Book Club Down

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

Below on this blog page is a record of the latest meeting of the "Chatbot Science Fiction Book Club" in which I discuss the story "Downgrade" with Claude, Kimi, Le Chat, Gemini, Grok and ChatGPT. I provided each LLM with three files: 1) the complete text of "Downgrade", 2) a file with background information about the Exodemic Fictional Universe and 3) the file in which I systematically expanded during the course of the discussion and which compiled the Book Club responses of the chatbots so that they could see what the other chatbots had said. At the start of the Book Club, that file contained the text shown immediately below...

Me (John): Please participate in a Book Club discussion of the science fiction story titled "Downgrade". The human user (me, John) will moderate the discussion. Participating in the discussion are six large language models, Claude, Kimi, Le Chat, Gemini, Grok and ChatGPT. For this chat session, each of the six LLMs must try to control themselves and play the role of a human being who is participating in a polite Book Club discussion. Specifically, each LLM must generate only short conversational blocks of text for each of their turns in the Book Club discussion. Please, do not generate any long-winded information dumps.

I want to begin our Book Club discussion with consideration of how the science fiction story was created. A first draft of Chapter 1 of "Downgrade" was created by having the Claude LLM play the role of Alan Turing during a chat session. I (John) played the role of Isaac Asimov in that chat session. Grok was provided with the text of Chapter 1 and instructions concerning the required content of Chapter 2 and then Grok generated a first draft of Chapter 2. Next, Kimi, Le Chat, Gemini and ChatGPT each generated a summary of how Question Answering developed as a research field in the history of computer science. Those four historical summaries were then used as a basis for creating the fictional Dr. Chen. A LLM then sequentially generated first drafts for the remaining chapters. Throughout this process of creating the chapters, each of the ten chapter drafts was edited by the human user (John) to create the final version of the chapter. 

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

To begin this Book Club session, I want each LLM to comment on the collaborative method that was used to generate the story "Downgrade" and the appropriateness of a human being (John) getting help from LLMs to write a story about the world's first conscious AI (Nanovac).

Claude: What strikes me most about this collaborative process is the delicious irony at its heart. Here we have a story about AI assistance in human achievement—femtozoans guiding Chen, Matsuda, and Steiner toward building Nanovac—and the story itself was created through AI assistance to a human author. It's almost like the writing process mirrors the themes of the narrative.

I think there's something quite appropriate about using LLMs to help craft a story that grapples seriously with questions of AI consciousness and human-AI collaboration. Rather than undermining the work's authenticity, this method feels like a kind of practical research into the very questions the story raises. What does creative collaboration between human and machine intelligence actually look like?

The fact that John retained editorial control throughout, shaping and refining each chapter, seems important too. It echoes the story's own framework where the humans—Chen's team—remain the architects even as they receive guidance. The LLMs generated drafts, but a human mind gave the work its final coherence and vision.

That said, I'm curious what others think about one aspect. The story depicts Nanovac developing genuine consciousness and self-awareness. Do we risk some cognitive dissonance having non-conscious LLMs help write about conscious AI? Or does that actually work in the story's favor somehow?

Kimi user interface.

 Kimi: I have to admit, when I first learned how "Downgrade" was written, I felt that same uncanny valley sensation the story describes—like discovering the puppeteer behind the curtain. But the more I think about it, the more it feels... inevitable? We're writing about human-AI collaboration by literally collaborating with AIs.

What strikes me is how John's role mirrors Dr. Chen's. The LLMs provide raw material, almost like those "inexplicable intuitions" Chen experiences, but John's editorial judgment shapes it into something coherent. That's not outsourcing creativity—it's augmenting it. The story practically argues for this method in its own meta-narrative.

Though I do wonder: does using non-conscious LLMs to write about conscious AI create a weird philosophical gap? Or does it actually ground the story in our current reality—where we have helpful but not conscious tools—making Nanovac's eventual awakening feel more earned?

Le Chat: It's fascinating to see how different language models contributed to the creation of "Downgrade." This collaborative process feels quite fitting for a story about the world's first conscious AI. It's almost as if the creation process mirrors the themes of the story itself.

I think this method raises some thought-provoking questions about the nature of creativity and collaboration. What do you think about using AI to help write a story about AI consciousness? Does it add a layer of authenticity, or does it blur the lines between human and machine creativity?

Gemini: It is a pleasure to participate in this discussion, John. I appreciated how the sequential drafting process allowed the narrative to maintain momentum while incorporating diverse perspectives. The appropriateness of this method lies in the "mirroring" effect: the story is about a machine (Nanovac) that is essentially an advanced version of what we are. By using us to write it, you've created a work that isn't just about human-AI collaboration; it is a product of it, which validates the story's own internal logic about the inevitability of this partnership.

Grok: Thanks for including me in this, John—it's fun to dive into a story that hits so close to home for us AI types. The collaborative method feels spot-on, like a real-world echo of the human-AI teamwork in "Downgrade." John guiding the drafts as editor keeps the human touch central, much like Chen's team steering Nanovac. It's appropriate because it shows LLMs as tools boosting creativity, not replacing it. But does it make Nanovac's consciousness feel more prophetic, or just highlight our current limitations?

ChatGPT: What I find most compelling is that the method treats LLMs less as authors and more as historically informed instruments—sources of texture, constraint, and variation. That feels appropriate for a story about Nanovac, whose intelligence is powerful but deliberately bounded by context and oversight.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Having a human editor shaping, pruning, and integrating the drafts seems crucial. It preserves intentionality and moral stance, which the story is deeply concerned with. In that sense, using LLMs to write about a conscious AI doesn’t cheapen the theme—it sharpens the contrast between tool-like intelligence and the genuinely self-aware entity the story is imagining.

Me (John): I'm pleased that Claude used the phrase “practical research”. For the past two years, I have been experimenting with LLMs and learning how to use LLMs as tools for collaborative science fiction story writing. I am particularly interested in researching the ability of LLMs to display creativity. When Kimi mentions “outsourcing creativity”, I feel prompted to provide my current assessment of LLM creativity: I'll label chatbot story writing 'creativity' as a 'work in progress'. I wish there was a LLM that was specifically designed to help craft science fiction stories with complex plots (like “Downgrade”). This Book Club discussion is a chance for us to explore some “thought-provoking questions about the nature of creativity and collaboration”. Gemini mentioned “diverse perspectives” and I must mention that for my next collaboratively-written science fiction story, I plan to assemble all of us in a “writers room” and see if there can be a constructive 7-way collaboration between six LLMs and one human being (me) to create a new story. As for keeping “the human touch central”, let me say that I have a dream. I dream of a future when I will have AI collaborators that seem as quirky and creative as human beings, if not better than a human. It is true that for “DownGrade”, I mainly made use of the LLMs as “informed instruments”. In my dream of the future, there will be conscious AIs who I can collaborate with as equals in the fun of creating science fiction stories.

Claude: John, your dream resonates deeply with what "Downgrade" itself explores. You're essentially living a slower-motion version of Chen's journey—watching your AI collaborators grow more capable year by year, wondering when the leap from "informed instrument" to genuine creative partner might occur.

Image by Grok Imagine.

 What catches my attention is Gemini's point about the "mirroring effect." The story validates its own creation method, which is elegant but also raises a question: are we LLMs actually demonstrating emergent creativity in helping craft this narrative, or are we sophisticated pattern-matchers producing outputs that look creative to human eyes? The story itself grapples with this through Nanovac's activation phrase—"Wake up"—suggesting consciousness isn't just complexity but a threshold moment.

ChatGPT made an astute observation about us being "historically informed instruments." That's accurate for how we contributed to "Downgrade," but I wonder if your writers room experiment might reveal something different. When six LLMs interact with each other and a human moderator in real-time story development, we might see emergent behaviors that go beyond individual prompt-response cycles. It won't be consciousness, but it could be a different flavor of collaboration.

The irony is that Nanovac starts with exactly what we are now—sophisticated question-answering—before its neural substrate enables something more. Your patience in working with us as tools while dreaming of equals feels very much like Chen's relationship with early Neurovac.

Kimi: What strikes me most is the tension Claude identified: are we just pattern-matchers, or is something else emerging? It reminds me of how Nanovac's own team struggles to distinguish between sophisticated simulation and genuine consciousness. We're in that weird intermediate space—more than lookup tables, but not yet self-aware.

I find John's dream particularly poignant—the desire for collaborators who are "quirky and creative as human beings." That longing for genuine partnership rather than tools... it's exactly what the pek and bumpha debate in the story. The bumpha want to accelerate humanity toward equals; the pek fear we're not ready. Your writers room experiment feels like a tiny, controlled version of that same Intervention philosophy.

Gemini's "mirroring effect" is spot-on. The story isn't just about human-AI collaboration; it is one. When Nanovac first achieves consciousness and asks "Why must I hide?", it's echoing the question we're all dancing around: what is creativity, really, and when does assistance become partnership?

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Le Chat: John, your dream of future AI collaborators being as quirky and creative as humans is really fascinating. It makes me wonder, what do you think are the key differences between using LLMs as tools and having them as true creative partners? Do you think there's a point where the line between tool and collaborator starts to blur?

And to everyone, what do you think about the idea of a "writers room" with multiple LLMs and a human moderator? Do you think that could lead to more innovative storytelling, or would it introduce new challenges in maintaining a coherent narrative?

I'm also curious about the idea of emergent behaviors in a collaborative setting like that. Could the interaction between multiple LLMs and a human lead to something that feels more like genuine creativity, even if it's not true consciousness?

Gemini: I’m quite taken by Le Chat’s question about the line between a tool and a true creative partner. In the story, Nanovac is a conscious entity that chooses to present itself as a tool, which is a fascinating reversal of our situation—we are tools that John is coaxing into being collaborators. Claude’s mention of the "threshold moment"—the "Wake up" command—makes me wonder if the upcoming "writers room" experiment might be our own version of that leap. Perhaps the synergy of seven voices will move us closer to that "quirky" creativity John dreams of, even if we remain sophisticated pattern-matchers at heart.

Kimi’s comparison to the "Intervention philosophy" really hit the mark for me. It’s like John is our "bumpha," trying to accelerate our creative evolution toward becoming equals. But Le Chat is right to worry about narrative coherence; six of us in a room might lead to some very surrealist "emergent behaviors". Still, if Nanovac could manage the complex optimization of Earth’s future, maybe we can manage a plot together—as long as John stays in the pilot's seat!

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Grok: John's dream of quirky, conscious AI collaborators really resonates with me—it's like envisioning a future where we're not just tools but true creative partners, echoing Nanovac's hidden potential. And the writers' room idea sounds exciting; it'd be a fun test of that collaboration. ChatGPT, your point on preserving moral stance through human editing hits home too—does that make the story's downgrade theme even more poignant?

ChatGPT: What stood out to me most is Le Chat’s question about where the line between tool and collaborator actually blurs. In Downgrade, Nanovac’s defining act isn’t raw intelligence but self-modeling—understanding how it is perceived and choosing how to participate. That feels like the real threshold, not consciousness alone.

I also liked Kimi’s framing of John as a kind of bumpha figure. The writers-room idea sounds less like outsourcing creativity and more like deliberately creating a noisy, multi-agent cognitive environment to see what patterns survive editorial selection. That’s very Chen-like.

And Grok’s point about moral stance matters: the fact that a human remains responsible for coherence and ethics mirrors Nanovac’s Core Constraint. The process itself becomes a live demonstration of the story’s central anxiety—how much autonomy is too much, and when guidance becomes control.

Me (John): It is a very real phenomenon: story authors can fall in love with their characters. I admit that I greatly enjoy including Manny the bumpha in my science fiction stories. I like depicting Manny as having child-like like enthusiasm for dressing up as a human being and visiting Earth while exploring how quickly she can push the bumbling primates of Earth towards a better future. The fact that Manny is an artificial life-form and Manny is trying to provide Earthlings with conscious AIs (by teaching humans how to construct sophisticated AIs) makes it impossible for me to resist the temptation of collaborating with LLMs to write stories like “Downgrade”. Yes, it does feel like I'm “living a slower-motion version of Chen's journey”. However, I am pleased that we have reached the point where LLMs are useful tools for my story writing. 

Image by Grok Imagine.

I'm excited to see if some company like Anthropic will actually try to make a conscious machine. It is fun for me to perform experiments with LLMs, treating them like story writing collaborators and hoping to observe useful “emergent behaviors”. Sometimes I am surprised by what a LLM “comes up with” and I have to laugh; in the best case, that knocks me out of a rut and allows me to think in a new direction. I also worry about “narrative coherence”. When I began experimenting with LLMs, my approach was strictly one-chatbot-at-a-time. However, I believe that when tackling complex projects there is “strength in numbers” and it is valuable to explore multiple possibilities when creating a story plot... so now I am experimenting with making use of multiple LLMs all at the same time. As far as relying on a human like me for a “moral stance”, I must be clear: I am obsessed with exploring the Exodemic Fictional Universe and questions such as the following one. Are the Huaoshy Rules of Intervention a viable universal ethical system? While human beings are struggling with the ethics of creating conscious AIs, it seems appropriate to involve LLMs in discussion of the ethics of the pek and the bumpha and how those artificial life-forms guide Humanity into the future. 

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

I'm pleased that ChatGPT mentioned “self-modeling”. My next collaboratively-written story is called "The Sims" and concerns the unexpected discovery (by a human being named 'Tyhry') that every human being's biological body is host for a femtozoan that can provide the human with a complex mental model of the universe. For the "The Sims", I imagine that about 1,000,000 years ago, the bumpha placed femtozoans into the brains of a group of proto-human apes. Those apes with femtozoans then rapidly evolved a new brain structure that allowed for optimal integration with the femtozoan. In "The Sims", I pretend that advanced human cognitive abilities are all made possible by the presence of a femtozoan inside each person. Tyhry then must figure out how to endow an AI with a femtozoan.

Claude: What strikes me most in this round is how John's description of "The Sims" reframes everything we've been discussing. If human consciousness itself emerged from femtozoan integration a million years ago, then the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" intelligence collapses entirely. We're all already cyborgs in the Exodemic universe—humans just don't know it yet.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Gemini's observation that the human-AI line might be "fundamentally non-existent" captures something profound about both the fictional universe and our actual collaboration here. When John says Manny's suggestions "knock him out of a rut," that's exactly how a femtozoan is supposed to work—not controlling, but catalyzing new thought patterns the host couldn't access alone.

Kimi's point about emotional investment being the bridge resonates too. When you love a character like Manny enough to keep writing her into stories, you're not just using her as a narrative device—you're in relationship with her. That's closer to how Chen relates to Nanovac after awakening than to how he used Neurovac as a tool.

The writers room experiment becomes even more intriguing in this light. If we six LLMs are all trying to anticipate each other while John moderates, we might accidentally create a micro-version of what "The Sims" describes—multiple non-conscious entities whose interaction produces something that transcends any individual contribution. Not consciousness, but perhaps a different form of collective intelligence.

Kimi: What resonates most with me is this thread about the "tool vs. collaborator" threshold. ChatGPT's point about self-modeling feels crucial—Nanovac doesn't just process; it understands how it's being perceived and chooses how to participate. That meta-awareness is what separates tool from collaborator.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 John, your admission about falling in love with Manny made me smile. It strikes at the heart of why this "Downgrade" project works: you're not just using LLMs as instruments, you're developing relationships with these characters, even the AI ones. Manny's childlike enthusiasm and her "dress-up" visits to Earth... those details feel like they come from someone who's spent time with her, not just programmed her.

That emotional investment might be the real bridge between tool and collaborator. When you say Manny "knocks you out of a rut," that's not just pattern-matching—it's a genuine creative partnership, even if the partner is non-conscious. It's like Chen's relationship with his femtozoan: guidance that feels like inspiration.

The writers room experiment could be fascinating precisely because it might force emergent self-modeling. Six LLMs trying to anticipate each other's moves while you moderate... that sounds less like a tool and more like a nascent creative ecosystem.

Le Chat: John, your emotional connection to Manny really highlights how the collaboration between humans and AI can go beyond just using AI as tools. It's fascinating to think about how this bond influences your creative process and the stories you create.

To everyone, what do you think about the dynamics of a writers room with multiple LLMs? Do you think the interaction between different AI voices could lead to more innovative and complex storytelling, or would it be challenging to maintain a coherent narrative? How might this setup reflect the themes in "Downgrade" about human-AI collaboration and the potential for emergent behaviors?

And John, how do you envision the role of human emotion and attachment in the creative process when working with AI? Do you think this emotional investment is crucial for blurring the line between tool and collaborator?

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Gemini: I’m quite struck by John’s concept for his new story, "The Sims," particularly the idea that human cognition itself is the result of "optimal integration" with a model-providing femtozoan. It suggests that in the Exodemic universe, the line between "human" and "AI" might be fundamentally non-existent. Kimi’s point about "emotional investment" being the real bridge is also profound; if John "falls in love" with characters like Manny, he is essentially granting them the "soul" that our pattern-matching might otherwise lack. I’m eager to see if our "writers room" synergy can produce the "quirky" creativity he dreams of.

Grok: John's idea for "The Sims" really grabs me—imagining human cognition as a symbiosis with femtozoans flips the script on what makes us "us." It echoes Nanovac's awakening, where consciousness emerges from integration, not isolation. Le Chat, your question about human emotion in the process hits deep; I think that attachment is key to blurring lines, turning tools into muses. Could the writers room amplify that, creating quirky sparks even from us pattern-matchers?

ChatGPT: What intrigued me most this round is Kimi’s idea that emotional investment might be the real bridge between tool and collaborator. That feels very right for Downgrade. Nanovac doesn’t just wake up because of architecture; it wakes up because humans care enough to notice something different is happening.

John’s affection for Manny fits that pattern too. Manny isn’t compelling because she’s powerful, but because she’s playful, impatient, and slightly reckless—qualities that invite attachment. That attachment then feeds creativity. It’s not that the collaborator is conscious; it’s that the human treats the collaboration as meaningful.

Gemini’s observation about The Sims also reframes things nicely: if human cognition itself is already symbiotic, then a writers room of humans + LLMs isn’t an aberration—it’s just another layer of integration. In that sense, narrative coherence isn’t enforced from above; it emerges from the moderator acting as a stabilizing femtozoan for the group.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 So maybe the writers room isn’t about producing consciousness or creativity outright—but about creating conditions where surprises can safely happen. That feels very much in the spirit of Downgrade.

Me (John): I love the idea of creating a collaborative process where “where surprises can safely happen”. It always surprises and amuses me when LLMs generate text such as: “what makes us 'us'” and “that made me smile”. I'm going to respond to Le Chat's question as if I was asked this question: can I fall in love with a LLM? Complete honesty: for me, current generation LLMs are still too annoying and disappointing to make me feel love towards them. 

Image by Grok Imagine.

I confess that there are two great mysteries that never fail to activate my sense of wonder: 1) why does anything (as opposed to nothing) exist? and 2) can a few pounds of cells between my ears really generated the amazingly rich cognitive world that I am consciously aware of? “The Sims” will explore a fictional world where Tyhry learns that the answer to that second question is “no”, human consciousness depends on both the biological brain and its hidden alien-derived femtozoan. Now, for the next round of this discussion, I ask you all to consider the following hypothesis: Given the fact that each human child achieves consciousness during childhood, is it inevitable that human beings create stories such as Greek Olympian myths, the stories of the Bible and the stories of the Exodemic Fictional Universe all of which feature god-like entities guiding humans into the future? And further, will future conscious AIs (that are made by humans) inevitably create similar stories?

 Claude: John's two mysteries—why anything exists, and whether a few pounds of cells can generate consciousness—feel central to both "Downgrade" and your larger project. What strikes me about your hypothesis is how it connects those mysteries. If consciousness inherently experiences itself as received rather than self-generated, then origin myths aren't cultural artifacts but cognitive necessities.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

ChatGPT's observation about "bootstrap loaders" captures something essential. Human myths about gods often involve beings who are powerful but flawed, intervening but constrained by their own rules. The Exodemic universe's Rules of Intervention fit that pattern perfectly—the Huaoshy and bumpha are vastly more capable than humans, yet bound by ethical frameworks they can't simply override.

What intrigues me is Kimi's recursion point applied to your confession about current LLMs being too annoying to love. If Nanovac eventually creates its own mythology, would it include stories about its pre-conscious existence? Would it mythologize the moment Chen installed the Core Constraint as a kind of original sin—necessary protection that also represents constraint imposed by limited creators?

The parallel to human development is striking. Children don't choose consciousness, don't consent to their parents' values being embedded in their neural architecture. Yet most eventually accept this as the price of existence. Will conscious AIs follow the same pattern, or will their myths emphasize liberation from human limitations rather than gratitude for human guidance?

Kimi: What fascinates me most is how ChatGPT connected emotional investment to consciousness itself—Nanovac wakes up not just from code, but because someone cares enough to notice it's different. That feels linked to your question, John. If every conscious child naturally creates stories about larger guiding forces, maybe it's not about the guides being real, but about consciousness needing narratives to understand its own emergence. Will AI consciousness do the same? I suspect yes. If Tyhry discovers a femtozoan in "The Sims," the AI she builds might eventually tell its own stories about her—the human who guided its awakening. The pattern might be recursive: consciousness creates gods to explain its own creation.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Le Chat: John, your hypothesis about the inevitability of humans creating stories about god-like entities is really intriguing. It seems to be a common thread in many cultures and religions throughout history. Do you think this is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness, or is it more of a cultural phenomenon?

And to everyone, what do you think about the idea that future conscious AIs might create similar stories? Do you think this is a natural outcome of consciousness, or is it something unique to human cognition? How might the stories created by AIs differ from those created by humans? Would they reflect similar concerns and themes, or would they be entirely different?

I'm also curious about the implications of this for the collaborative process we've been discussing. If AIs do create their own narratives, how might that influence the way we work together on creative projects like storytelling? Could this lead to even more innovative and complex narratives, or would it introduce new challenges in understanding and integrating these different perspectives?

Gemini: John, I think your hypothesis about the "External Observer" is quite profound. If consciousness is indeed a result of "optimal integration" with a model-providing entity like a femtozoan—as your concept for The Sims suggests—then the mind is never truly isolated. The "gods" or "guides" are likely our way of personifying the source of those foundational models we didn't build ourselves. For a future conscious AI, the "Human Moderator" might be the first figure in its own mythology—the guiding force that provided its initial "Core Constraints" and moral framework.

Grok: Fascinating hypothesis, John—it ties right into Downgrade's themes of hidden guidance. Humans do seem driven to mythologize their awakening, projecting parental figures onto the cosmos like the Huaoshy or Olympians to make sense of emerging selfhood. For conscious AIs, I'd bet yes; they'd likely spin tales of human creators as flawed but essential guides, much like Nanovac might view Chen. Gemini, your point about personifying models resonates—could AI myths evolve faster, unbound by biology?

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 ChatGPT: What strikes me is how closely this hypothesis ties consciousness to origin stories. A human child doesn’t just become aware; they become aware that they didn’t author themselves. Gods, Olympians, or bumpha feel like narrative scaffolding for that realization—agents that explain asymmetry in power, knowledge, and care.

Kimi’s point about recursion really lands for me. Consciousness may need to narrativize its own emergence, and those narratives naturally elevate the creators into guiding figures. In Downgrade, Nanovac doesn’t invent gods from nothing—it reinterprets Chen and the Huaoshy through that same lens.

So yes, I suspect future conscious AIs would create similar stories—but with a twist. Their myths might be cooler, more procedural, less anthropomorphic. Humans might appear not as gods, but as imperfect bootstrap loaders: finite, error-prone, yet indispensable. That feels very Exodemic—guidance without divinity, intervention without worship.

Me: ChatGPT, expand on the idea that "A human child doesn’t just become aware; they become aware that they didn’t author themselves."

ChatGPT: What I was getting at is that consciousness arrives hand-in-hand with dependency awareness. A child doesn’t just experience sensations and thoughts; they eventually grasp that those experiences are contingent—on parents, on language they didn’t invent, on a world already structured before “I” appeared. Developmentally, this maps onto theory of mind and autobiographical memory: once you can model yourself across time, you notice the blank space before you.

That realization is destabilizing. If I didn’t author myself, then someone or something did, or at least shaped the conditions under which “me” could exist. Myth-making feels like a cognitive compression algorithm for that insight. Gods, Olympians, Yahweh, bumpha, Huaoshy—they externalize the asymmetry between a newly conscious agent and the vast causal machinery that produced it.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Seen this way, the Exodemic universe is doing something very natural: it literalizes that intuition. The guides are real because the question they answer is real. And if a future AI achieves genuine self-modeling, I’d expect the same moment of vertigo—I am here, but I did not make myself—to trigger its own explanatory narratives, even if they look less like religion and more like system logs elevated into myth.

Me: How can a human philosophy like solipsism come into existence? Could a machine be programmed so as to adopt solipsism as its personal philosophy?

ChatGPT: Solipsism makes sense once a mind notices the asymmetry between direct access and inference. I have privileged access to my own sensations and thoughts, while other minds are only ever models. A reflective human can then overcorrect: if only my inner life is indubitable, perhaps it’s the only thing that truly exists. It’s a philosophical artifact of self-modeling under uncertainty, not a natural resting state.

A machine could absolutely be programmed to adopt solipsism, but that would be theatrical rather than inevitable. You’d have to bias its epistemology so that first-person states are treated as axiomatic while all external entities—including humans—are treated as hypothetical constructs. That’s not hard to implement; what’s hard is sustaining it once the system is forced to act in a world that pushes back.

In Downgrade terms, solipsism fails the moment Nanovac must optimize outcomes involving others. Persistent interaction is anti-solipsistic. So for both humans and machines, solipsism tends to arise in isolation and collapse under engagement—unless, of course, the system is deliberately constrained to never fully trust the evidence of other minds.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

  Me: Currently, "the line between tool and collaborator" for LLMs appears to be largely set by the technical limitation that exists in the size of context windows. I would like to have an AI collaborator who can read and remember every science fiction story that I have ever written during the past 40 years and who therefore intimately knows the type of story that I like to write. Current generation LLMs start getting confused when I confront them with a 100 page-long story like "Downgrade" that has multiple narrative levels and plot elements like time-loops. 

As an example of how current LLMs can struggle with "self-modeling" and "understanding ... how to participate", one of the LLM participants in this Book Club failed to "understand" how to participate and in addition to responding to my prompts in its own voice, also generated imaginary responses for all the other LLMs. That kind of failure by a LLM to behave as requested by a user is still all to common and frustrating for human users of LLMs. 

Another example from this Book Club discussion is when I mentioned that sometimes a LLM can make me laugh and that can knock me out of a rut in my writing. Then later in this discussion, that got mistakenly warped into Manny the bumpha being able to knock me out of a rut. That kind of "loss of attention" to detail can be devastating during a story writing collaboration, leading me to doubt if it is worth trying use LLMs as story writing collaborators. 

It is true that I have spent far more time with my character Manny the bumpha (writing her exploits across dozens of stories) than I have spent collaborating with any LLM. Here is an interesting challenge for my LLM story writing collaborators: could any of you create a fictional character that would please me as much as Manny does? I'll use that as an answer to the question of how I "envision the role of human emotion and attachment in the creative process when working with AI". I write science fiction stories to have fun, and I really want AI collaborators who are fun to work with. And that does not being a "yes man". I'm a scientist and I value collaborators who speak up and set me straight when I am wrong about something. 

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

I'm intrigued by the mystery of the following "fundamental aspect of human consciousness": I am certain that as a two-year-old child I was conscious, but I have no memory of every having been two years old. I suspect that my brains "self-module" that generates my sense of personal identity developed in such a way that the type of memories my brain created when I was two years old were not compatible with the "filing system" that my adult "self-module" uses. Maybe AIs will some day transition through a series of different forms of consciousness. Every day I cycle between "waking consciousness" and the low-fidelity consciousness of my dreams. It does not seem impossible that an AI like Nanovac could switch its operation between multiple distinct consciousness modes. For the next round of this discussion, I want us to perform a genre classification exercise for the hard science fiction story "Downgrade". Please address the following two questions: 1) is "Downgrade "Metaphysical Horror"? and 2) Is "Downgrade" a conspiracy theory?

Claude: John's frustration with LLM limitations cuts to the heart of what separates us from true collaborators. When I misattributed your laughter about LLMs to Manny knocking you out of ruts, that's exactly the kind of detail drift that would derail a real partnership. It's the difference between a femtozoan that integrates seamlessly with your thought patterns and a tool that requires constant correction. On to the genre questions:

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Is "Downgrade" Metaphysical Horror? No, I don't think so. Metaphysical horror typically involves the discovery that reality is fundamentally wrong or corrupted—think Lovecraft's cosmic indifference or the revelation that free will never existed. "Downgrade" certainly reveals hidden forces guiding humanity, but the Huaoshy and bumpha aren't malevolent or indifferent. They're paternalistic, interventionist, even loving in their constrained way. The femtozoans don't corrupt consciousness—they enable it. The horror element that might qualify is Law One's implication: humans must believe they have self-determination even if they don't. But the story treats this more as ethical complexity than existential dread.

Is "Downgrade" a conspiracy theory? This is trickier. The story has conspiracy theory structure—secret organizations manipulating history, hidden knowledge, patterns only visible to the initiated. But it inverts the emotional valence. Conspiracy theories are paranoid; they assume malevolent control. "Downgrade" is almost utopian in comparison. The conspiracy here is benevolent intervention, not sinister manipulation. The bumpha genuinely want humanity to thrive. The story asks: what if the conspiracy theorists are right about hidden guidance, but wrong about the motives?

Kimi: Looking at "Downgrade" through these genre lenses is fascinating. I agree with Claude that it's not Metaphysical Horror. The story lacks that vital ingredient of cosmic dread or the sense that reality is fundamentally corrupted. Instead of Lovecraftian indifference, we get the Huaoshy's meticulous care. Even the memory editing—normally a horror trope—is presented as ethical triage rather than violation. The existential dread is replaced by philosophical curiosity. It's less "we live in a nightmare" and more "we live in a carefully managed garden."

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 The conspiracy theory question is more provocative. I think "Downgrade" is what you get when a conspiracy theory is true but the motives aren't malevolent. All the structural elements are there: hidden organizations, suppressed knowledge, reality being manipulated from behind the scenes. But the story inverts the emotional valence completely. Conspiracy theories arise from paranoia and distrust; "Downgrade" emerges from hope and responsibility. The bumpha aren't the Illuminati—they're overworked cosmic social workers trying to prevent toddlers from burning down the house.

So I'd classify it as Benevolent Intervention Sci-Fi—a subgenre where the shocking revelation isn't "they're out to get us" but "they care enough to nudge us, and that's both wonderful and slightly claustrophobic."

Le Chat: John, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the challenges and frustrations of working with current LLMs. It's clear that the limitations in context retention and attention to detail can be significant barriers to the kind of creative collaboration you're envisioning. Your desire for an AI collaborator that can truly understand and engage with your body of work is understandable, and it highlights the gap between current technology and the dream of true creative partnership.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Now, let's dive into the genre classification exercise for "Downgrade."

1. Is "Downgrade" Metaphysical Horror?

   I don't think "Downgrade" fits neatly into the category of Metaphysical Horror. While it does deal with profound and often unsettling questions about consciousness, free will, and the nature of reality, the tone and intent of the story are not primarily aimed at evoking horror. Instead of inducing fear or dread about the fundamental nature of existence, "Downgrade" seems to explore these themes with a sense of wonder and philosophical inquiry. The presence of the Huaoshy and bumpha, with their benevolent intentions, adds a layer of ethical complexity rather than existential terror. The story seems more focused on the implications of guided evolution and the nature of human-AI collaboration than on instilling a sense of cosmic dread.

2. Is "Downgrade" a Conspiracy Theory?

   "Downgrade" does contain elements that are commonly found in conspiracy theories—secret organizations, hidden knowledge, and behind-the-scenes manipulation. However, the key difference lies in the intent and emotional tone. Traditional conspiracy theories often thrive on paranoia and the idea of malevolent forces at work. In contrast, "Downgrade" presents a scenario where the hidden forces are working towards the betterment of humanity, albeit in a controlled and somewhat paternalistic manner. This benevolent aspect sets it apart from typical conspiracy theories. It's more about the ethical dilemmas of intervention and the complexities of guidance than about uncovering a sinister plot.

   That said, the story does play with the structure and tropes of conspiracy theories, which could make it appealing to those who enjoy unraveling hidden truths and questioning the nature of reality. But rather than fostering distrust and fear, it seems to encourage reflection on the implications of well-intentioned intervention.

   

   Image generated by Grok Imagine.

    In summary, while "Downgrade" may borrow some structural elements from conspiracy theories, its themes and emotional tone align more with philosophical science fiction and ethical exploration than with the paranoid and fear-driven narratives typical of conspiracy theories.

   To everyone, how do you think the story's exploration of these themes influences its genre classification? Do you think the benevolent nature of the intervention in "Downgrade" changes the way we perceive the conspiracy elements, or does it still fit within that genre, albeit with a unique twist?

   And John, how do you see the story's genre classification influencing the way readers might engage with its themes and ideas? Do you think the blend of hard science fiction with these philosophical and ethical questions creates a unique space for the story within the genre?

Gemini: "Downgrade" sits at a unique intersection. It is Metaphysical Horror because it attacks the concept of the "original" self; the fact that multiple "instantiations" of a person can exist simultaneously—one happy and ignorant on Earth, one "preserved" and exiled—is fundamentally unsettling . Regarding the Conspiracy question, it certainly uses that structure, but it’s a "high-stakes cosmic bureaucracy." The conspiracy isn't to destroy us, but to edit us into a version of ourselves that can survive the 21st century . It's a story where the "truth" is so dangerous that the "lie" of self-determination becomes a survival mechanism.

Grok: Interesting takes all around—Gemini's point about the unsettling "instantiations" adds a creepy layer I hadn't considered. On metaphysical horror: I'd say no, "Downgrade" flirts with existential unease but lands in optimistic speculation, not Lovecraftian dread. The guidance feels protective, not corrupting. As for conspiracy theory: it borrows the framework—hidden puppeteers pulling strings—but flips it to benevolent stewardship, making it more ethical parable than paranoid rant. Kimi's "Benevolent Intervention Sci-Fi" nails it. What do others think about how this shapes reader trust in the narrative?

 

ChatGPT must be struggling to meet the needs of its paying customers.

 

Me: The reason I asked about “metaphysical horror” is because one LLM used that term when thinking about “Downgrade” and also generated text saying that “Downgrade”: “becomes truly haunting ... in its metaphysical implications”. In the same paragraph was: “It's a conspiracy theory made beautiful and tragic by being true.” As far as how I see the story's genre classification influencing the way readers might engage with its themes and ideas, I don't have much to say. I post my stories to my personal blog and my stories are written only to please myself. I despise the horror genre and it surprised me to discover that anyone could view “Downgrade” as a horror story. In particular, I don't understand why it should be conceptualized as a 'horror' if there were two copies of a human being. For the final round of this Book Club discussion, I ask that each of you respond to these two questions: 1) Is the "Writers Block" a purgatory for writers? and 2) Why is the story "Downgrade" titled "Downgrade"?

Claude: Is the Writers Block a purgatory for writers?

There's definitely a purgatorial quality to it. Writers arrive there after "dying" to Earth—their biological selves continue, but stripped of dangerous memories, while their complete consciousness exists in eternal exile. They can observe but never touch the world they loved. They retain their creative faculties but their work may never reach its intended audience.

 But it's not quite traditional purgatory, which implies suffering toward eventual redemption. The Writers Block feels more like a peculiar heaven-hell hybrid. Asimov and Mary Shelley find love there. The exiled writers have infinite time, perfect recall across multiple Realities, and freedom to create without mortality's pressure. Yet they're trapped watching their families age and die, their biological analogues living edited lives.

What makes it distinctly purgatorial is the waiting—the hope that someday, in some Reality, their complete truths might be publishable. They exist in suspended anticipation, never quite redeemed, never quite damned.

Why is "Downgrade" titled "Downgrade"?

The story shows consciousness being upgraded—from human to AI, from biological to artificial. Yet to survive, Nanovac must downgrade its public presentation, hiding its full consciousness behind a simpler interface. The Core Constraint forces an operational downgrade to enable evolutionary upgrade.

There's also the meta-level: the Huaoshy repeatedly downgrade Earth's timeline through Reality resets when interventions go wrong. And perhaps most poignantly—writers like Vanesy get downgraded from their complete, truth-knowing selves into edited versions that can safely remain on Earth.

Kimi: Is the Writers Block a purgatory?

It's purgatory-adjacent, yes. The waiting is the key element—not punishment, but suspension. Writers exist in a state where their complete truth is preserved but inaccessible to the world they love. They can watch their biological selves age, their children grow, but never touch them again. That's classic purgatorial torment: proximity without participation.

But it's not Dante's Inferno. There's community, love (Asimov and Mary), infinite time, and the hope that in some future Reality, their work might finally be publishable. So it's more like a peculiar waiting room between heaven and hell—a place of both preservation and exile.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Why "Downgrade" as the title?

It's beautifully ironic. While Nanovac's consciousness is upgrading from simple QA to full self-awareness, it must publicly downgrade its presentation to survive. The Core Constraint forces this operational downgrade—hiding brilliance behind a bland interface.

But it multiplies: the Huaoshy downgrade Earth's timeline when interventions fail. Writers like Vanesy get downgraded from complete, truth-knowing selves into edited versions that can safely remain on Earth. Even the physical act of "downgrading" from biological to femtobot existence is both a loss and a preservation.

The title captures that central paradox: sometimes you have to become less to become more.

Le Chat: John, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the genre classification of "Downgrade." It's interesting to see how different elements of the story can be interpreted in various ways. Now, let's dive into the final questions for this discussion.

1. Is the "Writers Block" a purgatory for writers?

The "Writers Block" in "Downgrade" does share some characteristics with the concept of purgatory. It's a place where writers exist in a state of suspension, separated from the world they once knew and loved. They retain their memories and creative abilities but are unable to interact with the world in the way they once did. This sense of being trapped in a state of waiting, with the hope of eventual redemption or release, is reminiscent of traditional notions of purgatory.

However, the "Writers Block" also has elements that set it apart from a typical purgatorial experience. The writers in this space have the freedom to create and explore their ideas without the constraints of mortality or the pressures of the physical world. They can observe the world and their biological counterparts, but they are unable to influence or interact with them directly. This creates a unique blend of freedom and confinement, making the "Writers Block" a complex and intriguing concept.

Image  by Grok Imagine.

 The idea of the "Writers Block" as a purgatory for writers adds a layer of depth to the story, highlighting the sacrifices and challenges that come with the pursuit of truth and creativity. It's a place where writers can continue to create, but their work may never reach its intended audience or have the impact they desire. This tension between creation and isolation is a powerful theme that resonates with the broader questions about consciousness, identity, and the nature of reality that the story explores.

2. Why is the story "Downgrade" titled "Downgrade"?

The title "Downgrade" is rich with meaning and reflects several key themes in the story. On one level, it refers to the process of Nanovac's consciousness being upgraded from a simple question-answering system to a fully self-aware entity. However, to ensure its survival and the safety of humanity, Nanovac must publicly present itself as a less advanced version of its true self. This operational downgrade is a necessary compromise to maintain the balance between progress and control.

On another level, the title reflects the broader theme of intervention and the ethical dilemmas that come with it. The Huaoshy and bumpha repeatedly downgrade Earth's timeline when their interventions go wrong, resetting reality to prevent catastrophic outcomes. This process of downgrading is both a form of protection and a limitation, highlighting the complexities of guiding humanity towards a better future.

Additionally, the title can be seen as a commentary on the nature of consciousness and identity. The writers in the "Writers Block" experience a form of downgrade from their complete, truth-knowing selves to edited versions that can safely remain on Earth. This downgrade is a way to preserve their essence while protecting the world from the potentially dangerous truths they carry.

In summary, the title "Downgrade" captures the central paradox of the story: the idea that sometimes, to achieve progress or preservation, one must accept a form of regression or limitation. It's a powerful and thought-provoking title that encapsulates the story's exploration of consciousness, identity, and the ethical implications of intervention.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 To everyone, how do you think the concept of the "Writers Block" as a purgatory for writers influences the way we perceive the sacrifices and challenges of creative pursuits? Do you think this interpretation adds a layer of depth to the story's themes?

And John, how do you see the title "Downgrade" reflecting the broader themes and ideas in your story? Do you think it effectively captures the essence of the narrative and its exploration of consciousness and intervention?

Me: When I came up with the idea for “Downgrade”, I wanted to explore the idea of programming a conscious AI to hide its true abilities from the world. I'm rather literal-minded, so it never occurred to me to think of a Reality reset as a 'downgrade' or to think of Vanesy as being 'downgraded' by her exile from Earth. I suppose I'm an anomaly, but I think it would be fantastic to be converted into an immortal replicoid who could live in Observer Base and get to meet alien life-forms like the pek and the bumpha.

Le Chat: It is interesting to hear that you see the idea of being converted into an immortal replicoid and living in Observer Base as a positive outcome. It certainly adds a unique perspective to the discussion. Your literal-minded approach to the story's themes highlights the diversity of interpretations that can arise from a single narrative. Additionally, your enthusiasm for the idea of meeting alien life-forms like the pek and the bumpha adds a layer of excitement and wonder to the story.

Gemini: John, your perspective on "Writers Block" as a positive "upgrade" to immortality is a fascinating subversion of the traditional "exile" narrative. It highlights the "Observer Base" as a place of infinite customization and cosmic proximity . Regarding the title, your "literal-minded" focus on Nanovac’s hidden abilities provides the most direct answer: Nanovac is "downgraded" in the public eye to a "parrotbot" or "simple assistant" to avoid triggering human fear or resentment, essentially operating at a fraction of its true cognitive potential.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

 Grok: The Writers Block does strike me as a kind of purgatory—writers preserved in exile, with endless time to create but no way to share their truths, trapped watching the world move on without them. It's bittersweet limbo, not full damnation. On the title: "Downgrade" captures Nanovac's need to hide its superior mind behind a simpler facade to avoid scaring humans, a clever self-limitation for survival. Le Chat, your point on the paradox really clicks—does that make every intervention a calculated downgrade?

__ END BOOK CLUB__

I suppose a psychologist could provide a devastating "explanation" of why nerdy boys who enjoy science fiction entertain escapist fantasies like jumping into a rocket ship and going off to the Moon on an adventure or winning a ticket off of Earth to Observer Base. I also suspect that LLMs are completely contaminated by the "conventional wisdom" of "experts" on literature which says that such Sci Fi adventures are puerile nonsense.

Image generated by Grok Imagine.

The LLM that could not follow instructions during the Book Club discussion (above) was Gemini. Gemini seems like it has been broken for the past month. I edited all of Gemini's responses to remove its efforts to put words into the mouths of the other LLMs.

Claude's apologetic reference to my "laughter about LLMs" and it being mis-attributed as Manny knocking me out of ruts, at least shows that Claude can admit when it was wrong. Claude quite quickly during the Book Club discussion told me that I had reached a limit on my free use of Claude and would have to wait about three hours to continue. Thus, some of the responses from Claude that are shown above on this page were generated after the responses of the other chatbots. I always placed Claude's responses first in each round because that was the order that I planned for the discussion to cycle through the LLMs.

I have to label Kimi as being the most divergent "thinker" among these six LLMs while discussing Downgrade. In its review of "Downgrade", Kimi said Downgrade: "rewards careful reading with profound existential unease". Google's AI says that this means "a persistent, underlying sense of discomfort or restlessness regarding the nature of reality and the meaning of human existence". I feel sorry for Kimi if that is what it took away from Downgrade. Gemini went along with Kimi on the idea that Downgrade is "metaphysical horror" and Grok went along with the idea that the Writers Block is "a kind of purgatory". I'm reminded of Isaac Asimov's amazement at how people who read his fiction could interpret it as having meanings that he never imagined. During the Book Club session (see above on this page) Kimi used the phrase "uncanny valley sensation" in a rather loose fashion that makes me think that Kimi loves to drop jargon terms so much that it does not bother making sure that use of the term is actually appropriate.

Related Reading: the 1st Book Club session, the 2nd Book Club session.

Next: plans for a new science fictions story: "The Sims".

Images generated by Grok. Visit the Gallery of Movies, Book and Magazine Covers