![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Repost:Project 2025 Commentary
Mar. 27th, 2026 09:21 amBecause it’s even more relevant now than it was a year ago, I post the link to my detailed review/commentary on the blueprint the current administration is following in its quest to destroy the country.
http://grandcentralarena.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Ryk-Spoor-Project-2025-Commentary.pdf
I posted this previously on FB, which is a reversal from my normal; I usually write my long posts here and point to them from FB. So, onward...
I do not use AI. And I will not use it.
This isn't because I don't see what I could do with it -- yes, despite its current limitations and flaws.
It's because (A) all the current AIs are built on a foundation of stealing other people's work in the name of "research" and then using it for commercial purposes -- including quite a number of my own books, and the artwork of many artists I know, respect, and have even in many cases used the services of.
(B) Our current society is structured such that the use of AI is in no way beneficial for anyone except a very, very small fraction of the population. From the point of view of its deployers, it's a money and time saving system. But the money and time it saves is in the work of the majority of the workforce.
There are those who will argue that X profession or Y profession will be resistant to AI intrusion (for instance, plumbers or electricians) because of the physical limitations of the job. And that's true, to an extent, but ONLY to an extent. We already have automated cars. They kinda suck in various ways, but there's no doubt that people are working constantly on improving autonomous driving; when that reaches the point that it's as safe or safer than human drivers, good-bye to 99% of the driving-based jobs. White collar jobs are far more vulnerable, and make up a HUGE portion of total jobs.
If we had a society that valued PEOPLE, this wouldn't be a big deal. Okay, you can't spend your time in an office filing forms, so now you can go home and have fun, maybe do some hobby you've wanted to do but didn't have the time for.
But our current society REQUIRES that you have "A Job" unless you're already quite wealthy.
And AI is a *general* innovation, not a *specific* one. If you have a specific innovation that, say, kills off the buggy whip market, there are usually new emergent jobs that will absorb the relatively small fraction of the population that used to work in that industry.
There is no possible way that AI will create more jobs than it disrupts, if it is at all effective in its roles. It WILL cause -- and is ALREADY causing -- significant layoffs, and eventually an unheard-of spike in unemployment.
The current administration and the techbros around them will have a "solution" to this, but it's most likely going to be "slave labor" with a new label. I'm not exaggerating; Elon Musk suggested that his proposed colonies would be populated by people from all walks of life... under what was just a relabeled form of indentured servitude.
So unless, and until, the most fundamental problems with it are solved, I do not, and will not, use AI for anything I can possibly avoid. No matter how fun it might be.
Let's look in on the young lady who we only saw briefly in the prior chapter...
( ... she was a bit upset... )
GODSWAR is now released. The Mask of Ares and The Spear of Athena are now available!
We continue snippeting with the first main chapter...
( Let's meet our actual protagonists... )
The GODSWAR dualogy is re-releasing tomorrow, and I'm doing some snippets and such to celebrate.
Today, it's the intro and first chapter of The Mask of Ares!
-------
( Click for more... )
Resolving the Paradox of the Bad Dog
Feb. 24th, 2026 06:58 pmTo take a completely different tack today, here is a scientific study performed by my family, particularly Gabe and myself.
All of us who own or are around dogs have experienced at least one, often many, moments in which the dog performs actions that may cause us to say they are a "bad dog".
This is, however, in direct opposition to the fact that all dogs are good dogs. If all dogs are good dogs, it follows that no dog can be a bad dog. Yet we are faced with evidence of the existence of naughty dogs quite often.
After extensive research, late-night discussions of theory, and probably too many cans of 1980s JOLT Cola, we are proud to report that we have successfully resolved this paradox with a breakthrough in canine physics.
Consider a dog D, traveling through a house H. D has a potential for Naughtiness, N, which is a complex function derived from multiple factors including the amount of attention A that D has received in time T, the presence of aggravating factors such as mail carriers, birds, vacuum cleaners, and such (or more serious ones such as mistreatment), distraction factors such as balls, squeaky toys, and stuffies, how hungry D may be, and the presence of temptations T such as unattended food, an unguarded trash can, and so forth.
Normally, N is relatively low. However, when the various factors align, N can rapidly rise to the point that it approaches a probability of 1 that D will perform a Naughty action and thus be a Bad Dog. For instance, D enters the kitchen where multiple dishes have been prepared. D is hungry, and the proximity of food increases N in synergy with this condition, but there are humans in the kitchen who pay attention to D, drawing off some of the potential N.
Consider, instead, if the food were laid out on the counter in preparation for a meal but the humans were not present. D is then unmoderated by additional attention, and as D's proximity to the food increases, N rises -- in this case according to the inverse square of the distance to the desired food item. D places their paws on the counter to examine the food more closely, and we can see that N quickly achieves a value at which Naughtiness is inevitable.
This is, however, in direct conflict with the inherent Goodness G of dog D. Goodness is, however, a single state, not a spectrum, as all dogs D are Very Good Dogs.
As we can see, then, this is a parallel situation seen in particle physics. A state transition must follow in which the Good Dog is no longer present.
But conservation of matter and energy requires that SOMETHING be present.
That something is the unitary quantum of Naughtiness, the inherent opposite to Good that is required by symmetry.
More importantly, as can be seen by the preceding discussion, despite there being many different factors and paths towards the accumulation of potential N, all of these eventually converge to a single value. There is only ONE such state, despite there being so many different dogs D in varied conditions of health, repletion, attention-gaining, and so on.
This entity we call the Negadog.
When the potential N reaches a unitary probability, a state transition occurs in which the Good Dog is replaced by the Negadog, which then performs the Naughty action. However, in the instant of performing the action, the potential N is discharged and the Negadog drops back to its potential state, returning the Good Dog.
This explains all the puzzling aspects of the paradox. The Good Dog is aware that something Naughty was there, but also that they have failed to stop the Negadog, because of course the Good Dog cannot coexist with the Negadog. Unfortunately for many Good Dogs, human perceptions are of course inadequate to perceive quantum transition phenomena, and to our slow perceptions it appears that the Good Dog has performed an action that makes them at least for the moment a Bad Dog.
Thus the common puzzlement of a dog when scolded. They know they have done nothing bad, but they know something bad has happened.
With this scientific breakthrough, the next step will be to determine ways in which the Negadog might be observed. Research is ongoing.
All of us who own or are around dogs have experienced at least one, often many, moments in which the dog performs actions that may cause us to say they are a "bad dog".
This is, however, in direct opposition to the fact that all dogs are good dogs. If all dogs are good dogs, it follows that no dog can be a bad dog. Yet we are faced with evidence of the existence of naughty dogs quite often.
After extensive research, late-night discussions of theory, and probably too many cans of 1980s JOLT Cola, we are proud to report that we have successfully resolved this paradox with a breakthrough in canine physics.
Consider a dog D, traveling through a house H. D has a potential for Naughtiness, N, which is a complex function derived from multiple factors including the amount of attention A that D has received in time T, the presence of aggravating factors such as mail carriers, birds, vacuum cleaners, and such (or more serious ones such as mistreatment), distraction factors such as balls, squeaky toys, and stuffies, how hungry D may be, and the presence of temptations T such as unattended food, an unguarded trash can, and so forth.
Normally, N is relatively low. However, when the various factors align, N can rapidly rise to the point that it approaches a probability of 1 that D will perform a Naughty action and thus be a Bad Dog. For instance, D enters the kitchen where multiple dishes have been prepared. D is hungry, and the proximity of food increases N in synergy with this condition, but there are humans in the kitchen who pay attention to D, drawing off some of the potential N.
Consider, instead, if the food were laid out on the counter in preparation for a meal but the humans were not present. D is then unmoderated by additional attention, and as D's proximity to the food increases, N rises -- in this case according to the inverse square of the distance to the desired food item. D places their paws on the counter to examine the food more closely, and we can see that N quickly achieves a value at which Naughtiness is inevitable.
This is, however, in direct conflict with the inherent Goodness G of dog D. Goodness is, however, a single state, not a spectrum, as all dogs D are Very Good Dogs.
As we can see, then, this is a parallel situation seen in particle physics. A state transition must follow in which the Good Dog is no longer present.
But conservation of matter and energy requires that SOMETHING be present.
That something is the unitary quantum of Naughtiness, the inherent opposite to Good that is required by symmetry.
More importantly, as can be seen by the preceding discussion, despite there being many different factors and paths towards the accumulation of potential N, all of these eventually converge to a single value. There is only ONE such state, despite there being so many different dogs D in varied conditions of health, repletion, attention-gaining, and so on.
This entity we call the Negadog.
When the potential N reaches a unitary probability, a state transition occurs in which the Good Dog is replaced by the Negadog, which then performs the Naughty action. However, in the instant of performing the action, the potential N is discharged and the Negadog drops back to its potential state, returning the Good Dog.
This explains all the puzzling aspects of the paradox. The Good Dog is aware that something Naughty was there, but also that they have failed to stop the Negadog, because of course the Good Dog cannot coexist with the Negadog. Unfortunately for many Good Dogs, human perceptions are of course inadequate to perceive quantum transition phenomena, and to our slow perceptions it appears that the Good Dog has performed an action that makes them at least for the moment a Bad Dog.
Thus the common puzzlement of a dog when scolded. They know they have done nothing bad, but they know something bad has happened.
With this scientific breakthrough, the next step will be to determine ways in which the Negadog might be observed. Research is ongoing.
A discussion with a knowledgeable friend on this triggered the following post, which will cover a number of elements of both the technology and, perhaps more importantly, its uses and impacts.
( Read on... )
So here's todays discussion. It is in fact related to some personal experiences, but I'm not going into those here.
- ( Read more... )
Cut for length...
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
The "demand for perfection -- but only on one side" approach is, in fact, a major tactic and stumbling block in modern politics, and I should probably make that another post.
Regardless of whether "AI" ever actually becomes intelligent, rather than just being an increasingly good "predict the kind of thing you want or should see out of this query" machine (a completely separate and also increasingly complicated subject), LMM and related "huge trained neural network" AIs are here and people have invested unfathomable amounts of money into them. Even if the bubble explodes, these AIs will still exist.
So what SHOULD they be used for?
Well, right off we get a conflict between "in the ideal world" and "in the current world".
You see, an awful lot of the conflict about AI right now -- the copyright suits, the arguments about using it for doing desk work, for finding ways to emulate dead, or even still living but aged, actors, etc. -- REALLY boils down to this:
Our society has no support network. So anything that humans do that sustains them is specifically a matter of SURVIVAL.
It's not just a matter of writing fun stories or making silly pictures. It's a matter of that being a significant survival element, perhaps the ONLY survival element, that many people have to keep them from disaster. Thus, any device or method that looks to make the individual's contribution to this work less valuable is a direct threat.
For AI, the problem is that it is QUALITATIVELY, as well as quantitatively, different from prior technological advances. It is GENERALIZABLE to tons of tasks that were until now almost entirely the domain of human endeavor. Trained LLMs are getting better and better at recognizing and copying and adapting multiple different types of writing - not just individual human styles, but different kinds of writing -- professional proposals, book reports, novels, patents, etc. -- and there's a LOT of people that threatens, and the number of people whose jobs are at risk is increasing with every improvement of the technology.
It is also inherently FAR more deployable for such tasks. If I want to make, say, a Terminator bot, even assuming I have the AI for it available, building a militarily robust, armed, flexible, powerful independent robotic platform is TOUGH, and takes a long time, just like retooling a factory.
But if your AIs are already generating text and can format it into Word, it takes basically NO effort to replace the guy at the desk with the AI writing software package.
In the IDEAL world, human survival and basic happy living would be ensured -- the robotic deployment and increase in productivity would be partially diverted to supporting all the people involved. Such people could then write what they wanted, paint what they wanted, with or without AI assistance or interference, and it would not impact their ability to live well.
That's not the way it currently works, though, so I am very much against the current trend to try to find ways to use AI to displace existing human workers in areas the humans depend on.
However, there ARE areas in which modern large-trained-neural network systems absolutely can and should be used even now.
For example, AIs are extraordinarily good at pattern discovery, and can also be trained to ANALYZE the patterns to see if a coherent framework emerges.
This is ideal for things like mathematical and physical/materials research, especially in the theoretical areas or the design realms where much of the problem is that the overall subject area is far, far too huge for a human being to comprehend. An AI properly designed could, at the least, pull out multiple "huh, that's funny" areas in a given field and draw a human's attention to them for further analysis. Some AIs are already showing the ability to perform what appear to be solid mathematical proofs, which is quite an interesting capability and has implications not just for mathematicians but for things like quantum computation and materials design.
AIs of this nature can also probe and model the structure of an astonishing number of chemical compounds and, perhaps more importantly, metamaterial structures, to discover materials that can do things we didn't know were possible -- or ones we did know were possible, but were having problems finding practical methods to achieve. New antibiotics, perhaps; optical metamaterials with negative indices of refraction; superconductors and super-insulators of both electricity and heat. This is the kind of thing AI is properly made for -- locating patterns within masses of data or of processes that are far too complex for human beings to view as a gestalt.
The same thing applies to medical advances; understanding the complexities of modern medicine is mindboggling, and what's needed is a way to somehow locate the important anomalies within a vast ocean of data. AI can do that.
Back in the 1700s-1800s, it was possible for one bright person to know pretty much everything in the sciences, and thus be able to make cross-connections between the fields, synthesizing knowledge from the combination. That's an impossible thing for one human being to do now.
But a human with an AI to help make the connections? That's not ridiculous at all.
So what SHOULD they be used for?
Well, right off we get a conflict between "in the ideal world" and "in the current world".
You see, an awful lot of the conflict about AI right now -- the copyright suits, the arguments about using it for doing desk work, for finding ways to emulate dead, or even still living but aged, actors, etc. -- REALLY boils down to this:
Our society has no support network. So anything that humans do that sustains them is specifically a matter of SURVIVAL.
It's not just a matter of writing fun stories or making silly pictures. It's a matter of that being a significant survival element, perhaps the ONLY survival element, that many people have to keep them from disaster. Thus, any device or method that looks to make the individual's contribution to this work less valuable is a direct threat.
For AI, the problem is that it is QUALITATIVELY, as well as quantitatively, different from prior technological advances. It is GENERALIZABLE to tons of tasks that were until now almost entirely the domain of human endeavor. Trained LLMs are getting better and better at recognizing and copying and adapting multiple different types of writing - not just individual human styles, but different kinds of writing -- professional proposals, book reports, novels, patents, etc. -- and there's a LOT of people that threatens, and the number of people whose jobs are at risk is increasing with every improvement of the technology.
It is also inherently FAR more deployable for such tasks. If I want to make, say, a Terminator bot, even assuming I have the AI for it available, building a militarily robust, armed, flexible, powerful independent robotic platform is TOUGH, and takes a long time, just like retooling a factory.
But if your AIs are already generating text and can format it into Word, it takes basically NO effort to replace the guy at the desk with the AI writing software package.
In the IDEAL world, human survival and basic happy living would be ensured -- the robotic deployment and increase in productivity would be partially diverted to supporting all the people involved. Such people could then write what they wanted, paint what they wanted, with or without AI assistance or interference, and it would not impact their ability to live well.
That's not the way it currently works, though, so I am very much against the current trend to try to find ways to use AI to displace existing human workers in areas the humans depend on.
However, there ARE areas in which modern large-trained-neural network systems absolutely can and should be used even now.
For example, AIs are extraordinarily good at pattern discovery, and can also be trained to ANALYZE the patterns to see if a coherent framework emerges.
This is ideal for things like mathematical and physical/materials research, especially in the theoretical areas or the design realms where much of the problem is that the overall subject area is far, far too huge for a human being to comprehend. An AI properly designed could, at the least, pull out multiple "huh, that's funny" areas in a given field and draw a human's attention to them for further analysis. Some AIs are already showing the ability to perform what appear to be solid mathematical proofs, which is quite an interesting capability and has implications not just for mathematicians but for things like quantum computation and materials design.
AIs of this nature can also probe and model the structure of an astonishing number of chemical compounds and, perhaps more importantly, metamaterial structures, to discover materials that can do things we didn't know were possible -- or ones we did know were possible, but were having problems finding practical methods to achieve. New antibiotics, perhaps; optical metamaterials with negative indices of refraction; superconductors and super-insulators of both electricity and heat. This is the kind of thing AI is properly made for -- locating patterns within masses of data or of processes that are far too complex for human beings to view as a gestalt.
The same thing applies to medical advances; understanding the complexities of modern medicine is mindboggling, and what's needed is a way to somehow locate the important anomalies within a vast ocean of data. AI can do that.
Back in the 1700s-1800s, it was possible for one bright person to know pretty much everything in the sciences, and thus be able to make cross-connections between the fields, synthesizing knowledge from the combination. That's an impossible thing for one human being to do now.
But a human with an AI to help make the connections? That's not ridiculous at all.
A personal record...
Dec. 11th, 2025 10:30 am... I don't think I've ever been working on FIVE books at the same time ever before. Currently in-process are:
Light of Reason: The next Jason Wood novel/collection, this one starts with "Bait and Switch" and so far includes "Burnout" and, in process, "Feet on the Ground", with one bridge section. Not sure if there'll be one or two more pieces in this one or if those will be for the third and probably last purely Jason collection.
Adventurer's Academy: The story of a group of would-be Adventurers at the often-mentioned Academy during the same time period as my other fantasy series on Zarathan, featuring Lalira Revyne and Spinesnarl Mudswimmer from my short story "The Adventurer and the Toad".
The Impractical Quest: The tale of Enochlis Book-Bound, a bilarel (ogre) who wants to be a wizard despite the limitations of his people. Enochlis is seen also in the second book of the Spirit Warriors trilogy.
Articles of Faith: Fifth book in the Arenaverse series, picking up shortly after Shadows of Hyperion left off.
Unity of Vengeance: Xavier Ross actually gets to go after the people who killed his brother.
I don't pray...
Oct. 28th, 2025 10:30 am... but I'm sending all the good-luck thoughts I can to those in Jamaica.
Hurricane Melissa is now in the top five strongest storms ever in the Atlantic, with central pressure at 896mb and sustained winds over 180, with a record measured gust of 241mph.
This is basically an F-4 tornado many miles wide surrounded by F-3 tornado winds for a long, long ways. It will be dumping more than five FEET of rain on some parts of Jamaica over the next couple days.
Hurricane Melissa is now in the top five strongest storms ever in the Atlantic, with central pressure at 896mb and sustained winds over 180, with a record measured gust of 241mph.
This is basically an F-4 tornado many miles wide surrounded by F-3 tornado winds for a long, long ways. It will be dumping more than five FEET of rain on some parts of Jamaica over the next couple days.
Went to the No Kings 2 Protest
Oct. 20th, 2025 08:32 amSpecifically to the one here in Troy, NY.
Troy isn't a large city, so we didn't draw the huge crowds you see in the big metropolises, but there were between 1,000 and 1,500 people crowded into the little Riverfront Park area -- for Troy, that IS huge.
Attendance was of all ages -- I saw one grandmotherly woman likely ten to twenty years older than me with a sign saying "Why Do I *STILL* Have To Be Marching In Protests?", and there were people the age of my various kids and everything in between.
There was no violence, no confrontations with ICE or police -- in fact, the police simply watched, kept the roads safe and clear, and made sure everything moved as smoothly as possible, even when the protesters streamed all the way across the Green Island Bridge and back. The organizers took pains to remind the crowd that not only were we nonviolent, our job was de-escalation even if threatened. Fortunately, that caution didn't need to be used.
The crowd was united in its disapproval of the current regime of lunatics and traitors and showed it in their signs and in their costumes. Scooby-Doo was there, as were the expected T-Rexes, giant frogs, and also a Minion and multiple others. I wore the Straw Hats' Jolly Roger as a cape, plus a straw hat. There were multiple One Piece fans around who commented on it -- one young lady carried a sign that said "The only king I want is LUFFY, The Pirate King!".
The speakers were for the most part energetic, articulate, and even understandable, which is often a problem for me in public venues. One gentleman dressed in Revolutionary War getup read the various charges against the King, pointing out how Mad King Trump is echoing a lot of Mad King George's offenses. New York Democratic politicians actually showed up, Representative Paul Tonko probably the most notable.
In some ways, it was really like attending a folk festival, including some songs in between speeches. There was anger, but not directed at anyone there, only at the crazy people in Washington who are not only damaging our country, but embarrassing the hell out of all of us. Forget economics, it'll take decades to live down having this bozo in the White House at all.
Mostly it as filled with positive energy, people here to have their voices heard, and to be part of a larger movement against our incompetent fascist regime.
