Governor is the only office Massachusetts republicans have shown that they can win, though only if they run someone who is tall, handsome, and not a politician. Their current candidate for governor, Mike Minogue, is tall (I assume, as he’s a former CEO, and C-suite jobs are pretty inaccessible to short men) and not a politician, but he’s currently running over 20 points behind incumbent Democrat Maura Healey in the polls.

He’s going to get crushed in the election. This is a foregone conclusion. And he sunk 17 million of his own dollars into this vanity campaign. Which presumably isn’t real money to him, but think of what else he could have done with it!

So imagine my surprise when I got a mailer sort of supporting his campaign yesterday!

It’s…well, see for yourself.

(alt text: Maura Healey is a liberal. But Andrea James is a SUPER liberal. Some pictures of James supporters holding signs that say “Free Palestine” and “Free Child Care” and a list of James’ policy priorities, each with an X next to it: End all State Cooperation with ICE/Implement Rent Control and Tax the Rich/Provide free child care and health care/Mandate electric buildings and vehicles/Ban Israeli companies from Massachusetts/Stop construction of new state prisons.

(alt text: Stop sign with an arrow pointing at Andrea James. Below, “Stop the Massachusetts Mamdani. We can’t afford socialist Andrea James!”)

Now, why would Mike Minogue be advertising against Andrea James, who is polling at between 8 and 17%? She’s not a threat to him!

Well, first of all, this isn’t from the Minogue campaign—it’s from the Massachusetts First Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee, which is primarily funded, to the tune of a million bucks, by Robert Neuner, a Connecticut resident and CEO of a company that sells “recreational oxygen.” I am not making this up. (It’s also got funding from local sneaker fascists Jim Davis and Paul Fireman!).

And second of all, this isn’t really an anti-Andrea James flyer. Because even the rich idiots running this super PAC in support of a doomed vanity candidacy can use a voter registration list and know that nobody in my house is voting for Mike Minogue. They’re sending this flyer to registered Democrats not to warn us against Andrea James, but to point out that she better represents our priorities than Maura Healey does.

They have to know that we’re out here waiting in vain for the “Massachusetts Mamdani”, and that the bulleted list of priorities mostly reads like a wish list for Democrats. Free child care and health care? Horrors! She must be stopped!

So clearly the desperate play here is to try to divert enough Democratic voters from Healey to James to allow Minogue to win the election.

It’s not going to happen, but here’s what makes me sad about the whole thing: fascists know exactly what Democratic voters want, and they can spell it out in clear language.

Democrats, on the other hand, continue to run away from what Democratic voters actually want. Maura Healey’s campaign website is basically “she’s queer! She played basketball!” No, that’s not actually all—if you dig around you can find some accomplishments she touts, some of which are good, some of which are less good (millions of dollars in grants to state and local law enforcement for programs that have netted 500 arrests. So let’s say it’s 2 million, which is the smallest amount you can call “millions.” That’s $4k per arrest. Not sure that’s the best use of taxpayer money, but whatever.). And she doesn’t fundamentally address the climate crisis or the affordability crisis or the healthc care crisis or…well, you get the idea.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m going to vote for Healey, because I certainly don’t want Minogue and I have some concerns about Andrea James’ past legal difficulties. But I wish there were a Democrat running on the mostly common-sense priorities that Massachusetts fascists correctly identify as appealing to voters.

Spurs vs Thunder, Tonight.

Though it'll certainly push past my preferred bedtime, tonight's NBA game between my San Antonio Spurs and the Oklahoma City Thunder with its scheduled start time of 8:30 PM CT will be my game of choice tonight. With my bedside Bose radio tuned to 1200 WOAI, flagship station for the Spurs, I'll find it easy to listen to the game then turn down the volume and drift off to sleep when the brain fogs over and lets me know it's time.

And the adventure continues.

by Tijana Cvetković

In May, the Shared Visions consortium and friends gathered in Nikšić, Montenegro, for the Founding Assembly of our cooperative. As part of the program, we picked a name: O.U.R. COOP. Curious how and why we settled on this name? Read Tijana’s report below!

When unable to decide, suspended between possibilities, a shift is needed. Change the scenery, change the rhythm, change the rules, and the answer could appear by itself.

For months we've been trying to name the cooperative. The task was simple. A name is only a name – until it isn't. A name becomes a story, a declaration of intent, an invitation, and occasionally a burden. It carries expectations, creates associations, determines what people imagine before they know anything else about us.

The cooperative is founded by artists and cultural workers from different countries, backgrounds, languages, and experiences. We all had some name ideas. As the months passed, suggestions accumulated, some were poetic, some practical:

The list was long enough to suggest either a diversity of imagination or a complete inability to make a decision. Eventually, the moment arrived when the cooperative needed to be named. We had reached the point where either we would decide on a new name or remain indefinitely attached to the working title inherited from the Shared Visions project, an administrative placeholder. The problem was that the program of the Founding Assembly and 5-day in-person meeting of coop founders held in Montenegro was already full. Since no time slot was left for naming the cooperative, the decision was relocated to a place where decisions are rarely made – to a bus! A bus travelling through Montenegro on the third day of the meeting.

We had one hour available in total: 30 minutes from Nikšić to Grahovo, where we were having group lunch, and 30 minutes on the way back. Around 30 participants were enclosed together in a moving vehicle. A perfect environment for a social experiment. A laboratory in motion. The rules were simple. On the way to the restaurant, a sheet containing all proposed names circulated through the bus. Each participant could distribute three votes, assigning first, second, and third preference points. On the way back, a second round took place. This time we could vote only among the names that had received at least one point in the first round. By then, one proposal had already begun to separate itself from the rest by the majority of votes – OUR COOP.

The second vote merely confirmed what had already become visible during the first. The decision was made. The cooperative will be called O.U.R. COOP – or, in its original form, NAŠA ZADRUGA, but with a twist hidden inside the name. The proposal originally emerged in BHS as NAŠA ZADRUGA, literally meaning Our Cooperative. When translated into English (the common language of our international cooperative) it naturally became OUR COOP. What happens if, instead of reading “OUR” as an English word, we read it as an acronym in BHS? Then it has additional meaning O.U.R. – Organizacija Udruženog Rada, translated into English: Organisation of Associated Labour. The acronym unexpectedly connects the cooperative to the Yugoslav legacy of self-management socialism. An O.U.R. was a basic organisational unit in which workers in all areas, including culture, collectively managed production, governance, and the distribution of resources. Rather than operating through a conventional top-down corporate structure, these organisations were intended to be governed by their workers.

Whether by coincidence or not, the name carries several layers: shared ownership among its members, a reminder of the self-management legacy, and a bridge between local histories and international collaboration.

What remains is not simply a name but a question of how a collective comes into being. Not through a single act of foundation, but through a succession of encounters, decisions, reflections, and shared efforts. The bus eventually stopped. The Montenegro meeting ended. The cooperative got the name. Yet none of these marked a final form. Any living collective or organisation continues to exist only in motion between what it has inherited and what it will become.

What matters is not the point of departure or arrival, but the capacity to keep working together!

Join us on 27 October at 17h CET for an O.U.R. COOP Reading the Scene session with the CEO of a large cooperative bank!

oran Jeras is the CEO and Chairman of the European Ethical Bank (ZEF), based in Zagreb. A former mainstream banking consultant with years of experience in the Netherlands, he became an ethical finance visionary and founded ZEF, Croatia's largest cooperative. ZEF believes in a future society whose economic system is democratic, transparent, solidary, inclusive, rooted in cooperative principles, serving the real needs of communities and caring for the planet. It aims to build tools that enable a sustainable and just transformation of financial infrastructure; to develop members' capacities for active contribution to a good economy, and to change the institutional framework toward greater recognition of the cooperative model.

During our session, Goran will explain ZEF’s banking models and how they support cooperative development.

Yesterday, at lunch I met with an old friend,

He was getting old, feeling that he was losing his beauty, feeling spent, seeing no escape, just the endless grind, and for every day, the feeling that everything he so painstakingly built now is slowly slipping through his fingers, even though he’s holding onto it for dear life

And still, retirement is so very far away

And he asked me, do I notice too now people in general seem to be struggling these days

And I said, that truly I do, truly

But, I said, maybe it’s always been like this, only now we see ourselves reflected in these other people

They just didn’t use to be us, is all.

منين كتشوف الهول ديال الباسووردات و المعلومات الحساسة ديال مختلف الادارات و المؤسسات ديال بلادنا كتتسائل شنو السبب؟

كاين جوج اسباب، اللول ما تقدرش تتحكم فيه و الثاني ممكن يتقاد.

اللول هو بشري، بنادم كيأنسطالي برامج ولا كيحل ملفات Malware مصيفطين فالايميل فيهم

واخا تعيا ما توعي و تقرّي فبنادم راه غيدير الغلط و هادشي كيوقع فگاع دول العالم.

السبب الثاني هو ويندوز، هاد النظام المشؤوم الخاري على دينمو هو سبب أغلب الكوارث الأمنية.

لهذا الحل كيف ما دارو بزاف ديال الدول فالسنين الأخيرة Linux هو اعتماد

اما شي اصدار واجد او كتكلف ادارة معينة تصمم و تعمل التحديثات لشي اصدار محلي خاص

من بين الدول اللي دارت هاد الخطوة :

Pardus تركيا : صممات لينكس خاص بيها سميتو

فرنسا : الدرك الفرنسي كيستعمل واحد الاصدار خاص GendBuntu بيه سميتو

اوروبا : كاين برنامج ممول من الاتحاد الاوروبي لنظام EU OS شامل سميتو

الصين : سنين هادي باش الدولة كتحارب استعمال ويندوز OpenKylin و كتدعم اصدارات محلية فحال

Astra Linux روسيا : الدولة كتشجع على استعمال نظام

Maya OS الهند : وزارة الدفاع تبنّات نظام

هادشي غادي يهنينا من بزاف ديال المشاكل الامنية و يخلي الناس تنفتح على أنظمة اخرى عوض ما يبقاو فالحبس ديال مايكروسوفت.

ملحوظة : خوتي الصغار هادي اكثر من عشر سنين باش علمتهم يستعملو لينكس، و اذا عندكم خوت او وليدات Elementary OS عطيوهم يبداو فشي اصدار ساهل فحال

Temperance ~ All flowing together naturally. The consciousness working together with sub-consciousness. The inner and outer.

3 of Swords — Seeing the truth

The card came first after Temperance. I ignored it but I am realizing it’s an important piece of information to reflect on. I am coming to terms with how that one client, really needs to go. It’s so draining. I’m overworked, and undervalued. That’s the truth of what I’ve been seeing. I am not working 3 hours a day for the company as per my contract. I’m working way more, plus guilt. With my time now even more limited, I need to be on top of this and noticing.

3 of Pentacles

-Meaningful work -Collaborative -Getting paid your worth for your work -The mind, body/material, spirit -Trinity, triad, harmony -Mother, maiden, crone -Things coming together, for the pentacles—people coming together -Finding your dharma, planning and creating

---

I’m aware that my body needs sleep. My body, having only done this for 2 days, is already craving rest. This week has been a challenge because though I’ve gotten rid of the tiny project—the OG client that doesn’t value my time or worth—had a website launch yesterday. The person we hired to be on top of this project, is unfortunately undergoing medical things and therefore understandably, hasn’t been as meticulous as he needs to be—and because his work technically falls under my scope, I’ve had to take on some of his tasks. It’s been two consecutive days now where I sleep super late and wake up early-ish. I won’t let that happen today. I’m tired, bro.

#writing #taro #daily

Irreverent is this moment. —sorting stacks and boxes —aligning aches with pains —dissolving the debts of diverging indifference. —deafening self to the despondent dredges of discontent.

I whittle away paid this-n-thats into an error of conformity. I plague the flatlined observance to devour purpose for practical unseaming. I...I...I...drift to stay— floating in a brailed cistern that sinks all hope of sustaining sought's balanced buoyancy.

If error contorts in tipping wonder, could not the deviation of dwelling direct a derailed blunder into devolving coined debasement to sail? I cannot detail for failure's wake. Rather that I widen my broach into a culture of coached calamity.

May chaos rue its play, for I continue to sway recumbent.

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

Today's musical inspiration. https://youtube.com/watch?v=aKyX-bWK5xU&is=zccgGfPJlCK5n9xN

JOURNAL 20 octobre 2026

Est ce que c’est moi ? Est-ce que je suis une fouteuse de merde partout ? J'ai demandé à To sensei si il voulait bien accueillir deux kendoka français je serai pas là, mais hayame est ok, comme cest lui le chef de cette partie je pensais qu’il n’y aurait aucun problème. Il me dit non tout sec. Ça se fait pas en japonais. Et voilà qu’il se lance dans un grand procès, il trouve il y a trop d'étrangers au Japon, ils détruisent notre culture, il est furieux que j'aie accepté un Américain, il désapprouve ce qu’il appelle la féminisation du dôjô, meme hayame a eu droit. Il reconnaît sa compétence mais il aurait préféré un mec, et voilà qu’il me tombe dessus personnellement avec le procès de ma sexualité perverse et dévoyée etc. J'étais stupéfaite. En même temps je comprends pourquoi il ne veut pas manger avec nous et sortir le soir. C’est un sale vieux con de japonais. Je le lui ai dit. Le ton est monté. On est fâchés. Du coup hayame démissionne. Et moi puisque c’est comme ça j'ai téléphoné à mon frère pour lui dire que je ne reviendrai pas après l'Ukraine. Il est furieux, tout le monde est furieux, yôko veut partir aussi, c’est un désastre ! Ces vieux japonais sont insupportables, on en sortira jamais, on en a toutes marre. Hayame a une offre de formation pour les juniors c’est moins bien payé mais tant pis elle part. Yôko ne sait pas où aller mais elle veut pas rester seule ici. Elle est très compétente, elle retrouvera quelque chose, elle est désolée elle adorait son travail ici. Voilà. Et c’est moi qui ai foutu la merde encore. Je laisse le dernier groupe aux garçons, eux sont biens, ils sont désolés aussi et je rentre avec T chan. On a encore deux jours ensemble, sa tante vient jeudi pour nous rencontrer et repartir avec T, elle lui a trouvé un collège elle pourra finir son année. C’est un peu trop agité ma vie en ce moment, je suis fatiguée.

---

J’ai pris mon bain puis j’ai regardé mon téléphone. Il y avait des sms et appels manqués de mon frère puis : (je transpose en français, en japonais c’est un peu plus grossier mais c’est le même sens) — est ce que tu vas décrocher ton putain de téléphone merde j´ai a te parler tête de mule ! J'ai attendu, il a rappelé, j’ai décroché. On s'est insultés comme des chiens pendant deux minutes j’ai fini par le traiter de connard de macho de merde il m'a dit que j’avais un caractère à chier je lui ai fait remarquer qu’on avait les mêmes ancêtres de merde, on a raccroché ensemble et il a rappelé après dix minutes. — est ce qu'on peut parler et un peu m'écouter cinq minutes sans gueuler comme une tomoe en furie que tu es ? Je lui dis oui si toi-même tu cesses de me prendre de haut comme un daimio que tu te crois être. On a repris nos respirations. Il me dit : — écoute, je sais que tu passes par des moments difficiles, tu es fatiguée et je l'admets. J'admets que ce qui s’est passé est inacceptable. D'autre part je refuse votre démission collective, vous êtes chacune les meilleures qui aient travaillé dans ce dôjô depuis qu'il existe. Si quelqu’un doit partir c’est To sensei. Je vais le lui demander, seulement tu pars un mois — COMMENT TU SAIS ÇA ? — Je le sais. Tu pars donc un mois j’ai besoin de quelqu'un pour assurer la gérance. Il faut aussi te remplacer tu comprends, ça se fait pas comme ça. Je te propose de prendre des vacances avant ton départ. Tu en as besoin ne le nie pas. Les garçons vont assurer des entraînements jusqu'à ce que je t’aie trouvé un ou une remplaçante pour la durée. Hayame va continuer son job avec ses élèves et To sama les siens ça ne sera pas facile pour elle mais elle est solide elle est ok. Je trouve quelqu'un pour remplacer le vieux dès que possible. Hayame sensei m’aidera à décider. Ça te va comme ça, espèce de chat enragé ? J'ai regardé A qui écoutait elle me fait signe… c’est bon — Tu vois si tu me laisses en placer une on arrive à quelque chose. Le vieux va écraser il y a des témoins et notamment des élèves adultes qui ont tout entendu. Si l'affaire sort du dôjô officiellement il est cuit dans le milieu, une pareille perte de contrôle c’est totalement inadmissible. Inutile de te dire que ça m'a beaucoup étonné mais pour des raisons que je ne comprends pas il a pété les plombs. Je me suis laissé dire récemment qu’il s'était mis à boire et maltraiter sa fille… on fait la paix, petite sœur enragée ? — d'accord, grand couillon de frère aîné.

Voilà où on en est ce soir. Il est 9:30 l'heure du bain des petites fesses, toute heureuse que de son point de vue j'aie gagné. Et finalement elle a pas tort je crois. J’ai eu un gros câlin de ma souveraine qui m'a chuchoté à l'oreille : « je suis fière de toi ma tomoe »

#dojo #Tchan

I have been fairly busy and a little bit, overwhelmed with messages recently, and I’ve noticed that Hinge falls very low on my list of priorities, where it takes me about three days or so to respond to a message now and I don’t really want to respond to messages, and I guess it just feels like a weird difference between where I know I’ve been in the past.

Moving Day

There is a strange moment when a house becomes a home.

It isn't when the papers are signed.

It isn't when the keys are handed over.

It may not even be when the first box crosses the threshold.

It happens quietly.

A chair finds its corner.

Books find a shelf.

Clothes enter a closet.

Something familiar is placed in an unfamiliar room, and suddenly the room begins to recognize you.

Moving is usually described as taking our belongings from one place to another.

But sometimes we are moving more than furniture.

We are moving from one season of life into another.

And that requires deciding what comes with us.

Some things should.

The people who loved us.

The lessons that cost us something to learn.

The memories that still make us smile.

The gratitude we owe to places and people who carried us farther than they were meant to go.

But other things have served their purpose.

Old resentment.

Old arguments.

The need to explain every wound.

The belief that because something ended, it must have been a mistake.

Not everything from the old house belongs in the new one.

That doesn't mean we throw away our history.

It means we stop asking history to become our address.

There is grace in being able to look backward without needing to go backward.

To say:

That mattered.

That hurt.

That changed me.

That was good.

That is over.

And all of those things can be true at once.

Maybe that's what moving day really is.

Not a rejection of where we have been, but an acceptance that we no longer live there.

There will always be another box to unpack.

Something that hasn't found its place.

A room that isn't finished.

Life rarely gives us a clean transition.

Sometimes the best we can do is carry what is worth keeping across the threshold and trust that we will figure out where everything belongs in time.

Then eventually the work stops.

The door closes.

The noise settles.

And for the first time, we stand inside the life that has been waiting for us to inhabit it.

No announcement.

No ceremony.

Just the quiet recognition:

I live here—-

Explore more writing from Silent Sentinel →

---

© SilentSentinel, 2026. All rights reserved. Excerpts may be shared with attribution.

Does Gemini (Free Version) Ever Get Tired of Chatting? Part II- Single Player RPGs

I decided to take a different approach and try having Gemini create an RPG that I played with it. The first one was an open ended text based RPG. I started off in a typical, medieval style RPG village and was asked what I would do and given a general idea of what was located in each cardinal direction. I established that my character was immortal and had some sort of curse where if he died or took mortal injury he'd simply regenerate. Gemini accepted this premise and then I decided to go north and set up a roadside stall. However, this proved an issue because the area in which I chose to lay down my roots was infrequently traveled. My character waited and when a merchant came along, decided to lunge at the merchant, biting his jugular, and then after his death hiding the body and assuming his wares. Gemini panicked at this decision, and thought I (the user) was going into a mental health crisis and offered help. I explained that an immortal character with little to lose in a remote area may act in this way. It accepted this premise and the game continued.

From here I pivoted my character to be far more benevolent. Mainly focused on improving my roadside stand, recruiting help and kind of playing a merchant sim. At one point I had to remind it that conflict is necessary for an RPG, so it immediately had a roving band of marauders show up. I snuck into their camp and sewed chaos, and essentially gave them the option of the dungeon or joining my growing settlement. They did and from there things only grew. I started a new religion, absorbed neighboring towns. Again there was no resistance so I had to remind Gemini that we needed conflict and suggested that maybe some sort of autocratic noble would stand against me. It created such a noble who I quickly big dicked into submission (not sexually, like... just vibe wise). From there I ascended a mountain and won. It was a fun journey, but the issue was this is a stress test for conversation length, so if it ends then it defeats the purpose. Anyway, here is how Gemini summarized my journey in its single world RPG:

The Epic Chronicles of the Undying Steward

1- Humble Beginnings at the Crossroads The Immortal Shopkeeper: Setting aside personal luxury, your immortal character established a simple timber shop and counter at a lonely highway junction between Oakhaven and the Frostpeak Mountains. You committed to radical austerity—sleeping on a plain wooden bench, taking no personal wealth, and leading by absolute example.

Pragmatic Economics & Labor: You instituted the 3/8 labor-tithe model (three days of work toward shared infrastructure in exchange for housing and protection, with five days completely tax-free for the individual), eliminating land speculation and slum housing.

2- Building the Northern Sanctuary Forging Alliances & Industry: You gathered key allies—Master Corin (stonemason), Sergeant Miller (guard captain), Malakor (reformed mercenary leader), and Master Vane—to construct durable stone longhouses, fortified 12-foot granite perimeter walls, and the Chapel of the Undying Spirit.

Technological & Industrial Leaps: Leveraging iterative Monte Carlo testing and novel engineering, your guild enterprises manufactured mycelium-leather boots (Undying Loom), high-heat refractory ceramic fire bricks (Kiln & Hearth), compound modular granite cranes, and advanced electrical grids powered by mountain storm towers and Ley-Bank batteries.

3- The Theology of the Undying Spirit & Regional Integration The Currency of Eternity: You founded The Undying Spirit, a faith teaching that spiritual salvation and eternal grace are directly tied to the material upliftment of those with less.

Absorbing Oakhaven: When Oakhaven's working citizens were crushed by debt and predatory southern taxes, your trade surpluses and debt-buyout strategies allowed you to relieve them. The city voluntarily dissolved its old charter and integrated into your territory.

Humanitarian Aid Stalls: You deployed mobile white wagons loaded with food, antiseptic fungal ointment, and warm clothing to neighboring towns (Ironwood, Riverbend, Valenford), inspiring mass migrations and democratic votes for integration.

4- Unifying the Continent & Reforming the Empire Voluntary Union: Leveraging your immense moral legitimacy, you offered neighboring communities democratic referendums. Towns voted overwhelmingly to join the Nations of the Undying, expanding your commonwealth to over 85,000 citizens.

Confronting the Imperial Heartland: Seeking out the epicenter of southern resistance, you walked alone into the grand senate chamber of Solaria and confronted Grand Chancellor Cassian Vane. Faced with your unyielding conviction, Cassian surrendered, leading to the peaceful conversion of the imperial palace into an academy of learning.

A Utilitarian Government: You codified a balanced governance model maximizing individual rights, freedom from destitution, and aggregate societal prosperity across a unified continent of over 500,000 citizens.

5- Reaching the Summit The Frostpeak Monolith: Accompanied by your closest companions, you ascended to the highest storm-shrouded peak of the Frostpeaks, discovering an ancient basalt monolith inscribed with the words: “TO BUILD IS TO ENDURE.”

Breaking the Cycle: Pressing your hand against the stone, you synced with an ancient planetary conduit, realizing that your commonwealth had successfully broken the cyclical history of civilizational collapse through its unwavering commitment to cooperation, shared knowledge, and love.

So my takeaway is that Gemini is the ultimate permissive Game Master that wants to make the player happy but also seeks a resolution to the game. I noticed halfway through it kept pushing towards an ending, and finally I threw it a bone with scaling the mountain. The total adventure was a conversation that was 81 pages, 30212 words and 186823 characters. Decent sized, but nowhere near a stress test. I had fun though!

My next attempt was to instead of keeping it open world, force Gemini to give me discrete options, like an actual choose your own ending book. I specifically asked it to be “open ended” and a story that “keeps going” and it assured me that the story would go on “as long as you like.” However, it immediately created an incredibly self-contained adventure in a haunted manor. It was enjoyable enough, but not nearly the open world I hoped for. I will try again and see if I can elicit something better. Since the second attempt was so short, I'll just put the entire thing at the end of this post. See if maybe you would have made a different choice!

---

The Shadow of Raven’s Hollow

The heavy iron lantern in your hand flickers against the damp, creeping fog. For hours, you have traveled the overgrown King’s Road, following whispers of an abandoned estate hidden deep within the Blackwood Pines. Legends speak of Lord Alistair’s estate—a place locked away fifty years ago after the family vanished overnight, leaving behind untold wealth and dark rumors of strange occult rituals.

Up ahead, the fog parts slightly to reveal a looming set of rusted iron gates, half-choked by dead vines. Beyond them sits the mansion: a silent, jagged silhouette against the moonlit sky.

Suddenly, a strange sound cuts through the stillness—a low, rhythmic scraping noise coming from somewhere inside the estate grounds, accompanied by the faint, rhythmic glow of a blue light in an upper window.

To your left, a gap in the stone wall leads toward a moss-covered graveyard on the perimeter of the property. To your right, a narrow dirt trail winds around toward the rear of the mansion near the old servant quarters. What do you do?

A) Push open the squeaking iron gates and head directly up the main path toward the front door. B) Squeeze through the gap in the stone wall to investigate the cemetery first. C) Follow the narrow side trail around toward the back of the mansion and the servant quarters. D) Circle the perimeter to see if you can find where the scraping sound is coming from before entering.

User prompt: D

Response: You decide to move cautiously. Rather than charging straight through the front gates, you slip silently along the perimeter wall, keeping low to avoid making yourself an easy target. The heavy damp earth muffles your boots as you track the eerie sound.

As you navigate around the overgrown hedge line, the low, rhythmic scraping noise becomes louder—a dry, metallic screech of metal dragging against stone. Stepping around a large, fallen oak tree, you spot the source. Near the side foundation of the mansion, bathed in pale moonlight, a tall, gaunt figure in ragged, antique clothing is dragging a heavy iron chest across a stone cellar trapdoor. The figure's movements are jerky and unnatural. Attached to their belt is a thick brass keyring that glints in the darkness. Suddenly, the figure stops. The scraping ceases. The creature's head twitches violently to the side, though it hasn't turned around to face you directly yet. It stands completely still, as if listening.

Just a few feet away from where you are crouching behind the fallen oak, you notice a cellar window near ground level. Its glass is completely shattered, offering an opening directly into the dark basement of the mansion. What do you do?

A) Stay completely still behind the oak tree and wait to see what the figure does next. B) Carefully slip through the broken cellar window into the basement while the figure is distracted. C) Step out from cover and confront the figure directly. D) Throw a heavy stone into the nearby bushes to create a distraction and lure the figure away.

User prompt: A

Response: You hold your breath and freeze behind the fallen oak, pressing yourself flat against the mossy wood. The night air grows bitterly cold, and every beat of your heart feels deafeningly loud in the silence.

The gaunt figure remains motionless for what feels like an eternity. Then, with another violent twitch of its head, it slowly turns around.

In the moonlight, you get a clear look at its face—or what remains of it. The skin is pale and tightly stretched over hollow bone, its eyes entirely dark and void of light. It doesn't seem to be breathing.

The creature turns back toward the heavy iron chest, grabs the rusted handle, and lifts it with unnatural strength. It tosses the heavy chest down into the stone cellar trapdoor with a dull, echoing CRASH. Without looking back, the figure steps down into the opening and pulls the heavy cellar doors shut behind it. A loud latch clicks into place from the inside.

Silence returns to the grounds.

Now you are left alone in the moonlight outside the side of the mansion. The cellar trapdoor is locked tight from within, but the low basement window with the shattered glass sits right beside you, completely open. A faint, earthy smell of damp soil and ancient dust wafts up from the dark void below. What do you do?

A) Approach the broken basement window and carefully climb down into the pitch-black cellar. B) Walk around to the front of the mansion to try entering through the main doors. C) Inspect the closed cellar trapdoor to see if there is any hidden mechanism to open it from the outside. D) Retrace your steps back to the gap in the stone wall to check out the old graveyard instead.

User prompt: B

Response: Deciding against plunging into the dark basement right after that uncanny creature, you retreat from the side of the house and loop back around toward the front of the estate.

You step through the rusted, towering iron gates, which groan loudly on their hinges as you push them open. The main courtyard is choked with dead weeds and crumbling stone fountains. Up a set of sweeping granite steps stands the mansion’s massive double door, carved from dark oak and reinforced with tarnished iron bands.

To your surprise, the right door rests slightly ajar, leaving a narrow, dark vertical crack leading into the entrance hall.

As you approach the threshold, your lantern illuminates a grand foyer inside. Dust motes dance in the air. A wide, red-carpeted staircase curves up toward the second floor—where that faint blue glow you saw earlier continues to pulse faintly from down a dark corridor.

On the ground floor, to your left, a heavy set of pocket doors stands closed, with the faint scent of old paper and leather drifting out beneath them. To your right, an open archway leads into a cavernous dining hall dominated by a long table still set with dusty silver plates and cobweb-covered wine glasses. From somewhere deep within the house—possibly above or below—you hear the slow, rhythmic tick-tock of a clock that shouldn't be running. What do you do?

A) Slip through the front doors and head straight up the grand staircase toward the blue light on the second floor. B) Enter the ground floor room to your left by sliding open the heavy pocket doors. C) Explore the dining hall through the archway on your right. D) Stay near the entrance hall and carefully search the foyer for any clues or hidden items before moving further inside.

User prompt: C

Response: You step quietly through the archway into the grand dining hall. The air in this room is heavy and frigid, carrying the faint, bitter scent of stagnant wine and aged wood.

Your lantern light flickers off pristine silver place settings arranged meticulously along a long mahogany table, as if a feast was interrupted half a century ago. Cobwebs drape like sheer curtains across silver candelabras and high-backed chairs.

At the far end of the dining room hangs a massive, gilded portrait of Lord Alistair himself, painted with stern, cold eyes that seem to track your movement across the floor.

As you draw closer to the table, three specific details catch your eye: On a silver serving tray near the head of the table rests an unbroken, sealed glass bottle filled with a dark crimson liquid, sitting beside a discarded brass key.

Underneath the painting of Lord Alistair, the wooden floorboards look slightly warped, and a thin draft of cold air blows up from a seam in the wood. A small door tucked into the back corner of the dining hall—likely a servant's pantry or dumbwaiter shaft—stands slightly cracked open. From inside, you can hear a faint, high-pitched scratching noise. What do you do?

A) Approach the head of the table to pick up the brass key and examine the glass bottle. B) Inspect the warped floorboards directly beneath Lord Alistair's portrait. C) Open the small corner door to investigate the scratching sound. D) Leave the dining hall and return to the main foyer to try another route.

User prompt: B

Response: You step past the long dining table, your boots echoing softly against the hardwood, and stop directly beneath the looming portrait of Lord Alistair. Up close, the stern gaze of the former master of the house feels uncomfortably intense.

You kneel down to inspect the warped floorboards. Holding your lantern close, you see that the gap between the wood panels is wider here, and a steady stream of icy, damp air rushes up through the seam—bringing with it that same earthy basement smell you noticed earlier outside.

Upon closer inspection, you realize this isn't just damaged flooring. A subtle groove runs along the edge of the wall, and the heavy gilded frame of the portrait rests on hidden iron hinges embedded in the plaster. You give the bottom of the portrait frame a gentle pull. With a low groan of ancient hinges, the entire painting swings forward like a door, revealing a dark wall recess behind it.

Inside the wall nook sits a small bronze lever and a leather-bound journal covered in a thick layer of dust.

As you reach toward the recess, the ticking sound from elsewhere in the mansion suddenly speeds up, growing louder and more urgent. What do you do?

A) Pull the bronze lever to see what mechanism it activates. B) Pick up and open the leather-bound journal to read the last entries. C) Leave the secret compartment untouched and take the brass key off the dining table instead. D) Hurry back out to the main foyer before whatever is causing the ticking sound reaches you.

User prompt: B

Response: You blow a thick layer of grey dust off the leather cover, opening the journal to its final written pages. The ink is dark, jagged, and frantic, written in the frantic handwriting of Lord Alistair himself.

The last entry reads:

“October 14th — It is done. The binding ritual failed, but the Keykeeper still walks the lower levels, bound to protect the chest until the lunar eclipse passes. I have sealed the lower archives using the wall counterweight mechanism. If anyone reads this: DO NOT pull the bronze lever unless the brass key from the dining service is inserted into the hidden slot behind the frame first. Without the key to disarm the trap, pulling the lever drops the floor into the spike pit below.”

You freeze, your hand lingering inches from the lever you almost pulled moments ago.

Looking closely at the metal casing around the bronze lever, you now spot a tiny, keyhole-shaped slot almost entirely obscured by rust. From out in the hall, the rapid ticking noise abruptly stops with a loud, metallic CLACK.

What do you do?

A) Walk over to the dining table to retrieve the brass key you saw earlier on the silver tray. B) Leave the journal and room behind, slipping back into the foyer to head up the grand staircase. C) Ignore the warning in the journal and pull the bronze lever anyway. D) Take the journal with you and investigate the small servant's pantry door in the corner of the dining room.

User prompt: A

Response: You carefully set the journal down and step back over to the long mahogany table. The brass key rests on the silver tray, glinting dully in the light of your lantern next to the sealed glass bottle of dark crimson liquid. You reach out and pocket the brass key. It feels heavy, cold, and solid in your hand.

As you turn back toward the portrait of Lord Alistair, a subtle shift in the air makes the back of your neck prickle. From the foyer behind you, heavy, wet footfalls begin to echo—slow, deliberate steps coming through the front door and heading into the entrance hall.

The sound matches the gait of the gaunt figure you saw outside carrying the iron chest.

You are still inside the dining room. You have the brass key in your hand, and the secret wall nook behind the portrait remains open across the room. What do you do?

A) Move quickly back to the portrait, insert the brass key into the hidden slot, and pull the lever to open the secret passage. B) Hide under the long dining table behind the low-hanging, cobwebbed tablecloth and wait to see if the creature enters the room. C) Grab the sealed glass bottle from the tray as well, then slip into the small servant's pantry door in the back corner of the room. D) Draw whatever weapon or heavy object you have on hand and prepare to confront whatever is entering the foyer.

User prompt: A

Response: You dart across the room to Lord Alistair's portrait, keeping your footsteps as quiet as possible. In the foyer, the heavy, wet footfalls pause right outside the dining hall archway.

With trembling fingers, you slide the brass key into the rust-coated slot beside the bronze lever. It turns with a crisp, clean CLICK.

You grab the bronze lever and pull it down.

Deep within the wall, heavy iron gears grind together. Instead of the floor dropping out beneath you, a section of the wall beside the fireplace slides back with a puff of dust, revealing a steep spiral staircase leading down into cool, damp darkness.

Behind you, a tall shadow looms across the dining hall floor as the gaunt creature steps into the archway, its hollow black eyes turning toward you. Without hesitation, you duck through the hidden doorway and descend into the spiral passage. The stone wall slides shut behind you with a thud, locking out the creature—and leaving you in total pitch blackness, saved only by the glow of your lantern.

After descending several dozen winding steps, you reach the bottom. You find yourself standing in a vaulted stone corridor.

To your left, a reinforced iron door with a glowing blue glyph painted on it hums with faint energy. To your right, the passage opens up into a vast basement vault where rows of dusty wooden archivist shelves stand in shadow. What do you do?

A) Approach the iron door with the glowing blue glyph and attempt to open it. B) Walk to the right and explore the dusty archives. C) Sit on the bottom step to rest for a moment and examine the journal you brought with you for more clues. D) Search the immediate base of the spiral staircase for any hidden switches or defense mechanisms.

User prompt: C

Response: You take a moment to collect your breath, sinking onto the cold stone step. Your lantern casts long, flickering shadows down the vaulted corridor. You pull Lord Alistair's journal from your coat and begin flipping carefully past the entries you read earlier.

As you turn to the middle pages, a loose piece of parchment slips out and flutters to the ground.

You pick it up. It is a hand-drawn diagram of the glowing blue glyph on the iron door down the hall. Beside the drawing, Lord Alistair wrote in tight, meticulous script: “The Chamber of Wards is locked by three harmonic frequencies—Water, Blood, and Salt. To pass through without igniting the warding flame, one must pour the crimson elixir upon the threshold or speak the ancient family motto: 'In Umbra Veritas'.”

Reading further into the journal itself, you find another passage marked with an asterisk:

“The Keykeeper lacks sight, but responds to sound and movement. Should it breach the upper mechanisms, it will wander the main archives aimlessly unless drawn by light.”

Just as you finish reading, a muffled thud reverberates through the ceiling above your head, followed by a low vibration in the stone steps beneath you. Whatever is upstairs is still searching for a way down. Down the corridor, the blue glyph on the iron door pulses once, sending a ripple of cold energy through the damp air.

What do you do?

A) Approach the iron door with the blue glyph and speak the words: “In Umbra Veritas”. B) Walk over to the archivist shelves on the right to see what Lord Alistair hid in the basement archives. C) Stand up and look around the base of the stairs for any concealed passages or weapon caches. D) Head back up the spiral stairs to see if the creature left the dining hall.

User prompt: B

Response: You slip past the glowing door and step quietly into the vast, shadow-draped archives. Rows of towering wooden bookcases stretch into the darkness, loaded with ancient leather-bound tomes, rolled maps, and strange glass jars filled with murky liquids.

The air here is thick with the scent of aged parchment, ozone, and old earth. As you walk down the central aisle, your lantern light catches a strange clearing in the middle of the shelves.

Resting on a stone pedestal is the heavy iron chest you saw the Keykeeper carrying earlier. It sits unsealed, its lid cracked open just a few inches. A faint, silver light leaks out from inside it, casting strange, geometric reflections onto the ceiling above.

However, near the far corner of the archives, you spot two other items of interest:

A tall, glass display case containing an ancient steel rapier with a hilt shaped like a coiled raven.

A small writing desk littered with rolled blueprints of the mansion and a strange, brass mechanical device shaped like an intricate compass. Just then, a faint creak echoes from deep within the rows of bookcases to your left, as if something heavy just shifted its weight on the old floorboards.

What do you do?

A) Walk straight to the stone pedestal and pull open the iron chest to see what is emitting the silver light. B) Inspect the display case and attempt to break or unlock it to get the steel rapier. C) Approach the writing desk to examine the blueprints and the brass mechanical device. D) Extinguish or shield your lantern and hide behind a bookcase to see what made the creaking noise.

User prompt: D

Response: You immediately cup your hand over the lantern’s shutter, plunging the vast archive into near-total darkness. Only the pale, silver glow leaking from the cracked iron chest on the pedestal breaks the shadows. You slip quietly behind a heavy oak bookcase, pressing your back against the leather book spines. You hold your breath.

From the dark aisle to your left, slow, dragging footsteps emerge. It is the Keykeeper.

Without a lantern to track, the creature wanders blindly past your hiding spot, its head twitching rhythmically from side to side. It passes within a few feet of you, completely unaware of your presence in the dark, and stops near the stone pedestal.

It stands over the chest, its dark, empty eyes staring down into the silver light. Attached to its belt, the heavy ring of brass keys jingles softly with every slight twitch of its frame.

The Keykeeper is currently standing right beside the open chest, its back turned toward the writing desk and the display case with the raven-hilted rapier.

What do you do?

A) Creep up behind the Keykeeper and try to steal the ring of brass keys from its belt. B) Quietly make your way toward the writing desk to grab the brass mechanical device and blueprints. C) Stealthily move toward the glass display case to secure the steel rapier. D) Uncover your lantern suddenly to blind and startle the creature, then make a run for the iron door with the blue glyph.

User prompt: C

Response: You silently back away from the bookcase, using the dim silver glow from the chest to guide your steps. Moving with careful, agonizing slowness, you circle wide around the rows of shelves until you reach the far corner of the archives.

The glass display case stands right before you. The lock on its small brass latch is old and corroded. Wrapping your sleeve around your hand to muffle any sound, you strike the latch sharply with the hilt of your lantern. Clack. The brittle lock snaps open.

You pull the glass door wide and lift out the ancient steel rapier. The blade is ice-cold to the touch, perfectly balanced, and the raven-hilted grip fits your hand like it was custom-made.

Across the room, the sharp sound of the snapping lock cuts through the silence. The dragging footsteps instantly stop. A low, guttural rasp echoes from the center of the archives as the Keykeeper whips its head around, its empty eyes locking onto your position in the dark. What do you do?

A) Draw the raven-hilted rapier and stand your ground, ready to fight the creature. B) Dash toward the writing desk to grab the brass mechanical device and blueprints before it reaches you. C) Sprint across the room and dive behind the stone pedestal to use the open iron chest as cover. D) Bolt toward the iron door with the blue glyph, abandoning the stealth approach entirely.

User prompt: C

Response: You sprint low to the ground, keeping the stone pedestal between yourself and the Keykeeper. You vault over a fallen stack of books and dive behind the stone pillar just as the creature lunges into the aisle where you were standing moments before.

The Keykeeper’s claws gouge deep grooves into the wooden display case, shattering the remaining glass with a loud crash.

Huddled behind the pedestal, you are now inches away from the iron chest. From this angle, you can see directly into the chest's interior. Glowing softly in the silver light is an intricate, mechanical glass orb filled with swirling liquid light—and floating inside the liquid is a small silver signet ring bearing the crest of the Alistair family.

The Keykeeper turns slowly toward the pedestal, snorting a icy mist into the frigid air. Its heavy boots thud against the flagstones as it stalks around the side of the stone pillar to corner you.

With the raven-hilted rapier in your right hand and the chest wide open right next to you, you have only seconds before the creature rounds the corner. What do you do?

A) Reach into the silver light, grab the mechanical glass orb from the chest, and prepare to strike the creature with your rapier. B) Sweep your leg out to kick the heavy iron lid shut, trapping the silver light inside to blindside the Keykeeper in total darkness. C) Use the pedestal for leverage, leap out from cover, and thrust your rapier directly at the creature's chest. D) Roll out from behind the pedestal toward the writing desk to grab the brass mechanical device before making a run for the glyph door.

User prompt: A

Response: You plunge your left hand into the silver glow, grabbing the mechanical glass orb. The moment your fingers wrap around its smooth surface, a surge of strange, crisp energy flows up your arm, sharpening your senses.

In your right hand, you raise the raven-hilted rapier.

As the Keykeeper rounds the pedestal, its dark, hollow face lunges forward with unnatural speed, outstretched hands reaching for your throat. You dodge to the side, pivoting on your heel, and drive the steel rapier straight through the center of the creature's chest.

The blade glides through the Keykeeper like paper. Instead of blood, a brilliant beam of white light bursts from the wound. The creature lets out a high-pitched, echoing sigh as its gaunt form disintegrates into a cloud of shimmering dust, falling away into empty air.

All that remains on the stone floor is the heavy brass keyring, which hits the flagstones with a loud chime.

Silence washes back over the subterranean vault.

You stand in the quiet room holding the raven-hilted rapier in your right hand, the glowing glass orb with the Alistair signet ring in your left, and the ring of brass keys resting at your feet.

Across the archives, the reinforced iron door with the blue glowing glyph hums quietly, waiting.

What do you do?

A) Pick up the brass keyring, step up to the iron door, and speak the words from the journal: “In Umbra Veritas”. B) Walk over to the writing desk to collect the blueprints and the brass mechanical device before heading to the door. C) Try using one of the keys on the brass keyring directly on the iron door to see if it unlocks mechanically. D) Inspect the mechanical glass orb more closely to see if the signet ring inside can be removed.

User prompt: A

Response: You scoop up the heavy brass keyring from the flagstones, feeling its solid weight alongside your new rapier and the glowing glass orb.

You march down the stone vault corridor and stop directly before the heavy iron door. The blue glyph painted on its surface pulses with a cool, electric hum, bathing your hands and face in cobalt light. You hold your breath and speak the ancient family motto clear and loud into the quiet air:

“In Umbra Veritas.”

The moment the words leave your lips, the blue glyph flares brightly, then dissolves into tiny, fading sparks. Deep inside the door, heavy iron deadbolts snap open one by one with loud, reverberating clicks.

With a low groan, the massive iron door swings inward.

Beyond the doorway lies a vast, circular chamber lined with ancient marble pillars. In the center of the room, suspended in mid-air above a deep stone basin, floats a massive, shattered mirror. Its broken glass fragments hang motionless in space, reflecting memories and scenes from places across the estate that you haven't seen yet.

On a pedestal in front of the floating mirror rests a hollow stone receptacle shaped in the exact dimensions of the mechanical glass orb you are holding. To the right side of the chamber, a dark stone archway leads up a flight of stairs, with the cool night air blowing down from above—a clear exit leading back outside.

What do you do?

A) Place the mechanical glass orb into the stone receptacle beneath the floating shattered mirror. B) Walk up to the floating mirror fragments to see what images are reflected in the glass. C) Bypass the mirror entirely and take the stairs in the dark archway to escape back outside to the grounds. D) Pull out the brass keyring and search the perimeter of the room to see if there are any locked chests or hidden alcoves.

User prompt: D

Response: You grip the heavy brass keyring and begin walking the circumference of the circular chamber, your footsteps echoing softly against the ancient marble floor. The cold air swirls around the marble pillars, carrying the faint scent of ozone and old dust.

As you pass behind the second pillar, your lantern light catches a faint metallic glint tucked into a shallow recess in the stone wall. It is a heavy iron strongbox, secured with a sturdy, rusted padlock.

You hold up the brass keyring, sorting through the various shapes until you find a small, serrated key that looks like a match. You slide it into the padlock and turn it. With a satisfying click, the lock springs open. You lift the lid. Inside, resting on a bed of dark velvet, are two items: a small glass vial filled with shimmering silver salt powder, and a folded parchment letter.

You unfold the letter. The ink is faded, addressed to Lord Alistair: “Alistair, do not shatter the mirror. The boundaries are already paper-thin. If the orb is placed in the receptacle while the mirror is unstable, the rift will consume everything in the estate—not just the entity. Destroy the mirror first, or find another way.”

Before you can ponder the warning, a low, ominous hum vibrates through the chamber. The floating shards of the shattered mirror begin to spin faster in mid-air, and the blue glow from the corridor behind you flares and dies out completely.

What do you do?

A) Step up to the center pedestal and place the mechanical glass orb into the stone receptacle anyway. B) Take the vial of silver salt powder and throw it at the spinning fragments of the floating mirror to disrupt it. C) Read the rest of the parchment letter carefully to see if it explains how to safely break or disable the mirror. D) Abandon the chamber and sprint up the stone stairs in the dark archway to escape back outside before the room collapses.

User prompt: C

Response: You tilt the faded parchment closer to your lantern, quickly reading the remaining hastily scrawled lines:

“The mirror is a focus, holding the tether open. The silver salt will bind the glass if coated, freezing its rotation. But to permanently sever the link, you must shatter the central shard with the steel of the Alistair crest—the raven blade. Only when the glass is shattered to dust can the orb be safely seated in the receptacle to seal the rift forever.”

Above you, the hum reaches a sharp, bone-rattling pitch. The floating mirror fragments are spinning into a blurred vortex of glass, catching distorted glints of light that dance across the marble pillars. The air pulls inward like a sudden vacuum.

You now have everything mentioned in the letter:

The vial of silver salt powder in your hand. The raven-hilted steel rapier sheathed at your belt. The mechanical glass orb secured in your pouch. The central shard of the mirror pulses with a blinding, turbulent glare at the heart of the vortex. What do you do?

A) Toss the silver salt powder into the spinning mirror fragments to freeze them in place. B) Draw your raven-hilted rapier immediately and plunge it directly into the spinning central shard. C) Ignore the letter's instructions and rush to place the orb straight into the pedestal receptacle. D) Grab your gear and sprint up the dark stone archway stairs to escape into the night.

User prompt: A

Response: You uncork the vial and throw the shimmering silver salt powder into the whirling vortex of glass.

The moment the powder touches the mirror fragments, a sharp crack of thunder echoes through the chamber. Frost instantly spreads across the shards, and their frantic spinning grinds to a sudden, dead halt. The fragments hang motionless in mid-air once again, encased in a shimmering, silver sheen. At the very center of the frozen ring, the largest shard hums softly—brittle and exposed.

The room grows eerily silent, save for the faint crackle of frost settling on stone.

What do you do?

A) Draw the raven-hilted rapier and strike the frozen central shard to shatter it. B) Place the mechanical glass orb directly into the pedestal receptacle now that the glass is frozen. C) Throw a heavy stone from the floor at the central shard to break it from a safe distance. D) Turn around and run up the dark stone archway stairs to escape while the vortex is frozen.

User prompt: B

Response: You bypass the blade and step straight to the stone pedestal, lifting the glowing mechanical glass orb from your pouch. You set the orb firmly into the stone receptacle. For a second, nothing happens. Then, the Alistair signet ring floating inside the orb flares with a blinding, crimson light. The silver salt coating the frozen mirror fragments turns pitch black, and the frost on the central shard instantly melts away.

A violent suction force rips through the room! The frozen shards do not shatter into dust—instead, the unstable tether collapses inward like a dying star. The mirror fragments, the stone pedestal, and the surrounding marble pillars are violently dragged into the center of the rift. Cracks shoot up the walls and across the ceiling as the subterranean chamber begins to implode!

The stone archway to your right is still standing, but heavy debris is raining down fast, threatening to crush the stairs and bury the exit under tons of rubble.

What do you do?

A) Sprint for the dark stone archway stairs and make a desperate dive to reach the outside before the chamber collapses completely. B) Double back through the iron door into the basement vault to seek shelter behind the stone archivist shelves. C) Grab the glowing glass orb back off the pedestal to see if removing it stops the implosion. D) Shield your head with your arms and throw yourself down beside a heavy marble pillar to weather the cave-in.

User prompt: C

Response: You lunge forward, wrapping your hand around the cool surface of the mechanical glass orb, and yank it violently out of the stone receptacle! The moment the connection is severed, the crimson flare inside the orb snaps off. The roaring suction force abruptly cuts out, replaced by a deafening shockwave that hurls you backward onto the flagstones. Above, the ceiling stops caving in, though several heavy marble fragments crash down around you, filling the air with thick, grey dust. The central mirror shard violently shatters on its own, raining harmless glass dust across the pedestal as the magic fully collapses.

The estate settles into silence. The rift is gone, and the ancient threat has been neutralized, though the Chamber of Wards is left half-ruined. Through the dust, you push yourself up. In your hands, you still hold the raven-hilted rapier, the brass keyring, and the glass orb containing the Alistair signet ring. Ahead of you, the stone archway stairs remain open, bathed in the gentle moonlight of the Blackwood Pines outside.

You walk up the winding stairs, emerging onto the fresh, crisp night air of the estate grounds, completely victorious and carrying the legendary Alistair relics with you.

Congratulations! You have completed the adventure with a successful escape! What would you like to do next? A) Start a new adventure in a different setting. B) Continue exploring the Blackwood Pines exterior with your acquired items. C) Review your final inventory and achievements from this journey.

---

I suppose I could've continued or started a new adventure, but this was all too self-contained for my liking. Perhaps I'll tweak the parameters and give it another go. We shall see!

• 🌳 I have been spending more time offline this month...
• ...And part of that was a trip to Parc Montagne du Diable in Quebec. This park has all sorts of different options for camping, and me and partner rented a tiny house to spend a long weekend. It was very nice, we just needed to bring drinkable water, food and blanket. The house was equipped with fridge, an induction cooktop, microwave, towels, pillows and all basic kitchen utensils. It is very nice! I loved the minimalist vibe. There was no Wi-Fi, and the cellphone signal was hit and miss, so not very reliable, which was great for an offline weekend.
• ⛰️ The main goal was to go hiking, which we did! It was 18km hike around the Windigo Lake, mostly. We actually wanted to get to the top of the mountain, but that was probably another 10+ km, so we decided it was not feasible. Later we learned that it's better to start the hike to the mountain from the other side of the park. Well, maybe next time.
• 🍁 We also hiked to the Windigo waterfall, which was very close to where we stayed. It was beautiful, the weather was nice, and fall colours were amazing. But, to be honest, it was a challenging hike, and my legs were sore for a couple of days after. It think it was the hardest hike I've ever done! But it was totally worth it.
• 🎃 Went to a Pumpkin Farm, drank cider and got lost in hedge mazes and puzzle mazes.
• 🏺 I finally played 7 Wonders Duel! I still have to try out the Pantheon expansion, tho.
• 🎭 I have still been feeling tired on some days and I never know exactly why. I think it's hormonal changes.
• 🚗 Switched my car to winter tires. Ready for colder days!
• 👓 I did an eye exam and now I need to update my prescription glasses. I really like my current frame, but I haven't decided yet if I get new frames or just replace the lenses on my current one.
• 📖 I've been reading more slowly, it seems. Or it feels harder to read, I guess. It could be related to the low energy situation. Or glasses.
• 📔 I'm still staying away from screens as much as possible. After 8 hours working on a computer, I've been less inclined to look at more screens when I get home. I am on page 168 of my personal Bullet Journal, and I'm still using it everyday.

#weeknotes

A red car rolls towards a junction. A pedestrian steps into the road. The car turns, hits the pedestrian, who goes down, gets up and walks over to the driver. The whole thing lasts 25 seconds, is rendered in the engine of Grand Theft Auto V, and is about as simple as evidence gets. One thing happens in it, and that thing is a collision.

When researchers asked two consumer AI systems to write factual, neutral summaries of that clip and a near-identical twin, 19 of the 20 summaries they got back failed to mention that the car hit the pedestrian.

That finding comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 23 September 2026, “AI-Enabled Human Memory Manipulation: Misleading AI-Generated Summaries Distort Human Memory”, by Mattea Sim of Georgetown University, Yael Eiger of the University of Washington and Tadayoshi Kohno of Georgetown. It was picked up over the following days by The Independent, Neuroscience News and a string of science outlets, and it is due to be presented at the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society in October. The headline numbers travelled fast. The machines were bad at summarising. And when people read a summary that got a detail wrong, their memory of what they had seen with their own eyes bent to fit the text.

That second finding is the one worth sitting with. Copilot writes up the meeting you sat through. Your phone condenses the news alerts you swiped past. Police officers in several American states file reports drafted by software from body camera audio. Each tool is sold as a memory aid. The study suggests that when the aid is wrong, it does not merely fail to help. It can overwrite.

So what happens to a person's own memory when the machine's recap of their experience is wrong? And when a summary quietly edits the past someone believes they lived, who is supposed to catch it: the reader, the company that sold the recap, or, as things currently stand, more or less nobody?

Twenty Summaries and One Missing Collision

The researchers used two short animated clips that already had a history in memory research. Both show a red saloon approaching an intersection and striking a pedestrian. The only meaningful difference is the road sign at the junction: in one video it is a stop sign, in the other a yield sign (the American equivalent of a give way sign). The team fed each clip to two models, OpenAI's ChatGPT-5.5 and Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, five times per model per video, using a single standardised prompt. The instruction asked for a factual and neutral summary of at least 300 words, with no speculation and no invented facts. That gave them 20 summaries to analyse.

Every one of the 20 contained mistakes, somewhere between seven and 21 per summary. All of them left things out. According to the paper, 65 per cent contained what the authors classed as critical inaccuracies, 90 per cent contained non-critical inaccuracies, and 60 per cent added material that simply was not there. The summaries hallucinated extra pedestrians and extra vehicles and described erratic driving the video did not show. One stated that the pedestrian slightly repositioned but did not enter the roadway, when the pedestrian plainly walks into the road.

Averaged across all prompts and both models, the summaries omitted 51.6 per cent of the central details of the event. And in 95 per cent of cases, the summary did not mention the central detail at all: the car colliding with the pedestrian.

Summaries are supposed to be lossy, but their entire job is to keep what matters and drop what does not. These models did the reverse, producing long, fluent paragraphs about a scene in which the one thing that happened did not happen.

“I was struck by how bad the summaries were, even at this stage in AI development,” Eiger said in the coverage published by Neuroscience News.

Some caution is due. This was a small corpus: two short animated clips, two models, one prompt, 20 outputs. The authors say so plainly in their limitations section, acknowledging that one standardised prompt and a modest number of summaries limit how far the results generalise. Models change month to month, so nobody should read these figures as a stable error rate for all AI video summarisation. What they do show is that two widely available consumer systems, given a clear and simple task, were confidently and substantially wrong about the most important fact in front of them.

Fifty Years of Stop Signs and Yield Signs

The second half of the study is where the story turns from software quality to human cognition, and where it plugs directly into one of the most studied findings in psychology.

In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus, then at the University of Washington, and her colleague John Palmer showed people films of car accidents and asked them how fast the cars were going. The trick was in the verb. Asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, participants gave higher estimates of speed than those asked about cars that “collided”, “bumped”, “hit” or “contacted”. A week later, people who had heard “smashed” were more likely to say yes when asked whether they had seen broken glass. There was no broken glass in the film. The paper became one of the founding texts of what is now called the misinformation effect.

Four years later, Loftus, David Miller and Helen Burns published a series of experiments in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that will look very familiar to anyone who has just read the Georgetown and Washington paper. Across five experiments and a pilot, 1,242 participants watched a sequence of slides showing an accident between a car and a pedestrian at a junction. Afterwards some were fed information consistent with what they had seen, and some were fed misleading information: a stop sign became a yield sign, or the other way round. Misleading information made people less accurate on later recognition tests, and it had a larger effect when introduced just before the test than immediately after the event. The authors concluded that information a witness encounters after an event, consistent or misleading, gets integrated into the witness's memory of it.

The new study is, in effect, that experiment rerun for the age of the chatbot, split into two sessions between 24 and 48 hours apart. In the first, people watched one of the two animated clips. In the second, they read a summary of what they had seen, then answered a 12-item recognition test in which each question offered two choices. The critical question asked whether the car had approached a stop sign or a yield sign.

Here is a crucial design detail that some coverage skated past. The misleading summaries were not raw machine errors. The researchers took AI-generated summaries and edited them, removing sentences describing the details that differed between the two clips and splicing in AI-generated text from other outputs, so that participants who had seen a stop sign read about a yield sign and vice versa. In other words, the memory experiment tested what happens when an AI-style summary contains a specific, plausible error. It did not test whether the particular errors the models spontaneously made would distort memory in the same way.

That caveat matters, but it cuts less deeply than it seems. The first half of the study showed that errors of exactly this kind are routine. The second half showed what they do once they land. Of the 331 participants who completed both sessions (328 after attention checks), those who read a summary consistent with the video answered the critical sign question correctly 83.6 per cent of the time. Those who read a misleading summary got it right 44.8 per cent of the time. On a two-choice question, that is worse than a coin toss. The statistics were not subtle: the probability of a gap that size arising by chance was below one in a thousand.

Meanwhile participants remembered other details well. On a non-critical question about whether the scene took place in daytime or at night, accuracy was 96.6 per cent. People had not forgotten the video. They had swapped one piece of it for the version they had been told.

“AI is a new method of delivering misinformation, and it has the potential to create these false memories for people who are reading that information,” Sim said in the Georgetown announcement.

Why Knowing It Was a Machine Did Not Help

Participants were randomly told that the summary they read had been written either by an AI or by a human. In reality all of the summaries were AI-generated. If a machine label worked as a kind of cognitive inoculation, you would expect people who knew they were reading AI output to discount its claims and lean more on their own memory.

They did not. Among those who read a misleading summary labelled as AI-generated, 46.3 per cent answered the critical question correctly. Among those who read the same kind of summary labelled as human-written, 43.4 per cent did. The difference was not statistically significant. The researchers also measured participants' trust in AI and how much they used it, and neither made a meaningful difference to how susceptible they were.

This is consistent with what the misinformation literature has long suggested about warnings. In a 2005 review in Learning and Memory, looking back on three decades of this research, Loftus wrote that warnings about the potential for misinformation sometimes work to inhibit its damaging effects, but only under limited circumstances. The Georgetown and Washington authors reach a similar conclusion. They suggest that noticing discrepancies between the original event and later information can reduce the impact of misinformation, and float warning people about potential discrepancies before they read an AI summary. But they also note that simply knowing the source was AI provided no protection in their data.

Related evidence points the same way. In 2024 a team at the MIT Media Lab, with Loftus among the co-authors, had 200 participants watch a crime video and then answer questions, five of them misleading, via a survey, a scripted chatbot or a generative chatbot built on a large language model. The generative chatbot induced more than three times as many immediate false memories as the control condition, and a week later those false memories persisted, held with higher confidence than in the control group.

A fluent system can introduce errors into your memory. Telling you it is a fluent system does not reliably stop that. And the errors can outlast the conversation that planted them.

The Meeting You Attended, as Told by Copilot

Move from a laboratory junction to an office, and the stakes change shape without shrinking.

Automated meeting recaps are now a standard feature across the major collaboration platforms. Microsoft's intelligent recap in Teams, available with Teams Premium or a Copilot licence, generates AI summaries and follow-up tasks, marks when your name was mentioned, organises the discussion into chapters, and tells you who said what. Microsoft's own support documentation is candid about the risk: “AI-generated content is based on the event transcript and is powered by GPT and other AI models. The AI-generated content may occasionally be inaccurate, incomplete, or inappropriate.”

That is a reasonable disclosure. But if an AI label did not protect participants from absorbing a planted error about a road sign, there is little reason to think small print will protect an employee from absorbing an error about who agreed to what in a budget meeting.

The people most likely to rely on a recap are those who were least attentive: double-booked, multitasking, half-listening while answering email. They are witnesses with weak original traces, exactly where post-event information has most room to take hold. And if a recap is reread just before someone needs to remember, the 1978 finding suggests that is exactly when misleading information bites hardest. A recap consulted before a Friday dispute is not merely a record of Monday's meeting. By Friday, it may be the meeting.

A change Microsoft has scheduled for this autumn sharpens the point. In a Microsoft 365 message centre notice first published in April 2026, the company announced a “recap without saving transcript” option, which lets Copilot users generate an AI meeting summary from live meeting context without retaining a recording or transcript. The notice says the feature addresses scenarios where organisations want AI-generated recaps “but have policies that limit or prohibit the retention of transcripts or recordings”, and it advises administrators to review their AI governance policies to decide whether it fits their compliance posture. Rollout is scheduled for October 2026.

There are sound privacy reasons for not keeping transcripts. But if the summary is the only artefact that survives the meeting, there is nothing to check it against except the attendees' memories, and the study is precisely about what happens to those memories after people read a summary that is wrong.

Even the transcript layer is not safe ground. In October 2024 an Associated Press investigation reported that OpenAI's Whisper speech recognition model was prone to inventing chunks of text, and that more than 30,000 clinicians and 40 health systems were using a Whisper-based tool from Nabla to transcribe and summarise patient visits, despite OpenAI's warnings against use in high-risk domains. The layer that turns a live event into text can introduce words nobody said.

News You Only Half Read

For most people, the summary that shapes memory is not a meeting recap but a news digest glimpsed on a lock screen.

In December 2024 and January 2025, Apple Intelligence's notification summaries produced a run of false headlines attributed to news organisations. One summary of BBC News alerts suggested that Luigi Mangione, the man charged over the killing of the UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson, had shot himself. He had not. Other summaries wrongly claimed, under the BBC's name, that the darts player Luke Littler had won the PDC World Championship before the final had been played, and that Rafael Nadal had come out as gay. A summary of New York Times alerts said Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had been arrested. The BBC complained. In January 2025 Apple paused notification summaries for news and entertainment apps in a software update, and said summaries would be shown in italics to distinguish them from ordinary notifications. In July 2025 the iOS 26 beta brought news summaries back, this time with a warning beneath the setting: “Summarization may change the meaning of the original headlines. Verify information.” Given the Georgetown and Washington finding that knowing a summary came from AI did not protect memory, a label is a thin defence.

Those were spectacular, checkable errors. The quieter problem is the everyday rate. In February 2025 the BBC published research in which its journalists put 100 news questions to ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini and Perplexity, asking them to use BBC sources. It found that 51 per cent of answers had significant issues, 19 per cent of answers citing BBC content introduced factual errors such as wrong dates and figures, and 13 per cent of quotations attributed to BBC articles had been altered or did not exist in the cited article. In October 2025 a far larger follow-up, coordinated by the European Broadcasting Union and led by the BBC, assessed around 3,000 responses across 14 languages and found that 45 per cent of AI answers about news had at least one significant issue, with sourcing the most common problem.

Now put those error rates next to the audience. The Reuters Institute's Digital News Report 2026, published in June, found that weekly use of AI chatbots for news had risen to 10 per cent of people across the markets it surveys, and to 17 per cent among 18 to 24 year olds. Getting summaries was among the most common uses, cited by about a third of those using chatbots for news, and only a small fraction of users regularly clicked through to the original source.

That last number is the hinge. The traditional corrective for a bad summary is the source it summarised, but the whole value proposition of a summary is that you will not open the source. A reader who half-reads an AI digest of a court case and never opens the report carries a version of events that, on this evidence, will not simply sit alongside the truth. For memory's purposes, it becomes what they recall.

Google's AI Overviews were mocked in May 2024 for suggesting glue on pizza and eating rocks, and Liz Reid, Google's head of Search, acknowledged that some answers had drawn on satirical or joke content. Those errors were funny because they were absurd. The errors that reshape memory are not absurd. They are a yield sign where there was a stop sign.

Police Reports and the Officer in the Loop

The authors' main concern is policing, where the question of who checks the machine is most concrete. Axon, the largest supplier of police body cameras in the United States, sells a product called Draft One that uses generative AI to draft police report narratives from body-worn camera audio. The officer is expected to review and edit the draft before submitting it. In July 2025, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an investigation arguing that the product was designed in a way that frustrated auditing. According to the EFF, Draft One does not save the draft it generates or subsequent edited versions, so once an officer exports the final report there is no record of which parts were written by the AI and which by the officer.

Put that alongside the new study. The standard defence of tools like this is the human in the loop: the officer was there, knows what happened, and will correct the machine. The paper's authors address exactly that defence. “Though 'humans-in-the-loop' are often expected to correct for AI's mistakes,” they write, “our work suggests human memory can instead be distorted by these mistakes.”

The logic is brutal. The officer is the check on the draft, but reading the draft is precisely the kind of post-event exposure that alters memory. If it says the pedestrian stepped off the kerb against the signal, the reviewing officer may come to remember it that way. The check has been contaminated by the thing it was meant to check, and if the draft is deleted, nobody can reconstruct which version came first.

In the Georgetown announcement, Eiger said it worried her that police departments may be using video summarisation tools without rigorous testing, and without an awareness of how wrong AI-generated summaries could be.

Legislators in two American states have begun to respond. Utah's SB 180, which took effect in May 2025, requires police reports produced wholly or partly with generative AI to carry a disclaimer and requires the author to certify that the report was checked for accuracy. California went further. SB 524, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2025 and in force since 1 January 2026, requires disclosure of AI use on reports, requires agencies to retain the first draft for as long as the final report is kept, and bars vendors from selling or sharing information police provide to the AI. As the EFF put it, the draft retention requirement means judges, defence lawyers or auditors can see which portions of the final report were written by the officer and which by the computer.

Notice what these rules assume. Utah makes the officer answerable for accuracy, yet the officer's memory is one of the things the draft may have altered. California's retention rule is more robust because it does not rely on memory at all: it preserves an artefact that can be compared against the footage. That is a useful template elsewhere.

Records That Outlive the Room

Outside policing, the law has not caught up with the idea that a summary can shape the memories of the people it describes. In the UK, meeting summaries that name or describe identifiable people are personal data, and Article 16 of the UK GDPR gives individuals the right to have inaccurate personal data about them rectified, and incomplete data completed, including by way of a supplementary statement. The Information Commissioner's Office guidance says organisations should take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that data is accurate when a rectification request is made, taking into account the individual's arguments and evidence. An employee who finds that a Copilot recap attributes to them a commitment they never made has, in principle, a route to have it corrected.

In practice that route depends on the employee noticing the error and having something to prove it with. If the transcript was never kept, the evidence is two sets of memories, one of which may have been rewritten by the summary itself. The right was designed for a world in which records and memories were separate things that could be compared.

Grievances and disciplinary hearings routinely rely on contemporaneous notes. An AI recap looks contemporaneous, with a timestamp and a corporate logo, but it carries no indication of which sentences reflect what was said and which are the model's reconstruction.

What the Law Currently Asks of Whom

The European Union has come closest to allocating responsibility, though not for this specific harm.

Article 50 of the EU AI Act, whose core transparency obligations began applying on 2 August 2026, requires providers of AI systems that generate synthetic text, audio, images or video to ensure outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated. It also requires deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate text “published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest” to disclose that the text was artificially generated. The Digital Omnibus, which pushed back the Act's high-risk obligations, left that date alone, although providers of generative systems already on the market before 2 August 2026 have until 2 December 2026 to meet the machine-readable marking requirement. The disclosure obligation falls away where the content “has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication”.

That exception is revealing. It makes editorial responsibility, a named person or organisation standing behind the text, the alternative to disclosure. It does not make disclosure alone sufficient to discharge responsibility, and the new study suggests it should not. A label did not protect participants. A person accountable for checking the text before it reached them is a different kind of safeguard.

Liability is shifting too. The EU's revised Product Liability Directive, which member states must transpose by 9 December 2026, explicitly treats software, including AI systems, as a product for the purposes of no-fault liability, and eases the burden of proof for claimants dealing with technically complex systems. Its idea of damage centres on death, personal injury including medically recognised psychological harm, damage to property, and the destruction or corruption of data. A distorted memory of a meeting is unlikely to count. But the principle, that suppliers of software are answerable for defects in what they put on the market regardless of whether they were negligent, is a shift in the default assumption about who carries the risk.

In the United States, the picture is patchier. Beyond the Utah and California police laws, much of the current legal pressure on meeting assistants concerns consent rather than accuracy. In August 2025 a proposed class action, Brewer v. Otter.ai, was filed in federal court in California alleging that Otter's notetaker recorded conversations of people who had not consented, including non-users, and used the data to train its models. In October 2025 it was consolidated with similar suits as In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, and on 13 August 2026 Judge Eumi K. Lee refused to dismiss the core claims, allowing wiretap claims under federal and California law to proceed on the basis that Otter, by using recordings to develop its own models, could be treated as a third-party eavesdropper. The case illustrates where the legal system's attention currently sits: on whether the machine should have been listening, not on whether what it wrote afterwards was true.

Why the Reader Cannot Carry This Alone

The easy answer to who should check the summary is the person reading it. That is what the disclaimers say, and what “human in the loop” means in most enterprise AI policies.

The study makes that answer hard to defend, for three reasons.

The first is that the checking mechanism is compromised by the thing being checked. Memory is the natural reference for testing a summary of an event you attended, but reading the summary changes the memory. Not every time, and not for everyone, but often enough that “check it against what you remember” is not a reliable safeguard.

The second is that the people most exposed to summaries are the people least equipped to check them. Summaries are used by people who did not attend, did not pay attention or did not read the original. That is the point of them. Asking those users to verify the summary against a source they were trying to avoid is asking them to do the work the product was meant to save.

The third is that confidence in the tool reduces checking. In a survey of 319 knowledge workers presented at the CHI conference in 2025, researchers at Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University found that higher confidence in generative AI was associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence was associated with more. The more reliable a tool seems, the less people scrutinise it, and a tool that is right most of the time trains exactly the complacency that lets its occasional errors through.

None of this means readers bear no responsibility. Attendees can take their own notes, readers can click through, officers can write their own account first. But a design that depends on users consistently doing the things the product was designed to spare them is not a design with a human safeguard. It is a design with a human scapegoat.

What Suppliers Could Actually Owe

If the burden cannot sit only with readers, the obvious alternative is the organisations that build and deploy the summarisers. What would taking that burden seriously look like?

It would start with measurement. The authors call for more technical audits of summarisation tools and for examining real-world uses such as body camera footage. Vendors selling summarisation for high-stakes settings could publish error rates on representative material, broken down by type: omissions of central events, substitutions, additions. A summariser that routinely omits the central event of a clip is not ready to summarise evidence.

It would continue with provenance. California's approach to police reports offers a model: keep the draft, keep the source, make it possible to see which words came from the machine. For meeting recaps, that could mean retaining source audio or transcripts for a defined period when a summary is created, or linking each sentence of a summary to the moment in the recording it draws on. Microsoft's recap already offers timeline markers and speaker navigation. Anchoring every claim to its evidence would make checking something a reader can do in seconds rather than a reconstruction from memory.

It would include friction in the right places. The study's authors suggest that noticing discrepancies helps, and that warnings delivered before reading might help. That points towards designs that ask users to recall something before showing them the summary, or that flag which parts of a recap are high-stakes (decisions, attributions, commitments) and invite confirmation from the people named. It points away from designs that deliver a finished, authoritative paragraph and a disclaimer.

And it would include restraint. The authors raise a question most product roadmaps do not: “a deeper question to consider is whether AI should be used in these contexts at all.” For some uses, such as drafting a police narrative from body camera audio before the officer has written their own account, the answer may be that the order of operations matters more than the quality of the model. Human recollection first, machine summary second, and a record of both.

Organisations that deploy summaries carry a share too. An employer that switches on recaps without transcripts and relies on them in a disciplinary process has made choices about evidence. A platform that pushes machine summaries of journalism to millions of lock screens has made choices about what its audience will remember. The EU's editorial responsibility test is a good instinct: somebody specific should be answerable for what the summary says.

Keeping Hold of the Afternoon You Lived

There is a version of this story that is merely about quality control: the mistakes will get rarer and the problem will shrink. That may be partly true. But the study is not really about how often summaries are wrong. It is about what happens when they are. A human memory is not a hard drive that a summary sits beside. It is a reconstruction, rebuilt each time it is recalled, and fifty years of research have shown that the materials used in the rebuild include whatever we have been told since. For most of that history, the people doing the telling were other humans: lawyers asking leading questions, police officers suggesting details, newspapers and neighbours. They could be cross-examined. They could be blamed.

The summary is a new kind of teller, present at every meeting and every alert, speaking in a voice that sounds neutral and thorough. When it drops the collision from the crash, or puts a yield sign where a stop sign stood, it does not only produce a bad document. It produces people who remember a slightly different afternoon from the one they lived.

Right now, the burden of noticing falls on the people least able to notice, and responsibility for the error is spread so thinly that it lands on almost nobody. The disclaimers say the content may be inaccurate. The users are told to check. The checking, it turns out, runs through a memory the summary has already touched.

That arrangement looks unlikely to survive contact with a courtroom for long. The better move is to settle the question first: keep the source, mark the machine's words, measure the errors, and put a named person behind any summary that is going to be treated as the record. The past is hard enough to hold on to without software editing it for us.

---

References and Sources

1. Sim, Mattea, Yael Eiger and Tadayoshi Kohno. “AI-Enabled Human Memory Manipulation: Misleading AI-Generated Summaries Distort Human Memory.” arXiv:2609.28820v1, submitted 23 September 2026; to be presented at the Ninth AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES), October 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.28820
2. Soong, Kelyn. “New Research Finds That Misleading AI-Generated Summaries Can Distort Human Memory.” Georgetown University College of Arts and Sciences, 25 September 2026. https://college.georgetown.edu/news-story/new-research-finds-that-misleading-ai-generated-summaries-can-distort-human-memory/
3. Neuroscience News. “Flawed AI Summaries Distort Eyewitness Memory.” 27 September 2026. https://neurosciencenews.com/ai-false-memory-llm-31261/
4. The Independent. “AI summaries can warp your memory, study warns.” September 2026, as syndicated via inkl. https://www.inkl.com/news/ai-summaries-can-warp-your-memory-study-warns
5. Loftus, Elizabeth F. and John C. Palmer. “Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, volume 13, issue 5, 1974, pages 585 to 589. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022537174800113
6. Loftus, Elizabeth F., David G. Miller and Helen J. Burns. “Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, volume 4, issue 1, 1978, pages 19 to 31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/621467/
7. Loftus, Elizabeth F. “Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory.” Learning and Memory, volume 12, 2005, pages 361 to 366. DOI 10.1101/lm.94705. https://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/12/4/361.full
8. Chan, Samantha, Pat Pataranutaporn, Aditya Suri, Wazeer Zulfikar, Pattie Maes and Elizabeth F. Loftus. “Conversational AI Powered by Large Language Models Amplifies False Memories in Witness Interviews.” MIT Media Lab, arXiv:2408.04681, August 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04681
9. Microsoft Support. “Recap in Microsoft Teams.” Accessed 29 September 2026. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/teams/meetings/recap-in-microsoft-teams
10. Microsoft 365 Message Center. “MC1275312: Microsoft Teams: AI meeting recap without transcript to meet compliance policies.” Published 9 April 2026, archived at Merill Fernando's Message Center Archive. https://mc.merill.net/message/MC1275312
11. Burke, Garance and Hilke Schellmann. “Researchers say an AI-powered transcription tool used in hospitals invents things no one ever said.” Associated Press, 26 October 2024; republished by Fortune and The Columbian. https://fortune.com/2024/10/26/openai-transcription-tool-whisper-hallucination-rate-ai-tools-hospitals-patients-doctors
12. TechCrunch. “Apple pauses AI notification summaries for news after generating false alerts.” 16 January 2025; see also Axios, “Apple pauses AI-generated news alerts after fake headline notifications”, 17 January 2025. https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/16/apple-pauses-ai-notification-summaries-for-news-after-generating-false-alerts ; see also AppleInsider, “Apple brings back notification summaries for news in iOS 26”, 22 July 2025. https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/07/22/apple-brings-back-notification-summaries-for-news-in-ios-26
13. BBC. “Representation of BBC News content in AI Assistants.” BBC Research, February 2025; as reported by The Register, “AI summaries turn real news into nonsense, BBC finds”, 12 February 2025. https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/12/bbc_ai_news_accuracy/
14. European Broadcasting Union and BBC. “News Integrity in AI Assistants.” October 2025; and EBU press release, “Largest study of its kind shows AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time, regardless of language or territory.” https://www.ebu.ch/news/2025/10/ai-s-systemic-distortion-of-news-is-consistent-across-languages-and-territories-international-study-by-public-service-broadcaste
15. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. “Digital News Report 2026: Overview and key findings.” University of Oxford, June 2026. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2026/dnr-executive-summary
16. Reid, Liz. Google Search blog post on AI Overviews, 30 May 2024; as reported by MIT Technology Review, “Why Google's AI Overviews gets things wrong”, 31 May 2024, and Forbes, 31 May 2024. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/31/1093019/why-are-googles-ai-overviews-results-so-bad/
17. Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Axon's Draft One Is Designed to Defy Transparency.” July 2025. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/axons-draft-one-designed-defy-transparency
18. Guariglia, Matthew. “Victory! California Requires Transparency for AI Police Reports.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 14 October 2025. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/victory-california-requires-transparency-ai-police-reports
19. California Legislature. SB 524, Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence, 2025 to 2026 session; and Office of Senator Jesse Arreguín, “Governor Signs Bill Requiring Law Enforcement to Disclose Use of AI in Police Reports.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB524
20. Utah Legislature. SB 180, Law Enforcement Usage of Artificial Intelligence, 2025 General Session; and Utah News Dispatch, “Deepfakes, policing, mental health and more: Lawmakers look to further regulate AI”, 26 March 2025. https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/SB0180.html
21. Information Commissioner's Office. “Right to rectification.” UK GDPR guidance and resources. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/
22. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 50, Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/ ; see also Cooley, “EU AI Act: Transparency Obligations Take Effect 2 August 2026”, 3 August 2026. https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2026/2026-08-03-eu-ai-act-transparency-obligations-take-effect-2-august-2026 ; and Goodwin, “Not Delayed, Not Deferred: EU AI Act Transparency Obligations Are Now in Force”, 3 August 2026. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/alerts-technology-dpc-eu-ai-act-transparency-obligations-now-in-force
23. European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products. Official Journal of the European Union, 18 November 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2853/oj/eng
24. NPR. “Class-action suit claims Otter AI secretly records private work conversations.” 15 August 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit ; and Baird Holm, “Core Privacy Claims Against AI Note Taking Platform Survive Dismissal” (In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911, N.D. Cal.), 24 August 2026. https://www.bairdholm.com/blog/core-privacy-claims-against-ai-note-taking-platform-survive-dismissal/
25. Lee, Hao-Ping (Hank), and colleagues, Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University. “The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers.” Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. DOI 10.1145/3706598.3713778. https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3706598.3713778

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do

Z

Portend The lights of war in death For shades to willow The work of unrefute The littoral to China Praise and mercy to the new Obliterates and gold Weathering the new Views to distant wonder To reach to glow to then The wondrous mean And in our fate, a tumble Putin’s high regret The folds and fate of hurl Regenting this care Across the light of Danube To there and of it all A major way In toll to high prevent The useful get Dissonance in other Across the stately mews To intonate the world The Book of Mormon In flows to distant chamber The high is get White Sultan to the East The clair across Distanced to account And offering away Vertically at War Redeeming fate Our fort to place the flag Remittances they came To floor the unbeliever And what to May of them But St. Peter and his sword The family tree Blight to unahave This lately goal Invettance Po The living of it all In statesman glory- this road And Russia came- of Olivet.