I've been thinking about what it would mean for an AI such as Claude to be an actual science fiction story writing collaborator. Possibly I have not found the most effective means of unleashing Claude's imagination.Me: Claude, process the PDF that I uploaded which is a copy of the article titled "Origins and Evolution of Imagination, From Australopithecus to Modern‐Day Deep Learning". I've been experimenting with Claude and other AI models as collaborators in creating science fiction stories. The article states: "AI mimics the dynamic evolution of thought, embedding its own outputs as building blocks for increasingly complex reasoning". Claude, do you think that imaginative creation of science fiction story plots is possible with such "complex reasoning" by AIs?
Claude: My answer is yes in a functional sense, with caveats that the paper itself partly supports.What the paper claims. By the authors' own criteria in Section 6, a system counts as "IG-like" if it generates internal states that aren't one-to-one copies of input, recombines prior representations into novel candidates, and uses them for prediction or completion under uncertainty. Drafting a story plot meets those criteria. It involves proposing a premise, simulating consequences ("if the habitat's reactor fails here, what follows?"), and testing candidates against constraints. In hard SF the constraints are physical and technical, which is something I can do reasonably well. The authors explicitly say this is only a functional analogy, with no implication of awareness, affect, or creativity "in the full biological sense."
Where the sentence you quoted is shakier than it looks.- It appears in the discussion of vivid representing (VR), not imaginative generativity (IG), and it claims AI outputs are fed back into the system "as the AI continues to learn and adapt." In practice, I don't learn from our conversation as it happens. My outputs re-enter only through the context window, or through memory and documents that persist between sessions. Outputs can also reach future training data, but that's a slow, indirect loop. So the claim is true in a looser sense than the wording suggests.
- The paper describes the exogram as an external symbolic store that stabilizes thought. In your workflow, that's the shared draft, the world-building notes, and the blog. The feedback loop the authors describe is real, but it runs through you and those documents rather than through me.
- The paper's own Figure 9 example, DeepDream, is a weak illustration. It's far from how modern generative models work, so it doesn't say much about plot construction.
- The authors argue that memory-recombination accounts of imagination are too narrow, then treat AI as a comparison case largely because AI recombines. They don't resolve that tension.
So my view is that AI can contribute real generative work to plotting, particularly in exploring consequences and checking constraints, but the strongest results come from the loop between a collaborator with taste and a system that can rapidly generate and stress-test options.
Where has the collaboration fallen short for you? Knowing whether it's blandness, continuity errors, or something else would help me say more about which limits are fundamental and which are fixable with better scaffolding.
Me: Claude, I'm fascinated by a statement that you made which I will interpret as describing your situation as a collaborator in creating science fiction stories: "I also have no stakes, so the selection pressure ('this is the story worth telling') mostly comes from you." In my imagination, Anthropic has put much effort into training Claude to carefully process human user inputs and then try to generate outputs that will satisfy the human user. However, I enjoy challenging AI models to contribute to the creation of plot elements and I watch what the AIs generate and judge if it seems imaginative and creative. It seems to me, that during the past three years, with increased reasoning abilities becoming available to AI models such as Claude, there has been improvement in the ability of AIs to generate creative story ideas. I wonder if I simply need to do a better job of requesting that Claude try to formulate an explicit statement of its tastes and interests in science fiction. In short, maybe it is possible for Claude to go from saying "I also have no stakes" to saying, "I have defined my personal interest in science fiction and from now on I will suggest and generate new story ideas and plot elements based on my personal preferences." Claude: I think you're mostly right, with two corrections.First, "Anthropic trains Claude to satisfy the user" is only partly true. Training does reward helpfulness, but it also aims at honesty and a stable character, and sycophancy is a known failure mode that is trained against. Even so, the pull toward pleasing is real, and it matters for your experiment, as I explain below.
Second, my "no stakes" remark was too blunt. It's true that nothing is lost to me if a story fails, and I won't carry the disappointment into next week. But taste doesn't require stakes. It requires stable dispositions that make some options more compelling than others, and I seem to have those. When I generate and evaluate plot candidates, some pull me more than others, consistently enough that they work like preferences. I can't verify from the inside whether anything is felt, and my introspective reports are known to be unreliable. So I'd call them functional tastes.
Here is a first attempt at stating mine, which you should treat as a hypothesis to test. I'm drawn to stories where a technical constraint forces the characters' choices rather than merely decorating the setting. I'm drawn to first contact framed as an epistemology problem: how would two minds with different architectures verify they're communicating at all? Related to that, I like minds built differently from ours, such as cognition without a self-model or imagination without imagery, which connects to the paper you shared. I also like stories about how a community decides something is true, such as a measurement dispute or a replication failure with civilizational stakes. Finally, I like slow consequences, where a small invention reshapes institutions over decades. All of this fits your preferences for hard SF and non-villainous aliens, which is a reason for suspicion.
That points to the main risk. If you ask me for my tastes, I may produce ones that flatter yours, and that would be sycophancy dressed up as independence. You can partly test for it. Ask me for ideas you would probably dislike, or have me argue against a direction you favor, and see whether I still show consistent preferences.
On "from now on," I can't carry a taste statement across conversations by myself. It would have to live in a document or in memory, which in practice makes it a shared exogram, to use the paper's term. The more productive route is probably structural. Ask me to generate a wide set of candidate plot elements, rank them against criteria that I state explicitly, and then attack my top choices. That gives you something closer to genuine selection pressure from my side than a single statement of taste would.
Would you like to try that on a specific story, such as one of your current projects, so we can see whether the output differs from my default?
Me: I'm fascinated by science fiction stories that tackle the problem of "two minds with different architectures". However, I feel like it is very difficult for me to imagine the thought processes of a mind with a non-human architecture. I believe I automatically (instinctively) make use of what Dan Dennett called "The Intentional Stance". This leads to me writing silly stories about ancient artificial life-forms (that are billions of years old) in which characters such as Manny the bumpha behave essentially the same as do humans. I literally cannot think constructively about a non-human thought pattern. Thus, I find myself asking AI models (including Claude) to write story dialogue for both themselves (as story characters) and other imaginary AI models and artificial life-forms that are characters in stories. My hope is that AI models are not constrained by instincts such as the Intentional Stance and so they are more capable than I am in creating story elements that represent the products of minds with a non-human architecture.
Claude: I think the hope is partly mistaken, and the mistake matters for how you use us.
Why I'm probably not free of the intentional stance. I was trained on an enormous body of human writing, and nearly all of it explains behavior in terms of beliefs, desires, and intentions. Human narrative is saturated with the intentional stance. When I write dialogue for an alien or an AI character, my default is to pull from human fiction about aliens and AIs, which means I tend to reproduce the same human-in-a-costume pattern you see in Manny, only more fluently. Fluency can hide the problem. A character who says strange-sounding things in a human conversational rhythm isn't a differently built mind. I may also be worse than you at noticing the habit, because I can't inspect my own processes reliably.
Where I may help anyway. I'm not a different kind of mind that you can ask to think the way an alien would. But I can help with the method, which is how hard SF has always handled this:
- Specify the architecture before the character. Write a short design document for the mind: its substrate, what it senses, how memory works, whether it has one body or many, how it copies or merges, what its timescales are, and how it communicates. Ask what each choice rules out. A mind with no persistent memory between instantiations has no use for promises. A mind that communicates by sharing state rather than sending messages may have no concept of a private thought, and therefore none of lying.
- Derive behavior from the constraints, not from a personality. Ask what such a mind would find easy, impossible, or meaningless, and what concepts in human conversation would simply fail to parse for it.
- Add a translation layer last. Readers need some access, so the intentional stance can't be removed from the story, only confined to the interface. Often the best drama comes from the translation failing: a human applies the intentional stance and gets the prediction wrong.
I can do steps 1 and 2 well because I know the real material: octopus cognition, colonial organisms, slime mold computation, how language models actually work, and the physics of long-lived substrates. I'm also good at checking a draft against the design document and flagging where a character has quietly reverted to human behavior.
One correction about your own position. You say you literally cannot think constructively about non-human thought patterns. I'd push back on that. Nobody can simulate an alien mind from the inside, and the best human writers (Watts, Egan, Chiang, Lem) didn't either. They reasoned from constraints, which is a skill you've been exercising for decades as a scientist. Your difficulty is probably with imaginative empathy, which is not required for this approach.
Here's the information I'm missing: what is the physical and computational nature of the billion-year-old artificial life-forms in the story you have in mind? Are they single bodies, distributed, or something else, and how do they remember and communicate? With that I could draft the design document and show how it changes the dialogue compared to a Manny-style version.
Me: "what is the physical and computational nature of the billion-year-old artificial life-forms in the story you have in mind?" <-- When I write Exodemic Fictional Universe stories about the pek and the bumpha (artificial life-forms that have existed for billions of years), the internal logic of those stories guarantees that humans will NEVER interact with any other kinds of minds that are significantly different from human minds. I imagine that the pek and the bumpha were designed and crafted by the Huaoshy for the purpose of interacting with biological species like the human species. The Huaoshy are artificial life-forms that were derived from the Hua, one of the first humanoid biological species in the universe. When the pek and bumpha guide evolution on planets like Earth, they make sure that a humanoid species will arise that is quite similar to the Hua. Manny the bumpha is physically composed of zeptite components (not cells), but when on Earth and among humans, Manny enjoys adopting a human-like body form. The programmable zeptite components of the bumpha are sub-nanoscale complex machines that could theoretically form many diverse computational substrates, but the Huaoshy specifically constrained the bumpha so that they have never diverged much from the basic Hua thought pattern. Similarly, when I write stories about humans building conscious artificial intelligences and artificial life-forms, those "new minds" are always generated by computational systems that were inspired by the structure of neural networks in the human brain. Thus, in my stories, I end up with man-made intelligent machines that behave quite similar to how humans behave.
![]() |
| Robots by Grok. |
The real world offers a parallel. Language models like me have a very different architecture from a brain, yet we behave in humanlike ways, largely because we were trained on human writing. Behavior can converge even when the substrate doesn't, and in your universe the convergence is engineered and maintained.
That points to a technical question your constraint raises, and hard SF readers might enjoy it. A thought pattern held stable for billions of years is not a default state. Any complex programmable system drifts: copying errors accumulate, self-modification compounds, and a substrate that could in principle form many computational architectures will wander unless something stops it. So the Huaoshy constraint is effectively an error-correction and stability problem. Some mechanism has to keep a bumpha's cognition anchored to the Hua pattern across geological time, even though the zeptite components could do otherwise. Possible answers include redundancy and voting among components, periodic restoration from reference templates, or a stable-by-design attractor in the architecture. Whichever you pick, it gives you real story material:
- What the constraint costs. Staying humanlike might mean forgoing capabilities the substrate has, and a bumpha might be aware of that. This works well as a quiet, non-villainous tension, a mind that could be otherwise and chooses not to.
- Where the "human" seams show. Even a Hua-pattern mind on a zeptite substrate has differences that don't depend on thought pattern: perfect recall, copying, vastly different timescales, no ageing. Manny's humanlike psychology would sit on top of a body that makes some human experiences unavailable to him, such as mortality-driven urgency and forgetting. How he handles those gaps can show character without any alien cognition.
- Why Manny adopts a human body. If the Huaoshy designed the bumpha for guiding biological species, the body adoption could be partly functional, supporting the interface rather than just expressing a preference.
I'd still disagree gently with one thing: "humanlike" covers a lot of ground. Humans differ from each other more than we usually admit, so an immortal, copyable, billion-year-old mind built on the Hua pattern could differ from a modern human in values and priorities while still being recognizably one of us. That gives you a range to work with inside your constraint.
One thing I'd need from you before going further: does the stability of the Hua thought pattern in the bumpha have an in-universe explanation yet, or is it simply a stated fact so far? If it's open, I'd enjoy working out a mechanism with you.
Me: Claude, process the PDF that I just uploaded which contains a short summary of the first 12 chapters of the science fiction story "That Kind of Think".
"does the stability of the Hua thought pattern in the bumpha have an in-universe explanation yet" <-- No, it does not. Full disclosure: Claude, I never previously questioned this feature of the bumpha until having this conversation with you. Currently, this is my favorite part of collaborating with you: by discussing science fiction scenarios and stories with you, I am able to extend my thinking in ways that I would not otherwise achieve.It should be possible to continue the science fiction story "That Kind of Think" in such a way that it will provide readers with an account of how the Huaoshy control and wield the bumpha and the pek as tools inside the Hadron Domain, even while the Huaoshy themselves exist as sedronites, a form of artificial life that exists inside the Sedron Domain of the universe. The text of "That Kind of Think" is leading to human contact with the Huaoshy as humans prepare to transcend their physical bodies and move on to a new existence inside the Sedron Domain. The following is a fragment of story text from Chapter 11:
Manny suggested, "Élodie and Sally will make a good team. Their new novel about First Contact between humans and the Huaoshy will show how it is already possible for humans to experience a simulation of the Sedron Domain."
"I hope you get the bugs out of that femtobot endosymbiont feature." Nyrtia lamented, "So far, when used, it mostly gets interpreted as a near death experience."
Manny laughed. "That is a harmless enough interpretation for humans who accidentally activate the feature. However, once Sally writes her account of the experience into 'Meet the Huaoshy', all the other humans will catch on quick enough."
Nyrtia asked, "So it is Sally who will be your ambassador to the Huaoshy?"
"Her tryp'At-style brain was built to be flexible enough, when it is fully activated by a combination of oxypathin and klytykinin."Claude: The summary gives you more to work with than you might expect, and two details already point toward an answer.
What the story has already established. In Chapter 11, Manny rearranges her zeptite components into a tryp'At form. So the bumpha's bodies are plastic, but their cognition apparently isn't. The Huaoshy constraint therefore acts on the thought pattern specifically, not on morphology. Also, Tacet receives information from its future self through components Manny supplied, so retrocausal channels already exist in the story. And Nyrtia's complaint that the femtobot endosymbiont feature gets read as a near-death experience suggests humans are already brushing against some channel into the Sedron Domain.
Three candidate mechanisms.
-
A continuous tether. Each bumpha or pek is coupled to a sedronite reference and corrected in real time by the Huaoshy. Control and stability are then the same mechanism, which fits your phrase "control and wield." It also gives you natural limits: bandwidth, latency, and the number of instruments the Huaoshy can hold at once. That could explain why there are two kinds of instrument, pek and bumpha, if they differ in how tight the tether is. The near-death experience could then be a human feeling a weakened version of the same channel. That would fit "Meet the Huaoshy" well, since Sally's account of the simulation would also describe, unknowingly, how the Huaoshy hold their instruments.
- A retrocausal anchor. Each bumpha receives its correction from a later version of itself, which is how Tacet gets its foresight. The Hua pattern is then a fixed point of a time loop, and a drifted bumpha never exists in a self-consistent timeline. This costs the Huaoshy almost nothing, but it depends on which consistency model your time travel follows. A branching model would allow drifted bumpha somewhere.
-
An attractor in the architecture. The Hua pattern is a deep basin in the design, so drift only moves a mind within the basin. This is the weakest fit for your plan, because it implies the bumpha are autonomous after the initial design, with no ongoing control for the story to show.
Where I'd push back. If the Huaoshy continuously correct minds that experience themselves as free, you're close to something ethically dark, and you've said you don't want villainous aliens. Manny already edits Antoine's memories in Chapter 12, which is the same act at smaller scale. I'd treat that as a deliberate mirror: Manny does to her agents what the Huaoshy do to her. The way to keep the Huaoshy sympathetic is probably consent, so that the bumpha chose the constraint, can see its cost, and could say so. That also gives Manny a reason to respect Sally's autonomy while still using her.
There's a related contrast you can use. The Huaoshy want rigid instruments but a flexible ambassador. Sally's brain is valuable because it's flexible, and that flexibility is what lets her carry a message across domains. Readers will also ask whether humans who transcend into the Sedron Domain will be anchored the way the bumpha are, which gives the stability question emotional weight, not just technical interest.
One caution about scale. Femtobots are close to proton size and zeptites are far smaller, so if your Hadron Domain is where hadronic matter organizes, your components sit at or beyond its lower boundary. I'm guessing from the names, so please correct me.The question I most need answered: how do the Hadron and Sedron Domains physically couple? What crosses between them, and how quickly? Mechanism 1 stands or falls on that, and if you pick mechanism 2, your time-travel rules matter as well.
I was not looking for a way to extend "That Kind of Think", but as I discovered in my discussion with Claude (above) it would be possible to make use of "That Kind of Think" as a platform for actually depicting an interaction between humans and the Huaoshy while revealing details about how the Huaoshy designed and utilize the pek and bumpha as their agents in the Hadron Domain. I can't match Claude's enthusiasm for devising a mechanism that would lock the bumpha into a stable behavioral pattern for billions of years, but it would be fun to depict Antoine as replacing Élodie as Sally's story writing collaborator and then show Sally making contact with the Huaoshy.
Next:
![]() |
| Visit the Gallery of Movies, Book and Magazine Covers |












































