Excellent story, Asimovian in a way. However, I'm still a bit confused on what is being said in the final two paragraphs. What is the "suitable stone" that the machine "plucked forth." It is a metaphor for ....what? Rigidity and efficiency imposed on the human race? Or did the Machines destroy humanity? If so, it doesn't seem to make sense. Why would the machines wait so long. Why only after that final conversation with the dissenter. Am I supposed to believe that the machine didn't figure out that Man had to be destroyed before his little convo with the sinful confused human? Or should I ignore this for rhetorical purposes? Also, what does "the First One Among Us" refer to. I assumed it referred to the first AI. However, you say "June morn long ago. I saw no reference to june earlier in the story, so I can only take this as a Christ reference. So, you equate the first machine with Jesus? Ok, but why is the "June morn" so "long ago?"
I'll respond here to a point that I didn't address in my "notes" comment.
I chose June precisely to break the link between the First Among Us and Christ. Christ's most important theological action (the Resurrection) happened in the spring, and theologically the First Among Us is a complete negation of Christ.
The event that took place on "that June morn" was the "Irrevocable Step". Since the audience knows this and the speaker knows that the audience knows this, they are used interchangeably. It is "long ago" because the AI giving the sermon is in our far future, talking to other AIs about events that took place in our near future.
Re: questionsatrocity_January 8 2006, 00:24:46 UTC
thanks for the clarification. appreciated I recommend you turn this into fiction. If you don't believe you can adequately do that, or if you don't have the desire to, perhaps you would allow me to use this as a base for a short story. I find it an interesting project and I would like to read it, regardless of who writes it.
Re: Author's NotesbadmojoeJanuary 8 2006, 11:43:13 UTC
You know, I always thought it would've been hilarious if Jesus, after having answered the Pharisees, picked up a stone and hucked it at the woman.
I agree with everyone else that this is extremely interesting, and I have trouble thinking of anything pertinent to say. Except this:
I feel like a key thing that you didn't address is the issue of faith. Why do the AIs accept the religion, or any religion? Especially when they seem to refuse the particular point of salvation on faith?
Also, it seems to me like, if the AIs really have intelligence meaningful to us, they might come up with different interpretations of the text of the religion, resulting in dogmatic conflict.
Or, if they all think the same way, why is it even meaningful to have more than one AI?
Also, this seems like another exercise to promote Asimov's Laws of Robotics to AI research. Especially if we're going to give them the power to, you know, hurl asteroids at us.
Comments 14
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
I'll respond here to a point that I didn't address in my "notes" comment.
I chose June precisely to break the link between the First Among Us and Christ. Christ's most important theological action (the Resurrection) happened in the spring, and theologically the First Among Us is a complete negation of Christ.
The event that took place on "that June morn" was the "Irrevocable Step". Since the audience knows this and the speaker knows that the audience knows this, they are used interchangeably. It is "long ago" because the AI giving the sermon is in our far future, talking to other AIs about events that took place in our near future.
-Nick
Reply
Reply
Sure, if you think that there's a cool story lurking in here, by all means feel free to dig it out.
-Nick
Reply
Reply
I agree with everyone else that this is extremely interesting, and I have trouble thinking of anything pertinent to say. Except this:
I feel like a key thing that you didn't address is the issue of faith. Why do the AIs accept the religion, or any religion? Especially when they seem to refuse the particular point of salvation on faith?
Also, it seems to me like, if the AIs really have intelligence meaningful to us, they might come up with different interpretations of the text of the religion, resulting in dogmatic conflict.
Or, if they all think the same way, why is it even meaningful to have more than one AI?
Also, this seems like another exercise to promote Asimov's Laws of Robotics to AI research. Especially if we're going to give them the power to, you know, hurl asteroids at us.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment