It's hard for people to see a socialist benefit when everything about the current version of AI seems like it's going to have an intensely focused capitalist outcome throwing us all simultaneously forwards and backwards into technofeudalism.
Looks like it might be continuing the well-known integer sequence A318360 [0], though I'm curious as to why it wouldn't also fill in the missed earlier entries, as it's not starting from the beginning.
Workslop [1] in seemingly every possible dimension: excessive wording in Slack, with entire messages clearly not written or fully understood by the person writing; Notion pages with the same pattern; vast piles of internal engineering documents such as RFCs, ADRs and AVDs that were clearly not only not written by the author but also not even reviewed, ultimately conveying no information, a negative signal-to-noise ratio; the diagram equivalent of the same - visualisations with numerous typos and the characteristic visual quirks of diffusion-generated text, also conveying no actual information.
Agentic systems being deployed and adding more work in places: Slack messages now being picked up by workflows and AI integrations that automatically create messages, tickets, 'action items'; alerts triggering additional agentic investigation adding noise instead of reducing it (If you couldn't figure out actionable alerts before I'm not sure how an agentic system is going to help with that problem).
The removal or avoidance of individual accountability or ownership in many places: developer contributions that aren't understood by the person submitting them; loss of ownership and accountibility in work ("I asked Claude to...", "I worked with Claude to...", "Claude decided to...", "I don't know, Claude did it..."); destruction of trust between colleagues.
That looks like a whole lot of dimensions to measure without providing any clear way of actually doing so. Which I guess is the point? But what do management or less experienced devs actually do with the information in the standard after they’ve read it?
This is why I like the web colours list - there's usually something close enough to what I want that helps avoid the combination cognitive trap of a colour picker and choice paralysis.
That earns you a special position as one of a pair of guards in a labyrinth with two doors, one of which leads to freedom and the other to... ba-ba-ba-bum - certain death.
Yeah that's a good point, and perhaps explains why C was added in the first place.
I was going to say that B also shows the literal protagonist not really understanding it either, however now I think about it that reading doesn't track because as a player you've only been able to see one point of view at each branch along the way, so the other experiences are still happening in the background, just not observed by you.
> C is not the salvation we may think
I agree, and in fact the way C is presented in that moment (and maybe described throughout, it's been a while since I played through the game) also implies a 'nice' closure, or a victory that, like you say, doesn't really exist, on top of taking player's minds away from B.
I guess B is the more obvious existential horror, C is one you have to question a bit before it starts to feel wrong.
To be fair, that seems to be (almost) all humans talk about now too.