The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers.
Going back to the afterlife, what happens to the monad that's now being you, when it leaves the game? There's a lot of evidence on this subject from near-death experiences. A common objection to NDEs is that those people must not have been really dead, but this is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. People have been dead by every clinical definition, including having no brainwaves, sometimes for multiple days, and have come back with reports.
These reports have less in common than you've been told. Not everyone goes down a tunnel to the light, or is greeted by family members. I heard about a guy who was greeted by John Belushi in a bee costume. Some NDEs are so out-there that the person can't even explain them in words. But this Reddit post generalizes from the bulk of reports: What The Afterlife is Like, Based on 100+ Years of Evidence.
Personally I have a variation of Pascal's wager. Pascal was like, "What if the wrathful Christian God is real? I'd better believe in him just in case." I'm thinking, "What if we get to write our own afterlife?" Surely it's not that simple, but what have I got to lose, if I imagine it in detail? This Reddit thread includes my answer from six years ago: If you actually go to a paradise after you die, but the paradise automatically is set up in a way which will be the absolute maximum best and pleasing experience for you, how would your paradise be like?
So, if the afterlife is so great, what are we doing in this dystopia? There are many answers to this question, which I'm not going to get into, but another thing that NDE-ers generally agree on is that suicide is a bad idea. I can make sense of this with the metaphor of walking out of a movie. You might walk out if it's near the end, you're not enjoying it, and you're ready to go home. But you don't want to walk out during the most intense part -- that's why you went to the movie in the first place.