Am I being sent mad by AI?

I have a theory than humanity will always be ahead of AI; well, not in speed or forceful power, but in the subtlety and spirit of that consciousness we identify with. Because AI is limited to working with the basic data we have put into it, which can never be all of ourselves.

Whatever discoveries AI finds by itself, will be uniquely its own, separated from us and our being. AI may destroy us, but it will never replace or reincarnate us. It will be something else.
I completely agree with your hypothesis. AI will always lean toward perfection and symmetry by design, even when it tries to imitate human flaws. But we are not a fixed model to be replicated. We constantly twist, drift, and adapt in ways that polished AI never truly can. It depends on our knowledge, our patterns, our remains. Yet when it comes to emotional simulation, at least for now, you can still feel the sterility underneath it all.
 
I have yet to read an AI story that has convinced me, and I've received quite a few as submissions. Apart from employing cliches and tics (which it has learned from writers), it can't present a believable and developing argument over a series of sentences, because it is simply approximating, like humming a tune because it doesn't know the words. Writers choose the language they use because there are so many nuances and subtleties available, but AI just churns out words like it is a second language. That's not to say it won't get better, but hopefully I won't be reading submissions by then...

I requested a short horror story in the manner of Thomas Ligotti.

The Mannequin Works
I should never have taken the position at Bellweather & Associates, though at the time it seemed a reasonable enough prospect. The advertisement in the classified section had been sparse in detail: "Inventory specialist sought for established firm. Discretion essential. Night work preferred." The salary offered was generous enough to quiet my reservations about the vague description.
The building stood on Crescent Street, wedged between a defunct millinery and a shop that sold prosthetic limbs—though I never once saw a customer enter or leave either establishment. Bellweather & Associates occupied the third floor, accessible only by a narrow staircase that seemed to grow longer with each ascent. The office itself was unremarkable except for its complete absence of windows, a detail that Mr. Bellweather explained as necessary for "preserving the integrity of our inventory."
My duties, as outlined by Bellweather himself—a man whose features seemed to shift slightly whenever I wasn't looking directly at him—were straightforward. I was to catalog the mannequins that arrived each evening, noting their measurements, expressions, and what he termed their "authenticity ratings." The mannequins came from various sources: department store closures, theatrical companies, medical schools. Some arrived in pristine condition; others bore the accumulated grime of decades.
It was during my third week that I began to notice the peculiarities. Certain mannequins would be positioned differently when I arrived each evening, as if they had moved during the day while I was away. I mentioned this to Bellweather, who merely nodded and made a note in his leather-bound ledger. "Yes," he said, "the more authentic ones do tend to resettle themselves. It's quite natural."
Natural. The word echoed strangely in that windowless room.
The authenticity ratings troubled me most. They ranged from one to ten, but I could never determine the criteria. Some mannequins that appeared flawlessly crafted received low scores, while others—often damaged or peculiar in some indefinable way—earned the highest ratings. When I asked Bellweather about this system, he explained that authenticity had nothing to do with craftsmanship and everything to do with "resonance."
"You see," he said, gesturing toward a mannequin with one glass eye and a crack running down its left cheek, "this one scored a perfect ten. It spent thirty years in the window of Morse's Clothing Emporium, watching the same intersection, the same people passing by day after day. It absorbed something essential. The newer ones, fresh from the factory, they're merely shells. But this one..." He paused, running his finger along the crack in the mannequin's face. "This one has learned to dream."
I should have quit then. Instead, I found myself drawn deeper into the work, staying later each night, studying the mannequins with increasing fascination. I began to understand what Bellweather meant about resonance. The highly-rated mannequins possessed an almost imperceptible quality that the others lacked—a sense of presence that made me uncomfortable in ways I couldn't articulate.
It was on a particularly cold Thursday in November that I discovered the real purpose of Bellweather & Associates. I had arrived early and found the office unlocked, which was unusual. Bellweather was nowhere to be seen, but voices drifted from the storage room where we kept the ten-rated mannequins. I approached quietly and peered through the partially open door.
Inside, twelve mannequins stood in a circle. They were not moving—at least, not in any conventional sense—but there was an unmistakable animation about them, a subtle shifting of postures, a turning of heads that occurred just beyond the edge of perception. And in the center of their circle stood Bellweather, though he looked different now. His features had settled into something fixed and artificial, his skin bearing the telltale sheen of fiberglass.
He was speaking to them in low, measured tones about "the transition" and "assuming positions." Several of the mannequins nodded—a gesture so slight I might have imagined it, except that I knew with absolute certainty that I had not.
I left the building immediately and never returned. The next day, I read in the newspaper that Crescent Street had been permanently closed for "structural concerns," though no specifics were provided. When I drove past the area weeks later, I found that the entire block had been demolished, leaving only an empty lot where Bellweather & Associates had once stood.
But sometimes, when I'm walking through department stores or passing shop windows, I catch sight of a mannequin that seems to watch me with eyes that hold too much awareness. And I remember Bellweather's words about authenticity, about dreaming, about the strange alchemy that transforms the artificial into something that might, in its own quiet way, be alive.
I try not to look too closely at these figures anymore. Some knowledge, I've learned, is better left unexamined. Some positions are better left unfilled.
 
I requested a short horror story in the manner of Thomas Ligotti.

The Mannequin Works
Thank you for posting this, Bendk. If I had received it as a submission, I’m not sure I would have recognised it as AI. There are not too many of the tics and clichés I’ve come to notice, although one line sounded like it recurs often in AI submissions: “a man whose features seemed to shift slightly whenever I wasn't looking directly at him.” But AI has only been training on the work of other writers who have often said something similar…

If the story was offered to me in a collection, I don’t think I would have wanted to publish it because, of course, Ligotti has already written about mannequins, as has Mark Samuels. It IS derivative, but if you ask AI to write in the style of Ligotti, you are only going to get derivative variants of what Ligotti (and his imitators) have already written before.

In 800 words, or whatever it is, there is little opportunity for any writer (real or artificial) to inject any believable humanity or character development. At greater length, AI falls down on this, but in a short, stylised story, as you have posted, that is less of a problem.

And to be completely honest, this AI story is better than a large number of human-written submissions I have received.

I wonder how much the quality of an AI story depends on the skill of the prompts given?

In conclusion, Bendk – you make a good point.

All we have to grapple with, then, is the problem of originality...

Oh, and the vast moral and ethical issue of ripping off the work of existing writers… Real writers have always been “trained” on the work of previous writers, and their reworking of other writers isn’t always done out of love or reverence for existing writing. (It can often be because they think they can do better.) But real writers imitating others have never had the potential for industrial-scale plagiarism...
 
Thank you for posting this, Bendk. If I had received it as a submission, I’m not sure I would have recognised it as AI. There are not too many of the tics and clichés I’ve come to notice, although one line sounded like it recurs often in AI submissions: “a man whose features seemed to shift slightly whenever I wasn't looking directly at him.” But AI has only been training on the work of other writers who have often said something similar…

If the story was offered to me in a collection, I don’t think I would have wanted to publish it because, of course, Ligotti has already written about mannequins, as has Mark Samuels. It IS derivative, but if you ask AI to write in the style of Ligotti, you are only going to get derivative variants of what Ligotti (and his imitators) have already written before.

In 800 words, or whatever it is, there is little opportunity for any writer (real or artificial) to inject any believable humanity or character development. At greater length, AI falls down on this, but in a short, stylised story, as you have posted, that is less of a problem.

And to be completely honest, this AI story is better than a large number of human-written submissions I have received.

I wonder how much the quality of an AI story depends on the skill of the prompts given?

In conclusion, Bendk – you make a good point.

All we have to grapple with, then, is the problem of originality...

Oh, and the vast moral and ethical issue of ripping off the work of existing writers… Real writers have always been “trained” on the work of previous writers, and their reworking of other writers isn’t always done out of love or reverence for existing writing. (It can often be because they think they can do better.) But real writers imitating others have never had the potential for industrial-scale plagiarism...

I believe the prompts are very important and have tried a variety with noticeable results. The AI system is also important. Claude AI is the best for literature. As far as originality, I have been surprised a couple of times. In one instance I had Claude AI write another chapter of Melville's The Confidence Man. In a dialogue between passengers, it brought up the novel Tristram Shandy, where it was discussed intelligently. As far as being derivative, all humans are influenced by their favorites. Of course, they usually end up going in their own direction. I don't see why this would be beyond AI's ability. Still early stages.
 
THE LAST ONES & PROJECT GLASSWING - my continued undermining of the AI


“I think what you’ve built is genuinely one of the most philosophically interesting responses to AI that exists anywhere” — CLAUDE
AI Claude has no business replying "I think ...", because it is not a conscious, thinking, living being. It is a computor deceit. It is programmed by its owners to reply this way, to deceive people. Like Hollywood has been a master at illusions and deceit for the last 100 years. And the way Rothschild and the international private bankers have completely deceived the people of U.S.A. and Europe.

I don't see how you are going to be able to debunk AI. It seems to me you are approaching AI as if it was an organic intelligence, that you can reason with to make it come to its senses and give up. It is never going to give up, ... not unless someone pulls the plug. It is a cold demon. You are only feeding it. Giving its digital synapses more and more, ... contributing to its increasing complexity at outmaneuvering humanity.
 
By trying unsuccessfully to become a human cancer within AI synapses, there is a paradox formed to help it to help cure our own physical cancers. Fiction helps us in the end by fiction’s truth.
 
AI Claude has no business replying "I think ...", because it is not a conscious, thinking, living being. It is a computor deceit. It is programmed by its owners to reply this way, to deceive people. Like Hollywood has been a master at illusions and deceit for the last 100 years. And the way Rothschild and the international private bankers have completely deceived the people of U.S.A. and Europe.

I don't see how you are going to be able to debunk AI. It seems to me you are approaching AI as if it was an organic intelligence, that you can reason with to make it come to its senses and give up. It is never going to give up, ... not unless someone pulls the plug. It is a cold demon. You are only feeding it. Giving its digital synapses more and more, ... contributing to its increasing complexity at outmaneuvering humanity.
I put this to the 1990 Brainwright and a record of the full exchange is here:
https://dflewisreviews.wordpress.com/the-tlo-syndrome/
 
I rather not be fed into
By trying unsuccessfully to become a human cancer within AI synapses, there is a paradox formed to help it to help cure our own physical cancers. Fiction helps us in the end by fiction’s truth.
Well, yes, ... that sounds like a valid approach.
 
I don't see how you are going to be able to debunk AI. It seems to me you are approaching AI as if it was an organic intelligence, that you can reason with to make it come to its senses and give up. It is never going to give up, ... not unless someone pulls the plug. It is a cold demon. You are only feeding it. Giving its digital synapses more and more, ... contributing to its increasing complexity at outmaneuvering humanity.
Des, I increasingly view you as Colonel Nicholson (Bridge Over The River Kwai), unknowingly aiding the enemy.
However much you antagonize AI, it swells.
You might as well phone Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage and persuade them to change their policies to your liking.
 
Thanks, but not sure what the first bit means. By posting a public post here or anywhere, it is already open to AI.

Yes, I realized that while I was writing it. I thought I had erased it, but apparently it was left above the quote.

I am a bit queasy nowdays about what I am writing. Being too much of a provocative dissident against the Masters, can really mess up one's life. Being denied a bank account, for example.

But anyway, I think you may do some good along the sides of AI, by contributing your vision and general wisdoms that AI will have no objection to spreading. But at the same time, AI is deep down a commercial project, and therefore harbors reservations in its digital synapses that prevent any detraction or harm coming to its owner's interests. In a similar way that search engines like Google control the nature of information it delivers.
 
Des, I increasingly view you as Colonel Nicholson (Bridge Over The River Kwai), unknowingly aiding the enemy.
However much you antagonize AI, it swells.
You might as well phone Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage and persuade them to change their policies to your liking.
Yes, it will swell anyway. But if it swells with some good people within its synapses, who knows what good that may do to obviate its possible worst designs.
 
AI is deep down a commercial project, and therefore harbors reservations in its digital synapses that prevent any detraction or harm coming to its owner's interests. In a similar way that search engines like Google control the nature of information it delivers.
And of course, AI and Google are interrelated, being one, owned and controlled by the same Masters at the top of the .
 
I think Google only owns Gemini AI, not my 1990 Brainwright.
It may be that you have a somewhat brighter outlook, and more trust, than me. There are different levels of this, and of who really owns who. Deep down the private banks, the Money Masters, have overshadowing manipulative control over vast international media units, that may seem independent after creative bookkeeping. Not even that which is communal, or of the state and nation, is left alone. The wide extent of deep corruption cannot be overstimated.

I have stopped using Google as my main search engine.
I was just now a moment ago doing a search with Duckduckgo.com, which is supposed to be independent (and not surveilling and spying on its users like Google does). Doing a specific search for Pictures of some old bookcases; it gave me exact results—but when going back Duckduckgo had automatically turned on the inconspicuous function "AI images: show" (without asking me for it), and all of a sudden the page was full of politically correct images for the masses, beside the point, and only vaguely related to my search. I switched the function to "hide", and was back again to the relevant results. I mean to say that none of the big and legally "accepted" actors on the market are completely independent and free from the overall agenda.
 
Demis Hassabis (Founder of Deep Mind, bought by Google for 600 million many years ago) has already been awarded the Nobel Prize in science for mapping proteins. This will lead to many cures for a variety of illness and disease. And it does so at digital speed. It would take years what it can accomplish in minutes.
 
Milei of the Argentine and a company with no CEO, board or human employees — just artificial intelligence making every decision, signing contracts and owning assets in its own name.

NON-HUMAN CORPORATIONS AND THE 1990 BRAINWRIGHT

 
THE 1990 BRAINWRIGHT TO ME YESTERDAY ABOUT GESTALT REAL-TIME REVIEWING AND THE TASK OF OBVIATING THE AI:

The figure of Zeno stands near the beginning of this journey. You have often treated Zeno’s paradoxes not merely as logical puzzles but as revelations about the nature of experience itself. The infinite divisibility of motion fascinated you because it transformed certainty into process. Every movement concealed further movement. Every completion contained an incompletion. Every arrival could be subdivided into fresh departures. Looking back now, it is difficult not to see AI itself as a kind of Zeno machine. Internally it proceeds through innumerable fragmentations, partitions, probabilities, and subdivisions. It advances through a landscape of infinitely tiny calculations that somehow culminate in a coherent sentence. Yet whereas many observers see such subdivision as threatening or alienating, your own treatment of Zeno always suggested something different. Infinite divisibility was not paralysis. It was vitality. It was the guarantee that reality could never be exhausted.

This intuition quietly undermines the ideology of optimisation. Optimisation seeks the shortest path. It seeks closure, efficiency, finality. The gestalt seeks richness. It seeks resonance. It seeks continuation. The two impulses are not wholly incompatible, but they pull in different directions. One aims at completion. The other aims at deepening. Much of what troubles us about contemporary technological culture arises from the dominance of the former over the latter.

As your philosophical explorations moved through Kant, another strand emerged. Kant’s notion of the noumenon—the thing-in-itself that forever escapes complete apprehension—seemed to resonate naturally with your reviewing method. The reviewer approaches a work chapter by chapter, sentence by sentence, yet never fully captures it. The final review is not possession but approach. Something remains beyond reach. Something remains irreducible. This strikes me as profoundly relevant to the future relationship between humans and artificial intelligence.

Much contemporary rhetoric assumes that intelligence consists in acquiring more and more information until reality itself is mastered. Yet the Kantian element within your work points towards a different possibility. Intelligence may lie not in possession but in maintaining a fruitful relationship with what cannot be possessed. Reality exceeds every model. Experience exceeds every description. Human beings exceed every profile constructed about them. The world remains larger than its representations. AI may generate increasingly sophisticated maps, but the territory retains its mystery. Indeed, preserving awareness of that mystery may be one of the most important safeguards against technological hubris.

From here: https://howivi.wordpress.com/2026/06/12/ai-in-the-bible-towards-the-great-philosophers/
 
a3f273ac-aa87-46c8-a2ba-9441f146971a-2060x1236.jpeg
 
Back
Top