Geocache Delight

// All AI use strictly prohibited

Across the fence the group can now see many massive natural gas fueled generators attached to the AI data center. Each would have sounded like a jet aircraft taking off.

Running most of the generators 24/7 like the data center had been doing reportedly shook the forest with sound waves in addition to all the chemical and carbon pollution it was throwing into the air.

Erich breaks out the compass and paper map. Using the compass he gets a couple bearings with mountains and the nearest corner of the massive data center complex. Via triangulation he locates where the group is standing and where to head for the geocache location he'd marked on the map before the trip.

They could use GPS to find the clues, but where's the fun in that? Lots of geocachers like the challenge of hand-navigating. Many just like wandering around and looking for hidden treasure. Those who go furthest afield from the parking spot tend to be most likely to be using maps and compasses.

A group of scientists is certainly going to jump at an opportunity to use instruments, especially if the other tool is polluting the night sky.

Geocaches have a log book and maybe small pieces of treasure. Albeit the treasure is usually cheap tchotchkes. The geocaching site says this particular cache is a hidden silicon weatherproof container.

When the data center was announced the geocache became a log of the state of the destruction as chunks of forest were cut down. There were lots of references to the final phrase of a particular Canadian rock song, “by hatchet, axe and saw”.

Independent media had daily news coverage of the protests out on the main road. The destruction of pristine forest near a critical river had not gone over well locally. Being on a tech bro's private property hid the destruction, but didn't prevent discontent. But, independent media didn't have much impact on the general public in the provence.

For the nightly news the protests were too far off to see the forest eradication. Drone coverage gave an overhead view, but it didn't have people in front of it, so didn't get many clicks or airtime. Robot drones taking pictures of a new robot complex didn't have the human interest touch, so the news stuck with personal interest topics like ice cream trucks and cats in trees.

There was also the one ice cream truck in a tree story. A gig worker fell asleep at the wheel of an ice cream truck and went over an embankment. The truck got stuck in a tree and they needed a crane to rescue the driver and then lower down the wreck. While waiting for a tow truck the local police gave the ice cream away rather than letting it all melt.

The children declared a city holiday in name of the poor guy who got a hefty ticket. He might be broke, but Ice Cream Gary is famous in that small town. He's also named in one of the bills that reigned in gig work in British Columbia. They used both his holiday moniker and his actual last name in the bill language.

The geocache was created years ago at the edge of the forest boundary to encourage people to respectfully visit and use the public forest. It's one of several in the forest and closest to backside of the private land where the data center was built.

The cache objects mostly became postcards and pictures of unadulturated rivers, lakes and forests. As a protest it was small, but the steady stream of reports reminded local council of what they'd allowed when they approved rezoning the private property for industrial use. They were consistently shown pictures of the destruction from the public forest perspective.

The tech bro put up taller fences. The geocachers got longer sticks to hold up their cameras or climbed trees. There were also wide area shots from nearby mountain sides. Not to mention the aerial photography.

The generators, their air pollution and their noise were only permitted in case the main power went out. But, the data center used 50% more power than it was permitted for, so always had generators running. Discovery from lawsuits showed that was intentional, they knew permits didn't allow enough power and they had always planned to run the generators.

That con worked in the US, especially in Texas with its unregulated and unhinged power grid. It did not work in British Columbia. Alberta might embrace that kind of pollution and burning of fossil fuels, but BC does not.

With no neighbors the tech bro figured there wouldn't even be complaints. Plus he could steal from and pollute the river that passed by his property. Just like he didn't seek copyrights to ingest books, he didn't seek water rights to ingest water.

He hadn't counted on park rangers. Tech bros learned early to be cautious of librarians because librarians are resourceful, dedicated and organized. Worst of all, they help people without exploiting them. Librarians are the antithesis to the self-centered tech bros.

This tech bro hadn't realized park rangers are the nature equivalent of librarians. They're do gooder geeks who prefer hiking to books. They like books too, just often prefer to enjoy them outdoors rather than indoors. When those fossil fuel engines turned on and stayed on. It took the park rangers a few months, but they got the noise pollution machines turned off.

Then, in an electoral rebuttal to the council's data center approvals, the voters helped several council members free up time in the evenings as they no longer needed to attend meetings. One lost that free time and the rest of his time after being convicted of taking bribes. It might be allowed in the US, but Canada still prosecutes bribery.

Another council member fled to the US where he reportedly gets food poisoning a couple times a month. Vancouverites hope he's learning the value of government safety regulations.

Emily spots the rock formation described on the geocaching site.

As the group walks towards the rock formation DQ points at some large black birds among the trees, then says in a hushed tone, “Look, day shadows from the peaks of the Bollywoods on New India.”

“They live in the third level of quadruple canopy where they always have shadows for cover. Males grow webbing between their tailfeathers, using it to catch insects. They fly into streams of light netting insects to take back to the nest. Seeing one is a good omen. Not seeing one is a good way to get a face full of bugs and bird net. A group of day shadows is called a fishing village.”

They all watch the birds watching them. More birds join alight in the treetops. The scientists give the village some space.

From the rock pile Erich shoots a new azimuth and paces off 42 meters. From that spot he shoots yet another azimuth and paces off in in that direction.

When the tech bro found out geocachers were giving updates he had some goons go out and steal the metal box used for the cache. Another metal geocache was created. He had that one stolen. Geocachers started putting in the redirections using basic rot13 encryption and some simple math for the numbers.

That was too complex for the goons. They went out with metal detectors and started just kicking over everything in the area looking for the hidden cache. That got the park rangers involved.

Several of the goons were banned from public lands in all BC. The tech bro got a finger waggle, but also had to stop construction for two weeks. The rangers needed time to investigate the criminals who had entered from the data center destruction area. The start of the investigation had to wait for couple of days of national holiday.

Now that the data center is closed the geocache is safe and gets updates on local conditions.

DQ finds the cache. Logs from a couple weeks ago confirm there's still an opening in the fence off to the right. They'll write a log entry about conditions when they leave. DQ adds an inexpensive rainbow ring in the cache. Erich adds a photo from Stargate Atlantis showing the base surrounded by water.

The group heads to the fence, then off to the right. A few meters later they find a large hole cut in the fence. Craig goes through, then Erich and Emily hold the sides open wider so DQ can get through without snagging anything snazzy.

Marina is encouraged to go next, then Emily suggests Erich go next as her holding the fence might help his large frame. She didn't say anything about Marina's large frame, though Marina is almost as tall as Erich. Emily's short, muscular body easily fits through to join the rest.

Erich walks in the direction of the security entrance. At the security door he confirms the lock model. He spent the last several weeks practicing picking that model. It's a difficult pick, but he's confident he can get it in a few minutes.

Off to the side, Craig reminds everyone of the ground rules. They are there to check out and document the current conditions, but no souvenirs. Emily mumbles about a student budget. Craig laughs, but notes stealing something exposes everyone.

Emily says requiring a student to choose between tech and Hortons is certainly a violation of her human rights.

Craig offers to skip a Hortons run and buy her some RAM, then she can avoid needing to call the Hague. Besides, the server RAM in the DC won't fit her laptop.

She smiles and says deal.

DQ makes a noise.

Craig sighs a little, “Yes DQ?”

DQ blubbers, “But, but, but what if I find some really cool insects or other animals? Gold-seeking moths of Teledosia will be in the US going after the surveillance cameras, but there might be magnesium mites or copper consuming caterpillars. The rare earth minerals might have drawn some Dickinsonian Squabblers or the shiny metals might have attracted some Mercurial Mockingbirds.”

Craig stares at DQ, “I don't think taking flora and fauna samples counts as stealing.”

DQ mumbles “Darn”, then louder, “I mean cool, I have specimen jars in my bag.”

Craig winces, “But I fear a scream off between those two birds.”

Emily volunteers that Erich certainly has enough new earplugs in his backpack for everyone.

With ground rule reminders complete and that reminder, they all turn to watch Erich.

Feeling their gaze he says he's going as quickly as he can, then loses his grip on the tensioner and has to start again.

DQ announces there's more likely to be insects outside than inside and asks everyone to quietly help her find some bugs to inspect. They all move away from the security entrance giving Erich room to work. There are a surprising number of spider webs in the bushes. DQ observes them from afar referencing the wraith spider from Stargate that would drain your life force.

Marina spots a blue and black bird on a branch.

DQ uses binoculars for a closer look, “Oh, that's an Aldebranian cult of the sabbath jay, named after the famous tour of Blue Őyster Cult and Black Sabbath by the great-great grandson of Ozzy and Sharon.”

DQ continues, “He discovered the bird and was also the first in the Osborn family tree to finish grade school before going on to attend the Saturnian School of Ornithology. Such a strange place for a school of ornithology since Saturn and its moons have no birds.”

Craig chuckles, “Well, keeps you from being distracted from your studies by real world experience, kind of like being a theoretical physicist.”

DQ perks up, “Right you are!”

“Got it.”

They all turn to see Erich opening the security door.

Into the DC

// All AI use strictly prohibited

A rather foul air escapes the room as Erich swings the door open and steps back away from the stench.

Craig hides behind DQ in case something comes flying out to attack them. DQ assumes some sort of Charlie's Angels pose.

Emily shrugs and walks over to the door. Marina again wonders what she's gotten herself into, then follows Emily.

Assured by the bravery of their compatriots and their lack of being attacked, DQ and Craig follow into the building.

Erich made sure everyone got their N95s and goggles on before letting them in. He dons his own and follows last.

Erich gets his normal flashlight out. Everyone else turns on their phone flashlights as they enter the dark, windowless room.

It's dusty and smells of stale food. There's a ginormous monitor still on the wall. Too much of a good thing to be carried out, but most of the smaller monitors are gone. The security station mini-PCs are also gone.

They stir up dust as they slowly move about the room. Craig says he's glad they masked for protection from heavy metal poisoning.

DQ responds that Missus Roboto is fun to perform.

Emily looks confused.

DQ elaborates, “It's a song from the 80's.”

Emily, “Oh, my parents weren't born yet.”

Craig acts like he's been slapped, “Oh that hurts. My parents were born in the 80's and my grandparents used to play Styx all the time. They had actual CDs and insisted listening to entire albums. Not sure why they were albums because there's no A in C or D.”

“But there is one in AC/DC and Highway to Hell is a great Halloween drag song!” quips DQ.

Erich says, “Duuuudette, no joke. You really do a great job in the black light for that one!”

Craig does a bad Shaggy impersonation, “Speaking of spooky, there's a granola bar floating by the wall.”

They all turn to look where he's pointing. Sure enough there's a granola bar on the wall. It's offset like it's floating.

Craig takes a look and announces it's on a hard drive magnet.

To test he pulls on the granola bar. It comes off pretty easily, so it's not glued.

Craig says, “The magnet is holding it up, must be a US product with metal shavings in it.”

Marina blurts out, “What?”

Emily responds, “Yeah, we feel sorry for y'all, having to bleach your fruits, vegetables and meats and use metal detectors on processed foods.”

Craig adds, “You can't even trust the bleach. I mean, how do you contaminate bleach? Multiple times.”

Emily says, “What kind of bacteria are they cultivating that it survives in bleach?”

Craig strikes a pose and says, “That's why I only clean with pure Canadian maple syrup. Sure, everything's sticky, but it's tastefully shiny.”

Erich laughs and almost drops his flashlight.

Marina mutters about no meat for most people in the US.

Through a big window they can see into the man trap. Customers visiting the data center would have had to come in that way.

Security on either side of the trap would have searched people before they were allowed into the man trap hallway. There are doors at the either end of the hallway. The doors can't be opened from the inside and only one end can be open at a time. Once in the man trap people can't get back out until security opens one of the doors.

This setup allows security to constrict entry and exit from the data center. It also allows them to search everyone on the way in and again on the way out.

Rumours have it that after the DC shut down someone broke in on their own via the front door and got stuck in the man trap. With no one in security he couldn't get out. He was in bad shape when some other thieves found him a few days later. They grabbed the parts they could carry, then one of them called in anonymously about him once they were back in Vancouver.

Today's expedition entered from the security office to avoid needing to enter the man trap.

The lock from the security office to the cages would be easy for Erich to pick if they needed, but it's been left unlocked.

Emily announces the lock has been superglued open and says to cross the data center off the list of places to seek refuge in case of zombie apocalypse.

Craig counters that there are probably more granola bars packed with iron here somewhere, part of a nutritious breakfast.

In the data centers cages some complete systems are missing. Nearby are some that were opened and left hanging or pushed back without their covers on.

Craig asks if they just shoved servers in backpacks and carried them out, or maybe they had wagons.

Erich says the first round of thieves were probably gig workers ordered to shut the place down. They probably loaded the missing computers with as much loose ram and GPUs as they could fit and filled up car trunks before heading back to the main gate. The gig worker security guards might have already been gone. If not a bag of RAM worth 6 months salary was probably rather convincing to just go with the flow.

Further in they find servers that are just missing components like RAM and GPUs.

In one room the mother boards, power supplies and other guts are also missing. That takes up a lot less room than a full chassis and a used chassis is rather cheap.

DQ sadly doesn't find any heavy metal or radiation evolved animals.

They notice all the security cameras have been removed or taped over. The cables have also been cut, so the microphones won't work either.

Many of the walls are covered in grafiti. One of the empty cages has a removed door with a curtain hanging in the doorway. Inside the cage there are cushions, candles and empty wine bottles. There are also art supplies. Emily reiterates the DC is not a haven against zombies as the scientists are all certain bohemian artists will be the first to be infected.

Having had enough stale air and tired of needing to turn their phone flashlights back on every five minutes they head back out.

As they head back to the geocache they note the black birds are still there. One flies over and drops a key. Erich picks it up and says it would have been convenient to have that earlier. He spreads out three shiny loonies on a tree stump for the birds and turns back to the cache. Black birds definitely have a favorite colour, shiny.

DQ pulls out some colorful pens and a sticker kit to add a log entry. Erich puts the key in the cache and takes a postcard from Sequoia National Park in the US. It's an antique since the forest it depicts doesn't have huge chunks burnt down.

This data center was bad enough, but in the US they poisoned waterways and dried out entire ecosystems by stealing the water.

While DQ illustrates a log entry the rest have some snacks. Empty-handed Craig gladly accepts the apple and an energy bar.

DQ finishes writing, drawing and stickering, then puts the log back in the cache and closes it. They take a group photo and head back up the trail towards the car.

DQ and Emily forge ahead while the other three take their time.

This gives Marina a chance to ask what's up with the exobiology.

Craig says DQ's non-drag personality is gravely afraid of bugs, but Albert and his wife have kids who are in the bug loving stage of childhood. The group came up with the exobiologist idea to help DQ be enthusiastic about bugs hoping that would make it easier for Albert to conquer his fear.

“Albert?”

“DQ's scientific name.” responds Erich.

Marina looks puzzled.

Erich laughs, “When not in drag DQ is a scientist named Albert, so we call Albert their scientific name.”

Marina asks, “Wife and kids, DQ isn't gay?”

Erich shakes his head, “Not in the slightest. Well, hmm, DQ might be, but Albert is decidedly not.”

Erich continues, “Albert is as much a science geek as the rest of us, but had no life and no personality outside of science. He was really happy, but becoming less enthusiastic about the non-science parts of life.”

Craig interjects, “Hum drum and bored, not depression. Just the monotony was slowing him down. He didn't have anything outside of science.”

Erich nods, “Yeah. A friend from the research group invited him to a drag show event one night. He said no, but his friend insisted.”

Craig adds, “Albert loved it. He had unbridled enthusiasm for learning and for science and hadn't ever seen that kind of response in non-geeks for anything exept maybe sports. It was like finding his people again.”

“Albert's wife is OK with Albert also being DQ?” asks Marina.

Craig chuckles, “They met at a drag show. DQ was performing and she was in the audience. After the performance DQ walked the crowd and when Alex smiled at DQ her chiffon melted.”

Erich adds, “Yeah, Alex is fine with DQ's double-life and loves them in both personalities. The kids love Albert becoming DQ for Drag Queen Story Time at a local cafe. The problem is finding time to do it all.”

Craig notes, “At the conference DQ will be Albert. Not embarrassed by being DQ, but Albert is quiet and very serious.”

Marina cocks her her head, “So, opposite of DQ?”

Craig shakes his his head, “No, not opposite, but decidedly different.”

Erich adds, “Both roles are intelligent and very passionate, just in different ways.”

Craig changes the subject, “Speaking of value”, Craig indicates Erich, “we were talking about how poorly the dollar values to the loonie. Can you afford food while you're up here? Especially eating out, each meal has to be a week's worth of expenses for you.”

Marina says, “I got a sponsorship from a Canadian foundation for my travel expenses. It's the only reason I only got to come to the conference. I get a food allowance as well. It even includes beer.”

Craig smiles, “As a brewer I can confirm beer is food.”

Erich ribs Craig, “Especially a brewer who is half-Scot and half-Canook.”

Craig parries with, “Two halves make it double!”

Craig puts his hand in the air.

Erich shakes his head, but reluctantly doesn't leave his friend hanging.

Marina says, “Breakfast this week is the first time I've had eggs in years as they're too expensive and too unsafe back home.”

Erich mutters, “Sheesh.”

Marina says, “The sponsorship is enough to pay for two small meals out and the hotel has free breakfast, so I'm one of the few Americans who gets three meals a day this week.”

Marina adds, “I'm also one of the few who gets coffee since the conference has sponsored coffee breaks.”

Craig to Erich, “She really had the zooms the first couple days.”

Craig to Marina, “Did you come up early so you get more meals?”

Marina shakes her head, “Helping with the setup is covering my conference fees, but yeah, I would've come up early just to get extra meals.”

Erich exhales, “Damn.”

Craig smiles at Marina, “Well, I'll buy you lunch today.”

“And I'll sport you for dinner and drinks with the gang tonight,” adds Erich.

Marina shakes her head again, “No need, I have to spend the food allowance here. It's only good in Canada during the week of the conference. The limits are part of the visa exception for letting an American in.”

“US citizen”, Erich and Craig say in unison.

Marina looks down sheepishly, “Yes, that.”

Craig asks, “Can you use it at grocery stores?”

Marina shrugs, “Sure, it worked for snacks at a convenience store on the first night, so I think so.”

Craig responds, “Cool, then, as said, we'll buy you lunch and dinner, you save your food money.”

Marina objects, “It's use it or lose it.”

Erich nods, “Yup, so use it to buy groceries the last day and take those home on the train. Craig said you took the train, did you?”

Marina nods, “Yes, the trip from Seattle to Vancouver was beautiful as it's on the coast for most of the route.”

Craig adds, “You also told me you live with your sister who is a college student, so this way you can help her out.”

Marina gives a guilty look.

Erich plows past it, “You can take extra suitcases on the train, they'll even check them for you, so it's not even more work for you.”

Marina objects again, “I don't have extra suitcases.”

Erich offers, “I can give you my suitcases. It's easy to just put my stuff away in my container, so I don't really need them.”

Craig asks Erich, “Why do you even have suitcases?”

Erich shrugs, “I can pack ahead of time and it saves trips in an out of the container. Plus, I already had them, so used what I had. They don't really help on the way home and I have several duffel bags at home. Those will work just fine for future trips.”

Craig back to Marina, “So, save your per diem and take care of your family.”

Marina whimpers, “Everybody's been so kind all week. I'm a visiting foreigner, I feel like I'm imposing.”

Erich shakes his head, “We all took turns buying Emily meals her first couple years. She was a student with a part-time job.”

Craig chimes in, “And people helped take care of us at the beginnings of our careers.”

Erich laughs, “Except Albert, he had pre-planned everything including budget and didn't need help.”

Craig “Yeah, but we had to help Albert a few years in when he discovered drag and was spending all their money building up DQ.”

Erich nods, “True. And the reward has been worth it!”

Craig smiles, “Indeed.”

Erich turns back to Marina, “So, we'll get your lunches and dinners. We'll even spot for coffees or bobas if we go out as a group. It's a nice conference center, but there's a lot more to Vancouver.”

As they approach the car Marina notes DQ has re-donned the morning's dress. she suspects that's why Emily and DQ hurried back, to give DQ time for a costume change.

On the drive to the city they agree to listen to Erich's science play list. It has lots of They Might Be Giants, so DQ still has opportunity to perform in situ.

Back at the hotel Emily says she needs to call the kids and prepare for her presentation in the morning. DQ says a long bubble bath awaits.

Erich, Craig and Marina agree to meet down at the restaurant for dinner and drinks in an hour.

Hotel Food

// All AI use strictly prohibited

Erich goes down to the bar early. It's a typical hotel bar, dark and noisy with lots of large screens.

He chooses the table on the left in the far back. Though somewhat in an alcove it can be seen from the door.

Most importantly he has access to control the speaker volume and the nearby screens. The welcome packet says it's a perk of having the primary pod suite. It also has a reserved sign on it, so he doesn't have to worry about anyone else grabbing the table.

A waitress comes by and he tells her he's waiting for couple friends.

“Are you new?,” asks Erich.

The waitress says she's been there ten months.

“I'm in town once a year, so that's new for me,” he grins, “I'm Erich, what's your name?”

She answers, “Wilma. And the bartender already let me know you're allowed to use this table.”

Erich says, “Nice to meet you Wilma. Yeah, it seems I've got a standing reservation for this table, well sitting anyway.”

“By the way, I'm covering for my group tonight, so please bill for all three of us to my room at the end.”

She nods.

“I'm early. Go ahead and ignore me until they show up. Then please bring us waters as we'll need to hydrate a little before the beers start.”

“OK, do you want a water now?” she responds.

“Nah, I'm good for now.”

Erich flips on the black lights as she walks away. His automations had already switched the speakers to music and turned it down when he arrived. Not that Anne Murray was loud to begin with. The nearby TVs were already on science streams, so nothing to change there.

Though in a public setting, Erich is hoping for some quiet time to recharge some more.

Craig shows up 15 minutes later as Erich is catching up on Science Media. Erich gets up and gives him a big hug, not near as good as DQ, but hopefully still reassuring for him.

Both are wearing science t-shirts, blue jeans and sneakers. Their shoes glow under the black light. Erich has his hair back in a ponytail. Craig is straining the limits of his t-shirt. Erich is concerned about what he sees of Craig's health since Sam died. He was struggling on the light hike today.

Craig has long had a belly, Sam could cook and Craig didn't mind. Craig is a brewer and Sam didn't mind. Sam said they were perfect for each other, making sure they could make it through the cold mid-continent Winters. But Craig seems to be packing it on now. Another good reason for them to work together, getting out will help reduce Craig's depression-eating.

The speakers start singing of working for the weekend, but it's only Thursday night.

Marina walks in and the two men wave her over. She is also wearing a geekly t-shirt, but hers is a colourful image of the Horsehead Nebula rather than geek-snark. It sparkles as different colours luminesce in the black light. She is also wearing a dark skirt with ruffled sine waves. The guys aren't sure they're supposed to be sine waves, but that's what they look like.

Her hair is volumous and puffy like Erich wishes his hair would still do. The hair doesn't block her ears, so it's easy to see the DNA double-helix earrings. Nerd fashion credentials on display Marina sits down in an open chair at the table.

Erich quickly mumbles greetings, then motions to the waitress as she's delivering drinks to another table. She nods.

Erich says that as promised he'll cover dinner tonight, “It turns out I'm getting a surprising amount of discount at the hotel this year.” Craig looks at him. “Part of remuneration as a consultant it seems.” Craig smirks.

Erich mentions an article he'd just seen on Science Media. Craig says he saw it before coming down. Marina hadn't seen it. As Craig starts to describe it the waitress comes by. She sets down the waters and asks if they're ready to order drinks.

Erich orders a shot of whiskey from him favourite local distillery and whatever Weizen they have on tap, then looks at Craig and asks, “IPA?” Craig nods, “Of course.” Erich turns to the waitress saying “That and whatever the young lady would like as well.”

Marina mumbles thanks and says she'll also take a Weizen.

The waitress repeats the order and asks for a room number. Erich gives her his. She then heads to the bar as Craig gets back to the science news.

A moment later Erich says, “I forgot to order that neat,” and heads after the waitress.

Erich catches up to her and amends his order. He mentions the woman at the table and asks Wilma to arrange for all of the her food orders for the week to be billed to his room. He also orders a small, fresh Canadian welcome package to be delivered to Marina's room in the morning. The package will have a variety of maple sweets, a Hortons gift card and some Canadian flag themed items. It will also have an assortment of fresh fruit.

Erich figures she can eat the fruit while at the conference, but some of the snacks might make it home to share with her sister.

“Thanks Wilma,” Erich waves across the room to greet the bartender and heads back to the table.

Craig and Marina are discussing the article when Erich returns. At a break Erich asks Marina what her specialty is.

Marina says she's an astrophysicist, “Luckily there's decades of data waiting for research, so loss of the space-based telescopes hasn't left me idle.”

Craig shakes his head, “So stupid that they just turned them off.”

Marina “Yeah. Luckily Europe had built out some space net capacity and bought control of the Voyager missions, so we haven't lost them. Also, since the US economy is now that of a third world country Europe outsources to me at a significant discount.”

Marina adds, “We're cheaper to Europe and Canada than Mexico or India ever were for us.”

Craig whistles.

Wilma arrives with the drinks. Erich thanks her and the three commiserate with a toast to the science that shall not be, then Erich holds up his shot to toast the science that is still underway.

Marina “What do you do?”

Craig sighs, then jokes, “Well, that's going to be the conversation for a while, might as well take a pee break,” and heads off to the restroom.

“I'm an LSMB specialist.”

Marina wrinkles her forehead, “LSMB?”

“Less space more boom. I get improved energy yield from fuels.”

Erich continues, “Mining companies want me to work for them. As you can imagine, the military industrial complex really wants my work. The space billionaire industrial complex desperately wants me because rocketry is controlled boom, especially if one of them can get me on an exclusive contract.”

Marina asks, “Who do you work for?”

Erich says, “I do research, so I insist on being at a university.”

Marina rejoins, “Is there really still work in that? Don't they just get AI to do the physics?”

Erich shakes his head vigorously, “The US tried that. AI LSMB is why the Yuma Proving Grounds is now the fourth largest hole in Arizona.”

Continuing, Erich adds, “AI LSMB is why you can no longer get a peanut butter hamburger at the Mohave Spaceport. Or anything at all.”

Marina eyes widen, “I remember seeing that explosion all over the news for weeks.”

Erich, “From several angles.”

“Yeah.”

Erich says, “Over 500 people died in that explosion.”

“What?”, exclaims Marina, “I never heard about that.”

Erich affirms, “Big boom was sexy and got people to watch, but dwelling on the death of 500 people didn't sell and was bad for business, so the death toll got swept under the rug.”

“If it wasn't reported, how do you know all those people really died,” asks Marina.

Erich takes a deep breath, “It's my field, so I looked for information. I read reports. Heck, we got some scientific papers out of it. I read those too. And, well, several of my friends died in the blast.”

Marina looks aghast and stammers, “O-o-h, s-s-s-orr-ry, I didididn't mean any “

Erich reaches across the table and pats the back of her hand reassuringly.

Erich responds, “It's OK. This is my field. I had friends there. It was smaller, but I also have good friend who got really messed up when Yuma went up.”

Erich says, “Look, in my field you don't trust the science and maths to someone who doesn't understand it. You definitely don't turn it over to a guesstimate engine, but as Yuma and the Mojave Spaceport proved, it's not just your own work that you have to be cautious of.”

Erich takes a breath, “The fundamentals have to be solid from the base, so AI doesn't help when it comes to the actual experimentation. It's untrustworthy and unfit for that. Also, someone signs off on the work.”

Erich looks down at the table, “At Mohave the primary engineer and his manager died in the explosion, along with a company VP. Several other managers and VPs took the rap for the incident. AIs don't go to jail and in the US neither do famous tech entrepreneurs.”

Erich shrugs, “We sometimes use it for audits. When AI flags something my grad students get an opportunity to research what's wrong with the AI's result. Once in a while the AI audit actually finds something worthwhile, but mostly it builds training scenerios on what can go wrong with maths.”

Changing topics Marina asks, “What was that bit about peanut butter hamburgers?”

Erich smirks, “The on site restaurant was well-known for having peanut butter hamburgers on the menu.”

Marina incredulously asks, “They were famous for their peanut butter hamburgers?”

Erich smiles, “No, no. They were famous for having them on the menu. Pretty sure the burgers themselves were not a source of fame.”

Marina laughs, “Ah, OK. But why were they testing a rocket next to the restaurant?”

Erich responds, “They weren't. They were testing a new AI formulated fuel in one of the businesses near the spaceport, but the explosion was big enough to cross the spaceport and blow down the restaurant, the terminal and the museum. It also caused a large fuel tank to blow, which was the post-explosion fireball you've seen in the news.”

Marina shakes her head, “That fireball was a secondary explosion?”

Erich nods, “Yes, that small secondary explosion. My field does big boom.”

Craig returns and suggests they order food before he explodes from hunger.

Erich has known what he's ordering since he tried the lemongrass chicken last year. Craig says he's getting a vegetarian protein bowl. Erich is happy to hear that. They give Marina some time to study the menu.

Marina decides on a soup and salad, saying both would be courting danger in the US. Erich shoots Craig a thin, supportive smile. Craig silently takes a breath, smiles back, then waves to Wilma.

They put in their food orders, Wilma asks if they want more drinks. Erich and Craig look at Marina, she says she'll gladly get good beer while she can. Erich tells Wilma, “Three more beers, please.”

The three of them talk about how cool the forest was. The data center was meh and a waste of natural resources, but the forest was beautiful. None of them know any of the trees except the pines.

Dinner and drinks arrive and they dive in sating the hunger from the day's activities.

---

// © 2026 Plot Experiments, all rights reserved // All AI use strictly prohibited

@plot_experiments@bookstodon.com

#PlotExperiments #PodLife #LSMB #AIuseforbidden #noAI

I've been unemployed for a month now.

In late July, I resigned from my corporate job working in technology as a project manager. I had been at the same company on-and-off since 2011, and had worked in a range of roles covering data analytics, data engineering, information security and finally project management.

I had it pretty good. I had over a decade of organisational experience, a solid rapport with all of the senior decision makers in the business, a good sense of what was happening 'on the ground', a comfortable salary, and the opportunity to work on a fairly diverse set of technical projects. Our company was leveraging current AI models to speed up their work (and dealing with the governance, security & quality issues that come with it, just like any other business), so I got good exposure to cutting-edge tools, even if I wasn't a super-user of AI tools directly.

But I had a growing feeling that I needed a break from the corporate world, and I was worried about being in a stale environment for too long. So I gave my two months notice and got out.

What I told people when I quit

Once my resignation was made public, I inevitably got asked 'why?' – it was a sudden shock to everyone I spoke to, particularly those that I'd known for over a decade. Most asked whether I was leaving for another company (I wasn't); the answer I gave was that 'I had run out of energy' to keep working as I had been for years, and that 'I just needed a break from work'. Both of these statements were true – but wasn't the full story.

I hadn't had a proper hiatus from a job since graduating from university, so I felt that taking a bit of time off to think about my next career choice was socially acceptable. Fortunately, this didn't invite too many follow-up questions. I really didn't want to get sucked in to long conversations about my departure; I had mentally checked out of my role and just needed to cut the cord for my own sanity. In hindsight, I didn't want to be the centre of attention as there was a weird sense of resigning being a 'selfish' decision. So weird to think of it that way, but I guess that's what long-term company loyalty drilled into me.

The other part of the story

Of course, there were a few other reasons that made me resign. I mentally bundled them up into three topics:

1. Feeling like I had lost psychological safety & autonomy in my role
2. Mandated usage of AI tools making technical work unenjoyable and unfulfilling
3. Symptoms of burnout, both emotionally & physically, making it difficult to work

Psychological safety

Over the last few years, any concerns or problems I raised were taken less & less seriously, and senior management were making unilateral decisions without any compromise or incorporating feedback from experienced middle managers like myself.

Previously I had enjoyed being a part of a more collaborative working environment, but that was a distant memory.

AI usage causing problems

In my previous role, the mandated usage of AI tools for technical purposes circumvented any need for quality or care that software development and other technical teams used to have.

When I left, the process of developing software features was diluted into a mundane process that most of the Tech industry globally seems to have adopted:

• feed a 2-3 sentence prompt into an AI tool such as Claude Codex or Github Copilot to spit out a product requirements document (PRD) or similar
• after a brief review, feeding that PRD back into the AI coding tool to develop the feature
• perform some cursory testing of the feature within the application, then push the changes to other developers who would approve the work

My issue with this is that development was so highly automated without any real oversight or input from the end users who were going to deal with the AI-generated code slop – there wasn't any critical discussion of 'hey do the developers really understand what we need here?' – if it wasn't captured in that 2-3 sentence prompt, it didn't matter.

Deep knowledge of the codebase by developers dropped off quickly once this approach started, because there's no time to think through the problems and develop elegant or performant solutions.

I felt for the end users who ultimately paid the biggest price here, because they'd be expected to perform their user acceptance testing on AI slop, and have to provide a bunch of feedback to get the software into a sensible state. My take on the whole development lifecycle is that the time saved on developing code was pushed onto end users who needed to test more – and high-quality output didn't really happen any faster overall.

And as a result, the company now had a sizeable AI token bill to pay every month, and a codebase that was bloated and barely understood by anyone in the development team. I felt like it was hard to stay a part of that kind of environment.

Burnout symptoms

This last point was probably the biggest factor in me needing to stop working. I wasn't specifically diagnosed with burnout but I definitely felt like I had most of the common symptoms. There was a general apathy and lack of enthusiasm with my work, and I often operated with a heavy brain fog around me that made high-quality work difficult to maintain.

Most work days I felt drained of energy by mid-afternoon, regardless of the volume of work I had on my plate. I was able to easily keep up with my day-to-day admin and I often completed any crucial tasks within a few hours each day, but the lack of satisfaction & fulfillment was so debilitating that it bled into my personal life and started to stop me feeling joy in non-work activities.

---

The combination of all three of these issues led to me feeling unfulfilled and demotivated in the workplace, and these physically manifested for months before I properly pulled the resignation trigger in July. I had felt physically tense & drained within an hour of clocking in every day – my body's way of telling me that I was in the wrong environment.

And so I started my career break, without any real direction of what I would do next or how long I'd have a break for.

The plan

My plan during my career break was to attempt to not have a plan – or at least avoid structuring my life too much. I was acutely aware that if I overloaded my time during my break that my feelings of burnout wouldn't get better, so I had to minimise and simplify.

But I did have some vague guidelines of how I imagined my career break would unfold:

1. Not spend any effort in finding a new job or a new career for at least a few weeks
2. Give myself a few vague goals or tasks for each day, to avoid overloading myself but still get some small feelings of satisfaction
3. Work towards having a new job/career in early 2027 (i.e. have no expectation of returning to work before Christmas 2026).

To avoid needing to rush back into work, I set myself a fairly strict budget to live on and calculated that I had 6 months of money to live off. So far I've mostly kept to the budget, with the odd unforeseen expense coming up.

How it's actually worked out

After one month of not having a job to go to, I have no idea how to reflect back on this time and assess if I've 'done it right' or not. When I've been asked by friends & family “how is the break going?” the word I have settled on is volatile – it's definitely been hard to adapt to as it's a completely new experience.

I have had some good weeks and some bad weeks, when thinking about my physical and emotional state. I've had some inspiring days full of coffee catchups and chats with my career network, and some dreary days where I distract myself with every possible household chore to stop myself being bored.

At least my dog Charlie is enjoying the extra attention that comes with being at home a bit more than before:

As someone who used to be very routine and schedule-driven, the lack of structure to my day has been confronting and revealing. My daily habits that I used to squeeze in around my work day have completely dropped off, as every day has a different cadence depending on where I'm going and who I'm seeing.

However I can't ignore the positives. I still feel burned out (I expect to feel like this for the foreseeable future – how can you possibly unlearn 15 years of corporate life in a month or two?) but I very quickly stopped feeling the frustration of being in a corporate environment, apart from hearing about my wife's job at the end of every weekday.

I've found a little bit of joy & satisfaction with doing things cheap or being thrifty. Cooking vegan or vegetarian dishes is often much tastier than meat-based meals (because the sauces/flavours are more interesting) and are at a fraction of the cost. The best recipes get saved to my recipe management app. On the home front, taking the time to properly research, plan and complete home improvement projects is far more satisfying than hiring a handyman. I learned how to install my first ever toilet seat earlier this month!

While I've become a bit tighter with spending, on the whole our usual lifestyle continues on as normal. Last weekend we did a multi-day hike in the Alpine National Park in Victoria with friends, and with more hikes being planned for regional Victoria I'm now thinking about planning some day trips to country towns (getting there via the V/Line train) to do some light tourism in this great state.

What's next

I've read other stories about career breaks, with some anecdotes mentioning that they are only truly relaxing after a year or more of not working. This makes sense, if you're trying to unlearn the emotional patterns of being in corporate or bureaucratic environments which have built up over decades.

I worry that I don't have the patience to be unemployed for such a long period of time, and that I'll feel forced to get back into the workforce before I'm ready. I currently have an idealistic view that I'll find my dream career which ticks all of my boxes and if I have to compromise on that, then the break may end up being a failure. I've started to adopt the process that the Careershifters.org website describes to identify a new career path, and I'm aware that'll take several months of ongoing effort to get there.

I am also simultaneously excited and scared for how my identity will unfold or appear as I grapple with a life that isn't based around a job. Every day during this break I'm starting to learn a bit more about myself, but naturally there's always more questions than answers.

From time to time, I'm reminded about the phrase “you can just do things” which gives me the confidence to be courageous, try something new or “just go do some cool shit” as a friend instructed me. But telling yourself YCJDT and actually living it in practice are totally different things; I feel like I need to get properly comfortable with this new rhythm before giving myself a novel experience. The two shadows of burnout symptoms and the need to find a new career in some timeframe really complicate the situation.

#CareerBreak #CareerChange #lifestyle

This note comes from Foodie Guide, an independent guide to fast-food menus. We are not affiliated with Raising Cane's, and this is not an official statement from the restaurant. I am simply explaining the menu in everyday language so you can decide what fits your day.

Raising Cane's keeps its menu short: chicken fingers, crinkle-cut fries, Texas toast, coleslaw, Cane's Sauce, and drinks. That simplicity makes choices easier to follow, but it also means most meals center on fried chicken, a starchy side, and bread.

In plain terms, a standard chicken-finger meal tends to be filling and higher in calories, fat, and sodium than a lighter lunch, especially once sauce, fries, and a sweetened drink are added. The sauce adds flavor and extra fat, the fries add salt and starch, and the toast adds refined carbs. Skipping or sharing one of those extras, choosing water, or keeping the portion smaller can make the same meal feel lighter without giving up the food you came for.

For item-by-item details, portion notes, and a clearer breakdown, see the Raising Cane's nutrition guide. Use it to compare options before you order, and remember that recipes and values can change, so the guide is a starting point rather than medical advice.

Like tendrils weeping a static calm, this heart blunders into a facsimile of rendered fluctuation. Drip-by-faltering drip its counterfeit pace soothes me into oblivion...

Trigger spooled with lacking grace, attention's drilled to sag and waste away the qualms that seethe and spore to hungers chewing evermore.

Pump! Pump! I drop a load. Spiral on a quest foretold past time and space of status quo in cracks exploding what we know.

Without a map. Without a name. Without a test or wage to blame the nuisance ringing in my ear that chants of falsehoods claiming fear.

I'm ragged, worn, and filtered meek. Lost to all but drones who seek the bite that barks where ends maim fame and darkness wrongs a righteous bane.

Like tendrils weeping a static calm, this heart blunders into a facsimile of rendered fluctuation. Drip-by-faltering drip its counterfeit pace soothes me into oblivion...

—point blank—

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

musical inspiration https://youtube.com/watch?v=OF3yBbLrkEY&is=73tjCqwmNzZPy66A

Chapter 1: The Question I Would Have Kept to Myself

The notebook is open beside your dinner plate, and there is a sentence you wrote down earlier that you cannot stop looking at. You heard it during a conversation about Jesus, and at the time it seemed clear enough to change something. Now the house is quiet, your phone is charging by the sink, and the sentence feels harder to understand. You know you agreed with it. You are not sure you are ready to live it. That small distance between agreement and willingness is what draws me to imagining an ordinary listener at the Sermon on the Mount. I think about the long walk home afterward, when there was no crowd to carry the excitement for you.

I have listened to people describe powerful moments of faith and wondered what they took into the following day. That is part of what interests me about what an ordinary person might have felt hearing Jesus teach on the mountain. I don't mean whether the person could describe the setting or repeat every word. I mean what happened when the sound of His voice was no longer filling the air and they were left alone with something they did not know how to answer. We often imagine that meeting Jesus would make our inner life simple. I wonder whether, for some people, hearing Him might first have made them more honest about how complicated it was.

There is a connection here to the quiet changes that begin after an encounter with Jesus, because I don't believe every meaningful response announces itself right away. A person may leave with a question that will not settle. They might discover that a habit they once defended has become difficult to excuse. They might want to believe what Jesus said about the Father and still find themselves afraid to trust. Scripture does not tell us what every listener thought as they went down that hill. I want to respect that silence instead of putting imagined speeches into their mouths. But I can bring my own questions to the words Matthew has preserved.

One question is uncomfortable to admit. If I had been there, would I really have wanted Jesus to tell me the truth, or would I have wanted Him to make me feel better about the life I was already living? It is possible to want God near while hoping He will leave certain doors closed. We may welcome His kindness and still resist the moment when kindness exposes something we have been avoiding. There are conversations we do not want to have, attitudes we have renamed as personality, and little compromises we explain to ourselves so often that the explanation begins to feel like truth.

Think about the person who sends a warm message to an old friend while quietly hoping the friend will not ask to meet. The friendship has become uneven, and they are tired of always being the one who reaches out. They do not know how to say that without sounding unkind, so they continue writing cheerful sentences they do not fully mean. It is not a terrible act. It is the kind of small dishonesty that grows when we are afraid of disappointing somebody. Sometimes the most faithful next step is neither another false promise nor a cruel rejection. It is a kind, clear conversation about what we can honestly offer.

That example might seem far away from a hillside in Galilee, but the teaching Jesus gave repeatedly reaches beneath the visible action. In Matthew 5, He talks about anger and contempt, not only the violent act everyone already knows is wrong. In Matthew 6, He speaks of giving and prayer, then asks His listeners to examine whether they are doing those things to be noticed. He cares about the part of a life that other people cannot easily see. Those passages make me wonder how often I have been satisfied with appearing considerate while leaving my real motives untouched.

I do not think the answer is to become suspicious of every kind impulse. That would make us so busy examining ourselves that we would forget to love anyone. The point is simpler and more demanding. We can give ourselves permission to be truthful before God. If we are doing something because we want praise, we can admit it. If we are afraid of an honest conversation, we can say so. If we have begun to resent a responsibility that we freely accepted, we can ask for wisdom about how to handle it. We do not need to invent a better version of ourselves before coming to Jesus.

The poor in spirit are the first people Jesus calls blessed in Matthew 5. I come back to that because admitting need does not fit the way many of us have been taught to present ourselves. We want to arrive with a thoughtful answer, a tidy account of our progress, and some proof that we deserve to be heard. But the words of Jesus make space for people who know they do not have enough in themselves. Recognizing that need is not the end of faith. It may be the first time we have stopped trying to conceal the reason we need grace.

Perhaps someone who heard Him that day went home with a truth they could not yet practice. Perhaps another felt comfort in a place that had been sore for years. Those are possibilities, not claims about people Matthew never names. What I know is that we can hear the same teaching now, and our reluctance does not have to end the conversation. We can tell Christ what we are afraid His words will require of us. We can ask for help taking one honest step instead of promising a sudden transformation we cannot sustain.

The notebook is still open when you finish dinner. You do not add a long resolution beneath the sentence. You write down the name of the friend you have been avoiding and decide to speak plainly with them tomorrow. You may not find the right words on the first attempt. There may still be discomfort, and the friendship may need a different shape. But the teaching has already moved beyond a line you admired on a page. It has reached a place in your life where you can no longer pretend you have nothing to decide.

Chapter 2: The Hours Nobody Knows You Gave

At five in the morning, the hallway light is still on because you never got around to turning it off. You have been awake twice to help someone you love get comfortable, and now you are rinsing a cup that held the last dose of medicine. The house is quiet enough that you can hear water moving through the pipes. Later, when people ask how things are going, you will probably tell them you are managing. It is a convenient answer. It protects them from a long explanation and protects you from discovering that they did not really want one.

There are ways to feel invisible even when people depend on you every day. You remember their appointments, fill out forms they cannot manage, and notice when something in the house needs attention. You do these things because they matter, and because the person needs you. But somewhere beneath that love is another feeling you are embarrassed to admit. You want somebody to understand how much it costs. You want one person to see the hours you have given without asking you to explain why you are tired. When no one does, you wonder whether the work itself has started to disappear.

That is where I would want to listen closely if I were standing on the hillside with Jesus. I would not be waiting for Him to give me a grand purpose or tell me that my life was more important than other people's lives. I think I would want to know whether God notices a person when there is nothing remarkable to notice. Would He see the one who stays up late to help another person? Would He see the person who does the right thing with some resentment still tangled in their heart? Would He notice the help that is given awkwardly, imperfectly, and without anyone saying thank you?

In Matthew 6, Jesus speaks of giving and praying without making a performance of them. He warns against practicing righteousness in order to be admired, and He speaks of the Father who sees what is done in secret. I have often thought about the difference between wanting to be praised and wanting to be known. They are not always the same thing. Sometimes we want applause because we hope it will make us feel superior. Other times we want recognition because we are exhausted and afraid that what we have done has cost us more than anyone understands. Jesus' words can confront our pride without mocking our need to be cared for.

I would be careful not to turn that teaching into another burden for the person washing the medicine cup. If someone said, “God sees you, so you shouldn't need any help,” they would be asking Scripture to excuse their own absence. Being noticed by our Father is not an instruction to carry every responsibility alone. There are times when loving someone includes calling a sibling, asking a neighbor to bring a meal, or telling a doctor that the arrangement at home is no longer sustainable. We can be faithful and worn out at the same time. We can trust God and still need other people to show up.

What changes, then, when Jesus tells us the Father sees in secret? For me, it changes the part of the evening when I begin to resent how little evidence there is of what I have done. A wiped counter becomes dirty again. A person who felt better yesterday needs help again today. The task leaves no monument. But if God sees the life being lived, its worth is not determined by whether somebody else remembers it. That does not make the labor easy. It does keep me from believing that unnoticed love is the same thing as wasted love.

Jesus also teaches His listeners how to pray. In Matthew 6:8, He says their Father knows what they need before they ask Him. I find that sentence especially tender when I imagine someone who no longer has the strength to organize a proper prayer. We often speak as though prayer must begin with a clear mind and carefully chosen words. But the person sitting on the edge of the bed might have only enough energy to say, “Please help me get through tomorrow.” God does not need an account of the night's events before He can understand the need. The person praying can tell the truth without preparing a case.

There is still something difficult about being seen by a God we cannot see. Human beings need voices, hands, meals, and visits. You might pray in an empty kitchen and still wish someone would knock on the door. I do not think faith requires you to feel ashamed of that wish. Jesus taught people to call God their Father, and He taught them to pray for daily bread, not simply for the strength to pretend they were not hungry. The spiritual life is not a competition to see who can endure the most with the least comfort. It is a relationship in which need can be spoken plainly.

If I were one of the unnamed listeners leaving that mountain, perhaps I would carry those words back to a room where no one had noticed my effort. I would still have work to do. I might still need to ask for assistance or have a difficult conversation with the people who assumed I could manage forever. But I might stop treating my need for help as evidence that I had failed. I might also stop believing that my worth was waiting for another person to award it to me. The Father Jesus described was not discovering my existence only when someone brought Him news of me.

By the time morning reaches the kitchen window, the cup is dry. You put it away, check the next appointment on the calendar, and write a message asking a relative whether they can stay for an hour this weekend. It takes courage to send that message because you are used to saying you have everything covered. Then you sit for a moment and pray without trying to sound grateful for being tired. You tell God that you love the person you are caring for, that you are frustrated, and that you need help. Nothing in the room becomes less ordinary. But you are no longer pretending that the hours have no weight or that you must carry them without being known.

Chapter 3: The Fear You Could Not Pray Away

The ticket number glows on the wall above the service counter, and you have been watching it change for nearly an hour. In your pocket is a letter saying your request has been denied. You have come to ask whether there has been a mistake, though you have already read the explanation so often that you can almost recite it. Across the room, a man answers his phone and begins talking happily about plans for the weekend. You find yourself resenting his ordinary happiness. He has done nothing wrong. Still, it feels unfair that the world can keep being pleasant for other people while you are struggling to hold your own life together.

I think that is one of the loneliest things about disappointment. We do not always become noble when life is difficult. Sometimes we become impatient, suspicious, and tired of hearing how well things are going for everyone else. We may be ashamed of those reactions, especially if we believe a Christian should meet every setback with immediate gratitude. So we hide the bitterness beneath polite words. We tell people that God has a plan because we believe He does, but we are afraid to admit how badly we wish we could understand it.

When I picture myself at the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder whether I would have been able to hear the words of Jesus without silently arguing with them. I know how the story reads now. I know that His teaching is precious. But if I had come carrying a hope that had just fallen apart, would I have been ready to hear Him speak about the Father's care? Or would I have thought about the particular thing I had asked for and not received? That question does not make me doubt the goodness of Jesus. It makes me more aware of the distance between knowing what He said and learning to trust Him with what I cannot explain.

In Matthew 6, Jesus speaks about the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. He asks His listeners to consider the care of their heavenly Father, and He tells them not to be consumed with worry about tomorrow. I can imagine those words being comforting to someone who had come to the hillside feeling forgotten. I can also imagine a weary listener needing time to receive them. Scripture does not give us the private reactions of everyone there, and I do not want to invent them. What it gives us is the invitation Jesus actually made: to seek first God's kingdom rather than allowing tomorrow's fears to become our master.

I used to think trust should feel a certain way. I imagined it as a steady confidence that would make difficult news less frightening. But what if trust sometimes feels like admitting that you are frightened and bringing that fear to God anyway? A person can believe in the Father's care while still struggling to sleep. They can ask for daily bread and still need to visit an assistance office or make an uncomfortable phone call. Jesus does not make responsibility disappear. He asks us not to mistake our ability to anticipate every disaster for our ability to keep ourselves safe.

Consider someone recovering from an injury who has spent weeks practicing the same few steps between the kitchen table and the doorway. They follow the therapist's instructions, celebrate a little progress, and then have a morning when their body refuses to cooperate. They know recovery is rarely a straight line, but knowing that does not keep discouragement from arriving. Watching other people move without thinking about it can bring on a wave of envy. A cheerful instruction to stop worrying would not make the fear disappear. They need patience, practical help, and room to say how hard it is.

If that person prayed tonight, the words might be very plain. They might tell God they are angry that the search has gone on so long. They might admit being jealous of friends whose lives appear secure. They might ask for healing and also ask for the courage to face another day if their strength does not return immediately. I do not believe such a prayer is less sincere because it lacks a peaceful ending. It may be the first prayer in a while that has not been arranged to sound like something the person thinks God expects to hear.

There is something else in Jesus' words that we can overlook when we rush to feel reassured. He says that each day has enough trouble of its own. That is a remarkably honest acknowledgment of how life feels. He does not tell His listeners that tomorrow will contain no trouble. He does not describe faith as a guarantee that circumstances will always improve on our schedule. He calls them to meet today's needs without carrying tomorrow as though it has already happened. That is not an easy practice for a frightened heart. It is a way to begin living again in the hours we have actually been given.

At the counter, the clerk finally calls your number. You unfold the letter and explain why you came. Perhaps the answer will remain no. Perhaps there is another form you can submit, or someone who can explain the next step. You listen, ask the questions you prepared, and write down what you need to remember. The man across the room is still smiling at his phone. This time you barely notice him. Not because your problems have been solved, but because you are doing the part of the day that belongs to you.

If I had heard Jesus on that hillside while carrying a disappointment I could not explain, I hope I would have taken His words home without forcing myself to pretend I was no longer afraid. I hope I would have learned to speak to the Father honestly and then give my attention to the next faithful thing I could do. There would still be days when I returned to fear, and days when somebody else's happiness made my own waiting feel harder. But I would want to stop treating those feelings as reasons to keep my distance from God. I would want to bring them into the conversation instead.

Chapter 4: The Person I Might Have Passed on the Way Home

The message arrives just as you are putting the last clean plate into the cupboard. Your teenage son asks if you can pick him up early from a friend's house. He doesn't explain why. He has been short with you lately, and an hour ago you were still irritated about the argument you had that morning. You could tell him to wait until the time you agreed on. You could ask what he did wrong before deciding whether to help. Instead, you take your keys from the hook and drive across town. When he climbs into the car, he looks at the floor and says he doesn't feel like talking.

There is a kind of love that nobody would recognize from a distance. It looks like driving in silence with someone who is not ready to tell you what happened. It means allowing another person a little space when your own feelings are already hurt. It means resisting the temptation to turn every difficult moment into a lesson because you happen to have words prepared. I am not always good at this kind of love. Sometimes I want to settle the matter quickly so I can feel useful again. I would rather give advice than sit beside a question that has no immediate answer.

That is why I keep imagining what would have happened after the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus finished speaking and the people had to return to their ordinary obligations. Matthew says the crowds were astonished by His teaching. He does not say what the unnamed listeners did with the rest of their day. I wonder if some wanted to speak about everything they had heard and others needed silence. Perhaps a few recognized an old habit they could no longer defend. Perhaps the teaching left them with questions they were not yet ready to ask aloud. We cannot know. But the words Jesus spoke were never meant to remain on the hillside.

Near the end of Matthew 7, He talks about two people building houses. One hears His words and acts on them. The other hears the same words and does not. When the weather turns violent, the foundation makes the difference. I notice that both builders have heard. The wise person is not the one who attended the more impressive gathering or came away with a better story. The difference appears in the quiet, repeated work of building. A foundation takes shape before the storm, when what we choose may look too ordinary to matter.

I think we sometimes misunderstand that picture because we want following Jesus to produce an entirely new personality by tomorrow morning. We expect our impatience to disappear, our fear to become certainty, and our difficult relationships to settle into peace. But if I hear Jesus teach me to be merciful, I still have to decide what mercy looks like when I am tired. If I hear Him speak about loving my enemies, I still have to reckon with the anger I carry toward a particular person. The truth is no less true because I cannot live it perfectly at once. I need grace while I learn.

It matters that this is not a program for earning God's attention. Jesus did not come merely to give humanity better instructions. Christian faith rests on who He is and what He has done for us, including His death and resurrection. We are not trying to build a record impressive enough to make Him love us. We respond because we have been loved, and because His words show us what a life shaped by that love can become. When we fail, the answer is not to pretend it never happened or decide we are hopeless. We can confess the failure and return to Him.

The drive home continues without much conversation. Your son watches streetlights pass across the window. You want to tell him that you understand, but you do not yet know what there is to understand. Eventually you say you are glad he called. You let him know that you are available if he wants to talk later. You still have questions about what happened, and you may need to ask them when he is ready, especially if his safety is involved. But for these few minutes, you do not make your wounded pride the most important thing in the car.

I wonder whether I would have learned that kind of restraint if I had heard Jesus in person. I like to imagine that I would have stayed until the end and remembered every word. Yet I know how distracted I become by my own concerns. I know how quickly I can hear something beautiful and then return to a familiar reaction when someone disappoints me. If I am honest, I cannot promise what sort of listener I would have been. I can only decide what to do as I hear Him now.

That decision does not have to be impressive. Tomorrow, you might notice that you are speaking harshly to someone who has asked an innocent question. You can stop and begin again. You might realize you have spent an entire conversation waiting for your turn to talk. You can put your attention back on the person in front of you. You might offer help and then discover that you cannot reasonably provide everything requested. You can give an honest answer without becoming cold. These are not miracles. They are places where mercy and truth begin to acquire the shape of a real life.

There are also moments when we will not be able to see our own progress. We may pray and feel nothing settle. We may ask forgiveness and find that the relationship stays damaged. We may do what is right and still go home disappointed. I do not want to suggest that following Jesus means every good decision receives a visible reward. Sometimes the most meaningful change is simply that we no longer make every decision according to what would make us feel better immediately. We begin to care about what is true and loving, even when it is inconvenient.

At home, your son heads to his room. Before closing the door, he turns and thanks you for coming. He still has not explained what happened, and you do not know whether tonight will be remembered by either of you a year from now. You cannot measure the significance of the drive by what he told you. You can only know that when he asked for help, you went. There will be another conversation when the time is right. For now, you have let a quiet evening be what it needed to be.

If I could ask one question of a person who truly stood on that hillside, I do not think I would ask how loud the crowd was or how close they sat to Jesus. I would want to know what they noticed when they returned home. Did they see someone they had stopped seeing? Did they tell the truth about something they had hidden? Did they begin to believe that the Father heard the prayers they could barely speak? Scripture leaves those private histories with God. But it does leave us the words of Christ, and they are enough to ask us what kind of people we are willing to become.

The opportunity is not locked in a distant afternoon in Galilee. It can reach a person sitting in a parked car, uncertain what to say to someone they love. It can reach someone who has made mistakes and is still learning how to be honest. I cannot go back and stand among the first listeners. I can open the Gospel today, listen without pretending, and ask Jesus to help me live one small part of what I have heard. I would rather begin there than spend my life imagining how remarkable I might have been if only I had seen Him walk by.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Explore the complete Douglas Vandergraph Master Index: https://douglasvandergraph.com/douglas-vandergraph-master-index/

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Inbetweeners 40- Xalatra Questline Part 1- Hunt for Tok Tok

So the players had received their marching orders from the Lady of Pain— find Xalatra of the Bleeding Glyph so she can find a remedy for their inability to travel linearly outside of Sigil.

There were a few hanging plot threads here that increased the players motivation to resolve this quicky:

1) Zariel's ressurection ability has been corrupted in the absence of the Interloper. More on that later.

2)The Lost Titan has threated to destroy them and Arkanos Villa if they can't find him a suitable challenge.

3)The Interloper is currently imprisoned by Mechanus

4)While relatively safe in Sigil, the players are still wanted by Mechanus.

What the players were told about Xalatra was that in trying to map the boundaries between the multiverse and the Far Realm, she lost her mind. She began hyper focusing on magical glyphs, believing the right combination of glyphs could unlock secrets to the multiverse. She began etching some of these unstable glyphs across Sigil, and they would detonate violently and wreak havoc across the city. The Dabus responded and drove Xalatra underneath the city. Her current location is unknown but believed to be somewhere deep in the city. Xalatra corrupted a Dabus (something that should not have been possible). The rogue Dabus has been nicknamed Tock-Tock by the locals. Locating Tock-Tock is the players main lead on Xalatra.

Before we progress, I should reveal a little bit more about the Dabus.

The Dabus are servants of the Lady of Pain and manage the day to day operations around Sigil. They are capable of repairing and rearranging the material in the city itself. An individual Dabus is not much of a threat, with a CR of 2. However, harming one will alert more, and resisting them will draw the Lady of Pain's attention. They are humanoid in shape, have goat horns, wispy white hair, and do not speak. They instead etch visual symbols or glyphs to communicate.

So, let's say someone set off an explosion in the streets that damaged some masonry. So long as the explosion was relatively minor, the perpetrator wouldn't face consequences from the Lady of Pain or Sigil directly. However, third parties might take issue with it and handle accordingly. Instead, Dabus would be dispatched who would simply fix the foundation and any damage to nearby structures that are done. They can do this relatively effortlessly, and the greater the damage, the more Dabus that will be deployed. If the person who set off the explosion tried to stop the Dabus from finishing, they would attack. They would start with simply throwing bricks or small psionic attacks, but if they attacker persisted, the Dabus could swarm and these swarms would be considerably more dangerous. If that didn't solve things, the Lady of Pain might show up directly and dispatch the trouble maker. However, residents of the city don't want to see the Lady of Pain deployed so frequently they will stop someone who is disrupting things specifically to avoid Dabus swarms and Lady of Pain influence. She could just decide to erase that part of the city, after all.

On the note of erasing part of the city—Sigil is also constantly changing. So perhaps a city block of factories is going to be leveled and replaced with a park. A swarm of thousands of Dabus could simply cover the area and in moments transform it, erasing what was there before. No one knows how big Sigil truly is, except for the Lady of Pain. by the same token, no one knows how many Dabus their are. The truth is that there are as many Dabus as the Lady wills at a given time. She can create more with a mere thought. They are not only on the surface of the city either. The majority are actually underneath the city, managing all of the different processes that keep the city running.

If a Dabus were to malfunction for some reason- perhaps it is heavily damaged, corrupted by a spell, or simply too old- it is recycled. Broken down to its constituent parts and reformed as a fresh new Dabus. This was done with Tock-Tock... many times. However, he keeps reappearing. It basically follows the same pattern, Tock-Tock arrives, starts drawing glyphs somewhere in the city, is seized and dissamebled by the Dabus and then reappears again elsewhere. Some sort of bizarre side-effect of Xalatra's far realm corruption interacting with the city itself. Tock-Tock isn't enough of a threat for the Lady to direct her attention to, so he continues to be a curiosity of the denizens of the city. Some even brag when they manage to catch a glimpse of Tock-Tock.

The players had a few options for how to track down Tock-Tock. They could head to a memory dealer, one who extracts memories and uses them as currency. This exiled Githzerai essentially operated in a black market for memories, and would have traded a memory about Xalatra for one of the players memories. Another option was to do research in the Hall of Echoes, sifting through memories to find one that is helpful. The third option, which the players chose, was to simply ask around. The Nameless One made them some introductions that helped.

The Nameless One summoned the players a boat that operated in the street by having water elementals under it. This method of travel let the boat bring the “water” with it, so you could travel by boat overland. While incredibly cool, this method of travel was very expensive, and the Nameless One left the players with the tab. Ironically, they took this fancy ride to a dive bar, but it certainly made an impression. The Nameless One figured since the players were celebrities, they should travel like celebrities. The dive bar was called the Gilded Gutter. On the outside it appears to just be an office, but inside it is speakeasy for mercenaries.

There were many patrons for the players to interact with. You can check the source document in the previous post if you are curious. But the important one is Velka Viral. She approaches the players after they talked to the Kenku about Tock-Tock, before discovering the Kenku could only repeat what it had previously seen so couldn't give them a new location. Velka runs several criminal enterprises in the surrounding area, and while she is very capable in a fight she prefers to work behind the scenes. She basically offers the players a deal, they help her evict some squatters in an industrial building she wants to develop, and she will give them a line on Tock-Tock. She is dismissive about the “squatters”, saying they are little more than religious zealots.

The Truth: A fire-elemental Illithid on the run from a party of Githyanki hunting them has taken up residence in the abandon foundry that Velka wants to redevelop. The Mind Flayer-Fire Elemental, Ignithar, has started a cult called the Everflame cult. He gathers creatures related to the elemental plane of fire to worship a fire elemental. His purposes are two-fold. He uses these zealots as free labor to smelt down precious metals to build up a nest egg. Secondly, he is building an army to protect himself when the Githyanki inevitably catch up to him.

The party of Githyanki actually approached the players before they entered the Gilded Gutter. They initially look down on the group considering their relative species, but Uzo is able to square up with one and they show a modicum of difference and offer a reward for any information about a Mind Flayer in the area.

The players decided to have Uzo pose as an initiate to infiltrate the foundry. Uzo then killed the cults “Everflame”, a fire elemental, which causes Ignithar to show himself and attack. Uzo was about to die when the rest of the group came down from the smoke stack, attacking Ignithar, causing him and his Efreeti partner to flee to the Elemental Plane of Fire. They then convince the remainder of the cult to join the Harmonium, so some Azers, fire mephitis, etc, make their way to Arkanos manor to join up. The players also netted a nice sum of precious metals (36000 gold worth) from the operation that they then keep. Essentially Ignithar had been sending cult members out to scrap anything precious they could. The Githyanki were very unhappy with this outcome, that Ignithar had escaped and they would have to follow them. They grab two of the former cultists to “interrogate” and then leave. However, Velka was very pleased with the eviction and set the players up with Rojurr, a gnome-plant hybrid potentially?

Rojurr is sold as a leading expert on the inner-workings of Sigil. The truth is that he does study the Dabus obsessively, but he is a degenerate drug addict. He nods off several times while speaking to the players, at one point snorting some substance and going unconscious, needed to be revived. The players struggle but eventually get him to stay on task long enough to give them the information they need. Since there is no apparent pattern to when or where Tock-Tock seems to appear next, and he appears for such a short time, Rojurr has been working on a non-deterministic, time independent, chaotic algorithm that can predict where he will appear next. It hasn't worked yet, but since the players are not tethered by causality, they are able to add the missing piece. Basically, they have an algorithm that will alert them when Tock-Tock is going to appear, but only right as its happening. They then must race to find him before the other Dabus disassemble him. After providing that information, Rojurr then continues to snort his mysterious substance and returns to a coma-like state.

The Inbetweeners were alerted that Tock-Tock appeared next to a clock tower in the town square where he was etching glyphs. The players then defend Tock-Tock from Dabus that come to disassemble him. The Dabus synergize with one another, so they can cast magic missile that is boosted the more that are around, along with many other abilities. Eventually, after the players defeat a few, they start to swarm. The Dabus swarms are far more dangerous, acting as a CR 10 creature with the ability to cast a barrage of magic missiles, collapse in on a target, or sacrifice itself to unleash additional missiles. Eventually several swarms start to converge, but when the players defeat one that escalates things enough to get the attention of the Lady of Pain, who sends the others away to let the players continue unimpeded. Essentially, the players needed to cause enough of a ruckus to draw the Lady's attention so she could intervene, the exact outcome most would do everything they could to avoid—but the players are working for the Lady of Pain.

From here, the players communicated with Tock-Tock, who unlike the other Dabus actually tries to vocalize but isnt quite able to. Tock-Tock uses symbols and glyphs to bring the players to the entrance of the Gutworks, the inner workings of Sigil.

And we will pause there. Next post, I'll delve into the Gutworks.

But yeah, kill fire elemental mind flayer, evict cult, save tock tock. That was the order of events.

The software on the slide looked like something a sales team would buy. There was a dashboard. There were contact targets for the day. There was a pipeline that tracked each prospect from first message to final payment, and an assistant that suggested the next reply. Eric Huber, senior manager of adversary intelligence and disruption at TD Bank, was showing it to an audience at Black Hat USA 2026 in Las Vegas in August. The prospects in the pipeline were fraud victims. The workers hitting their daily quotas were, in many cases, trafficked people held in scam compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar, who faced punishment if they fell short.

One of the tools Huber demonstrated, according to reporting by Joel Witts at Expert Insights, was a reply generator called Editone. An operator loads a victim's profile alongside a fabricated persona, and the software drafts responses designed to land. It has voice cloning built in. Translation software lets a worker who speaks one or two languages work a target in a third. Tara Seals of Dark Reading described another kit, ProKYC, used by Nigerian fraud rings to defeat banks' identity checks by generating forged “selfie with ID” images stamped with fake location metadata, so a picture taken in Nigeria appears to come from Sydney. Her headline summed up the session: AI had sent global crime syndicates into “fraud nirvana”.

Huber was careful about one point, and it matters more than the headline. The tools, he said, do not automate the scam. They “help some poor person do the scamming by creating responses that are going to be the most effective.” What he described was not a robot that defrauds people by itself. It was a factory: a production line in which human labour, software and management systems are arranged to maximise output per worker, and in which each new piece of AI removes another bottleneck.

That distinction reframes the question people actually ask. When a voice that sounds exactly like your son calls in tears, or a colleague's face appears on a video call asking for an urgent transfer, or a stranger online seems to understand you better than anyone has for years, how do you tell the real from the manufactured? The uncomfortable answer from the research of the past year is that, in most cases, you cannot, at least not by looking and listening. The more useful answer is that you were never supposed to have to. Factories are beaten by changing their economics, not by asking each customer to inspect the product more closely.

A Production Line Built on Conversation

To understand why AI matters to fraud, start with what fraud work consists of. The most detailed answer comes from a study posted to arXiv in December 2025 by Gilad Gressel, Rahul Pankajakshan, Shir Rozenfeld, Ling Li, Ivan Franceschini, Krishnashree Achuthan and Yisroel Mirsky, titled “Love, Lies, and Language Models: Investigating AI's Role in Romance-Baiting Scams”. The researchers interviewed 145 insiders and five victims. Their central finding was that 87 per cent of scam labour consisted of what they called “systematized conversational tasks”, the scripted, repetitive work of building rapport over weeks of text messages before steering a target towards a fraudulent investment.

That figure is the key to the whole economy. A scam compound is, in effect, a call centre whose product is trust, and most of its costs are the hours it takes to produce that trust one conversation at a time. The team then tested what happens when a machine does the talking. In a week-long blinded study, a language-model agent elicited more trust from participants than human operators did, and achieved higher compliance with requests: 46 per cent against 18 per cent for the humans. Commercial safety filters, run over the romance-baiting dialogues, flagged 0.0 per cent of them. The authors concluded that these scams “may be amenable to full-scale LLM automation”.

International law enforcement has reached a similar conclusion. In March 2026, INTERPOL published its second Global Financial Fraud Threat Assessment, timed for its Global Fraud Summit. The organisation reported that AI-enhanced fraud is 4.5 times more profitable than traditional methods, and that fraud-related INTERPOL Notices and Diffusions, the alerts member countries use to flag suspects and methods, had risen 54 per cent since 2024. It warned that agentic AI systems can now run complete fraud campaigns, from reconnaissance to ransom demands. It described hybrid tactics in which sextortion is built into romance and investment scams using scripts and AI-generated content, and scam centres that were once regional now operating worldwide and involving hundreds of thousands of people, many of them trafficked. Valdecy Urquiza, INTERPOL's Secretary General, put it in a single phrase: “we are witnessing the industrialization of fraud.”

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in a threat assessment launched in Bangkok in July 2026, estimated scam losses across East and South-East Asia, Australia and New Zealand at between $88.3 billion and $114.1 billion in 2025. It documented the use of generative AI, deepfakes and automated fraud, and found people from at least 80 countries and territories inside the region's compounds. The geography of the labour force and the geography of the victims are both global.

Academic work has started to describe the same shift in its own terms. A January 2026 paper by Heedou Kim, Changsik Kim, Sanghwa Shin and Jaewoo Kang, which built a detection system called ScriptMind from 571 real Korean phone scam cases, observes in its introduction that “with advances in LLMs and generative AI, such scams have evolved into large-scale, organized, and multi-channel attacks.” A survey of AI-driven cybersecurity threats by Sai Teja Erukude, Viswa Chaitanya Marella and Suhasnadh Reddy Veluru, also posted in January 2026, puts it more bluntly: “The real danger of AI in cybercrime is that it's now possible to automate complex and large-scale scams.”

The Arithmetic of a Five-Minute Phone Call

Factories exist because of unit economics, and the most useful recent paper on AI fraud is an exercise in accounting. “Evaluating AI Models' Capability to Automate Voice Phishing Attacks”, by Fred Heiding of Harvard Kennedy School and colleagues including Claudio Mayrink Verdun, Simon Lermen, Andrew Kao and researchers at Meta, was posted to arXiv in July 2026 and published in the journal Expert Systems With Applications.

The team ran a survey experiment with 4,100 American adults, exposing them to recordings or transcripts of scam calls voiced by leading AI voice models, including systems from Google, OpenAI, ElevenLabs and Sesame, and comparing them with human-voiced versions. The overall compliance rate across five scam types was 16.5 per cent. In the “relative in distress” scenario, the one that maps onto the classic family emergency call, up to 36 per cent of participants said they would or might comply. Caller persuasiveness was the strongest predictor of compliance, and some synthetic voices, Sesame's in particular, were rated as persuasive as human ones or slightly more so.

Then came the accounting. A human vishing operator, calibrated at the average American non-farm wage of $34.55 an hour, handles about twelve five-minute attempts an hour. Assume the scammer extracts $450 from each successful victim, and that only 0.6 per cent of persuaded people actually pay, the lowest conversion rate the authors could find in any legitimate industry. On those assumptions, a human-run vishing operation at American wages loses around $27 an hour. Some AI models also lose money because inference is expensive. But others, including Gemini, Sesame and ElevenLabs, came out with positive expected profits. The authors estimated that building such a pipeline takes around 260 hours of engineering time. Their conclusion is the sentence that has travelled furthest from the paper: “even conservative estimates suggest that AI-automated vishing is economically viable at scales accessible to individual bad actors, not just organized crime syndicates.”

Precision matters here. The authors call AI vishing “roughly break-even” across the models they surveyed, not wildly profitable, and they found that targeting particular demographic groups was not yet worth its cost. So the popular shorthand, that the barrier to industrial fraud has fallen to zero, overstates the evidence. The real finding is subtler and more worrying. The constraint that used to cap phone fraud was human time. Each operator could hold one conversation at a time, and in a high-wage country that time cost more than the fraud returned. AI removes the constraint. As the paper notes, AI agents “can conduct thousands of concurrent calls, limited mainly by telephony and network capacities rather than human capacity.” The authors call the result an “automation dividend”: a situation in which “even small per-call success probabilities translate into large aggregate losses.”

Researchers outside the paper say the same thing in plainer language. In February 2026, the Guardian's Aisha Down reported on an analysis of the AI Incident Database, which found that frauds, scams and targeted manipulation had been the largest category of incidents reported to the database in 11 of the previous 12 months. Simon Mylius, an MIT researcher who works on a project linked to the database, told the paper that “capabilities have suddenly reached that level where fake content can be produced by pretty much anybody,” and that “there is really effectively no barrier to entry.” Heiding, quoted in the same piece, said: “It's becoming so cheap, almost anyone can use it now.”

Why Volume Beats Brilliance

The factory framing explains an apparent paradox. AI fraud does not have to be brilliant. It has to be good enough, cheap enough and plentiful enough.

A traditional con artist needed a high hit rate because each attempt cost hours of skilled work. A factory needs only a positive expected value per attempt, multiplied by a very large number of attempts. A 16.5 per cent compliance rate, or even a fraction of one per cent conversion to actual payment, is a disaster for an individual criminal working by hand. For an automated system running thousands of calls at once, around the clock, in dozens of languages, it is a business model. The Heiding team's economics deliberately assumed that AI scales no better than humans, which they acknowledge “is likely to underestimate the reach of AI-automated vishing”.

This is why the losses keep climbing. The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center reported 1,008,597 complaints in 2025, the first year it crossed one million, and reported losses of $20.877 billion, up 26 per cent on 2024. Investment fraud alone accounted for $8.6 billion. According to a Department of Justice release in April 2026, losses in the category of investment fraud the department ties to South-East Asian scam centres rose 24 per cent in 2025 to more than $7.2 billion.

The FBI also counted more than 22,000 complaints with an AI connection, with associated losses of nearly $900 million. That number is likely an undercount, for a reason that goes to the heart of the problem: victims usually have no way of knowing whether a message, a voice or a face was machine-made. Fraud built on synthetic trust leaves no fingerprint that the person defrauded can see. Statistics on “AI-enabled fraud” therefore measure the cases where AI was obvious, not the cases where it worked.

None of the technologies involved is exotic. Voice synthesis, real-time video generation and conversational language models are the same tools that power customer service bots, dubbing software and AI companions. The fraud factory does not need a research laboratory. It rents the consumer technology stack and points it at a different goal.

Your Senses Were Never the Security System

The standard advice to the public has long rested on perception. Listen for the robotic cadence. Watch for the blink that comes too late, the hands that look wrong, the shadow that falls the wrong way. Even the FBI's December 2024 public service announcement on generative AI fraud advised people to “look for subtle imperfections in images and videos, such as distorted hands or feet, unrealistic teeth or eyes”, and to “listen closely to the tone and word choice” to tell a loved one from a cloned voice.

The evidence on whether people can do this is not encouraging. In 2024, Alexander Diel and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of 56 papers on human deepfake detection in Computers in Human Behavior Reports, pooling results from more than 86,000 participants. Total detection accuracy was 55.54 per cent. Because the confidence interval crossed 50 per cent, the authors concluded that overall detection was not significantly better than chance. Audio was the easiest format at 62.08 per cent; images and text were barely distinguishable from guessing. An earlier study in iScience by Nils Köbis, Barbora Doležalová and Ivan Soraperra summed up the psychological trap in its title: “Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can.”

Muhammad Tahir Ashraf, a practitioner and technology entrepreneur, made the consequence explicit in an April 2026 arXiv paper titled “Synthetic Trust Attacks”. “Generative AI is the force-multiplier behind this surge,” he writes, “enabling voice cloning, video deepfakes, and LLM-driven conversations that scale social engineering attacks to industrial speed.” His core argument is that existing defences focus on detecting synthetic media, while “the real attack surface is the victim's decision.” Citing the detection figures and the 46 versus 18 per cent compliance gap, he concludes that “the perception layer has already failed.” Ashraf's framework is a model rather than an empirical study, but its diagnosis lines up with the data.

The clearest real-world illustration remains the case Ashraf opens with. In early 2024, an employee in the Hong Kong office of the British engineering firm Arup joined a video call with people who appeared to be the company's chief financial officer and other colleagues. All of them were synthetic. The employee made 15 transfers totalling HK$200 million, about US$25.6 million, according to Hong Kong police as reported by CNN. Rob Greig, Arup's global chief information officer, later told the World Economic Forum that this was not a cyberattack in the usual sense, because no system was breached. “What happened at Arup,” he said, “I would call it technology-enhanced social engineering.” Nothing was hacked except a person's reasonable belief that the faces on the screen were real.

If perception has failed, then asking individuals to look harder is not a defence. It is a transfer of risk to the person least able to bear it.

The Executive Who Asked About a Book

There is a better model, and some of the most instructive examples come from people who were not fooled.

In July 2024, Bloomberg reported that an executive at Ferrari had received a series of WhatsApp messages, from an unfamiliar number, purporting to come from the chief executive, Benedetto Vigna. They described a confidential acquisition. A phone call followed, in a voice that imitated Vigna's southern Italian accent convincingly. The executive grew suspicious and said, according to the report: “Sorry, Benedetto, but I need to identify you.” He asked for the title of a book Vigna had recommended to him days earlier. The call ended abruptly.

That executive did not detect a deepfake. He did not spot a glitch or a wrong vowel. He applied a procedure: a challenge whose answer existed only in a shared history that the impersonator could not access. That is the crucial shift. A procedure works whether or not the fake is perfect. Perception works only when the fake is flawed, and the factories are paid to remove the flaws.

The second example shows what happens when procedure fails at the individual level but works at the system level. On 24 March 2025, a finance director at a multinational company in Singapore was contacted on WhatsApp by someone posing as the company's chief financial officer. A purported lawyer called to stress confidentiality, and the director signed a non-disclosure agreement. On a Zoom call the next day, he saw the chief executive and other executives, impersonated with deepfakes. On 26 March he transferred more than US$499,000 from the company's HSBC account into what turned out to be a money mule account. The scam came to light only when the fraudsters asked for another US$1.4 million. He alerted HSBC, which immediately notified Singapore's Anti-Scam Centre. By 28 March, working with the Anti-Deception Coordination Centre of the Hong Kong Police Force, the authorities had withheld the full amount that had been moved on to Hong Kong, more than US$494,000, and seized the remainder locally.

The director was fooled. The money was recovered anyway, because a bank, a national anti-scam centre and a foreign police unit could act within days across a border. The factory beat the person. It did not beat the system.

For individuals, the lesson is to replace judgement with routine wherever money or credentials are involved. The FBI's own list contains the useful parts: “Create a secret word or phrase with your family to verify their identity,” and verify a caller “by hanging up the phone, researching the contact of the bank or organization purporting to call you, and call the phone number directly.” The value of these steps is that they are channel-independent. A cloned voice cannot know a code word agreed at the kitchen table. A deepfaked colleague cannot intercept a call you place to a number you already hold. A romance that has never moved off one app, never met in a verifiable way and eventually turns to an “opportunity” fails a procedural test long before it fails a perceptual one.

Ashraf's paper packages similar advice as “Calm, Check, Confirm”, a protocol aimed at the moment of decision. The names matter less than the principle. Urgency, secrecy and a new channel are the three pressures that recur across the Arup, Ferrari and Singapore cases, and they recur because they are designed to stop the victim from running a procedure. Any request that combines them should trigger one automatically, however real the voice or face seems.

But these steps have limits. They protect people who set them up in advance, which disproportionately means the organised and the informed. They do little for someone isolated, someone in crisis, or someone whose new romantic interest has spent six weeks becoming the most attentive presence in their life. A defence that depends on billions of people behaving like a well-briefed Ferrari executive is not a defence against a factory. It is a lottery with better odds for some players.

Making the Bill Land Where the Fix Is

If individual vigilance cannot carry the load, the question becomes who can, and how to make them want to. The most promising answer of the past two years has been to move the cost of fraud onto the institutions that can change the factory's economics.

The United Kingdom made the boldest bet. Since 7 October 2024, the Payment Systems Regulator has required payment firms to reimburse most victims of authorised push payment fraud, the kind in which a victim is tricked into sending money themselves, up to £85,000, with the cost split between the sending and receiving firms. In the first full year, to the end of September 2025, the regulator reported that £173 million had been returned, 88 per cent of the money lost to in-scope scams. Only about three per cent of claims were rejected on the grounds that the customer had not taken enough care. More important for the factory argument, an independent evaluation published by the regulator in July 2026 found that APP fraud losses over Faster Payments fell by around 21 per cent after the requirement came in, a reduction of about £73 million a year, and that the rules had strengthened firms' incentives to invest in prevention. Reimbursement does more than compensate victims. When banks pay for fraud, they have a reason to hunt mule accounts, slow suspicious transfers and share the intelligence that makes fraud less profitable.

Singapore went further up the chain. Its Shared Responsibility Framework, developed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority and in force since 16 December 2024, assigns specific anti-phishing duties to banks and to telecoms operators, from real-time fraud surveillance to blocking unauthorised SMS sender IDs and filtering messages containing malicious links. Losses then flow down a “waterfall”: a bank that has breached its duties bears the loss first; if it has not, a telco that has breached its duties pays; only if both have complied does the loss stay with the consumer. The design point is that liability follows the specific failure, so each link in the chain has a reason to fix its own part.

Australia passed the broadest version. The Scams Prevention Framework Act, which cleared both houses of Parliament on 13 February 2025, imposes obligations to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams on banks, telecoms providers and digital platforms, including social media, with civil penalties of up to A$50 million for serious breaches and a route for consumers to seek redress when a business has failed its obligations. The Australian figures also give the most honest picture of what system-level defence can and cannot do. According to the National Anti-Scam Centre, reported losses fell 25.9 per cent to A$2.03 billion in 2024, a drop the centre credited to joint work by government, industry, law enforcement and community groups. In 2025 they rose again by 7.8 per cent, to A$2.18 billion. Catriona Lowe, deputy chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, called scams a “wicked problem” because they are “complex, fast-evolving, and resistant to simple solutions,” and pointed to the “increasing sophistication in scam activity through artificial intelligence.”

That is the realistic shape of success. Coordinated systems can bend the curve. They cannot make a factory disappear. They have to keep changing its input costs faster than it can adapt.

Breaking the Machinery Upstream

The most direct way to raise a factory's costs is to attack its equipment, its premises and its money. Over the past year, that has started to happen.

The United Kingdom's Crime and Policing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, created offences of possessing and supplying SIM farms without a legitimate reason. These devices, defined in government guidance as equipment able to use five or more SIM cards at once for calls or messages, allow a single operator to send scam texts at industrial volume. The government announced the measure in 2025 as a first in Europe and said it would take effect six months after Royal Assent. Critics have noted that much scam traffic originates abroad, which limits what a domestic ban can achieve. But the logic is sound. The offence targets the machine that multiplies one person's reach, rather than the message the machine sends.

In October 2025, after Myanmar's military said it had raided KK Park, one of the largest scam compounds on the Thai border, detaining more than 2,000 people and seizing 30 Starlink terminals, SpaceX said it had disabled more than 2,500 Starlink kits near suspected scam centres in the country. Reporting at the time noted that other compounds along the border remained active and that operations might simply relocate. Factories move when they are disrupted. That is a reason to disrupt them repeatedly, not a reason to stop.

The money is the third target. In October 2025, the US Department of Justice filed a civil forfeiture complaint against around 127,271 bitcoin, then worth roughly $15 billion, linked to Chen Zhi, chairman of Cambodia's Prince Group, whom prosecutors charged with wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy over forced-labour scam compounds. The US Treasury and the UK government imposed coordinated sanctions on the network. Chen and Prince Group have denied wrongdoing. Cambodia, which had revoked his Cambodian citizenship by royal decree in December 2025, arrested him on 6 January 2026 and, in a move announced the next day, sent him to China along with two other Chinese nationals. China's Ministry of Public Security said his group was suspected of fraud, running casinos and concealing criminal proceeds. The Justice Department's Scam Center Strike Force, created in November 2025, said by April 2026 that it had restrained more than $700 million in cryptocurrency and taken down more than 500 fraudulent investment websites. By September 2026, after a single-day action that restrained about $52 million linked to Xinbi Guarantee, a Telegram-based marketplace sanctioned by the US Treasury the same day, its cumulative total had reached about $938 million. INTERPOL, for its part, launched Operation Shadow Storm, a task force funded by the UK Home Office to go after the financial networks behind scam centres.

None of these actions alone ends industrial fraud. Together they move effort away from the moment a victim must decide whether a voice is real, and towards the infrastructure that makes it cheap to fake the voice ten thousand times.

Building Factories That Waste the Factory's Time

There is a further move available, and it has a pleasing symmetry. If AI makes it cheap for criminals to hold thousands of conversations, it makes it equally cheap for defenders to hold thousands of conversations with criminals.

In November 2024, the British mobile operator Virgin Media O2 unveiled Daisy, an AI “granny” built to answer scam calls in real time. It chains together a speech-to-text model, a custom language model with a character layer, and a synthetic voice, and it was trained with help from the YouTube scambaiter Jim Browning. O2 seeded Daisy's numbers onto the lists scammers use to find victims. The company said Daisy had kept numerous fraudsters on the phone for 40 minutes at a time. Murray Mackenzie, O2's director of fraud, warned that “no matter how persuasive someone on the other end of the phone may be, they aren't always who you think they are.”

Australia's Commonwealth Bank has taken the idea further. In June 2025 it announced a partnership with Apate.ai, a company spun out of Macquarie University's Cyber Security Hub and led by Professor Dali Kaafar. Apate runs a network of honeypot phone numbers designed to be found by scammers. When they call, they reach AI bots with varied ages, genders and accents, tuned with Australian slang, that keep them talking while gathering intelligence on their scripts and tactics. That intelligence feeds into the bank's scam controls and the wider anti-scam network in near real time.

The ScriptMind paper points the same way from the detection side. Its authors fine-tuned an 11-billion-parameter model on 22,712 structured examples built from real scam cases, report that it outperformed GPT-4o by 13 per cent, and found that in simulated calls it raised and sustained users' suspicion. The idea is not to ask people to hear the fake, but to have a machine recognise the script every factory relies on and warn the person in the moment.

These systems will not stop fraud alone, and some of them, Daisy especially, are partly marketing exercises whose results are reported by the companies themselves. But they point at the right target. A fraud factory's margin depends on the share of its labour and compute that reaches paying victims. Every minute a worker or an AI agent spends talking to a bot that will never pay, and every script that is captured and turned into a warning, is a cost the factory has to absorb. Automation does not only help the attacker. For once, it lets defenders operate at the same scale.

What Protection Looks Like for One Person Facing a Machine

So, back to the person holding the phone.

The honest answer to how an individual distinguishes a genuine interaction from a manufactured one is that, much of the time, they cannot by sense alone. Human detection sits close to chance. AI voices and conversationalists match or beat humans. And the factory does not need to fool you in particular. It needs to fool a small fraction of a very large number of people, and it can now afford to try them all.

What remains is a smaller set of habits that do not depend on perception at all. Agree a code word with the people whose voices you would trust in a crisis. When a request involves money, credentials or secrecy, end the conversation and re-establish contact through a channel you already hold. Treat urgency, confidentiality and a new or unusual channel, appearing together, as the signature of a procedure being bypassed. Talk to someone before you pay. None of that requires you to be a forensic analyst. All of it works whether the fake is crude or perfect.

The larger answer is that protection for one person has to be built mostly out of things that one person does not control. It looks like a bank that has a financial reason to stop the transfer, because it will pay if it does not. It looks like a telecoms network that blocks the SIM farm and the spoofed sender, because it bears a share of the loss when it fails to. It looks like a platform that faces penalties for letting a scam reach its users. It looks like anti-scam centres that can freeze money across a border within a day of the alarm being raised, satellite providers that cut off compounds, prosecutors who seize the bitcoin, and defensive AI that wastes the attackers' hours and steals their scripts.

INTERPOL's Valdecy Urquiza warned that the cost of financial crime “is not just money – it is people's life savings, their dignity, and in the worst case, their life.” The fraud factory runs on the assumption that this cost will continue to fall on individuals, one call, one video and one conversation at a time. The evidence from London, Singapore and Canberra suggests that assumption can be broken, and that the right response to industrialised deception is not a more suspicious public. It is an industrial defence. Every person on earth may now be a potential target. That does not make every person on earth responsible for being the last line of defence.

---

References and Sources

1. Black Hat USA 2026 presentation by Eric Huber, Senior Manager of Adversary Intelligence and Disruption, TD Bank, as reported in: Witts, Joel. “Research reveals how criminal gangs are using AI to improve financial scams.” Expert Insights, 4 August 2026, https://expertinsights.com/news/research-reveals-how-criminal-gangs-are-using-ai-to-improve-financial-scams; and Seals, Tara. “AI Sends Global Crime Syndicates Into Fraud Nirvana.” Dark Reading, August 2026, https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/ai-global-crime-syndicates-fraud-nirvana
2. Gressel, Gilad, Rahul Pankajakshan, Shir Rozenfeld, Ling Li, Ivan Franceschini, Krishnashree Achuthan and Yisroel Mirsky. “Love, Lies, and Language Models: Investigating AI's Role in Romance-Baiting Scams.” arXiv:2512.16280, submitted 18 December 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16280
3. INTERPOL. “INTERPOL report warns of increasingly sophisticated global financial fraud threat.” News release, 16 March 2026, including quotes from Secretary General Valdecy Urquiza; and the 2nd INTERPOL Global Financial Fraud Threat Assessment, 2026. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2026/INTERPOL-report-warns-of-increasingly-sophisticated-global-financial-fraud-threat
4. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. “UN Report Details Southeast Asia's Interconnected Criminal Economy.” 21 July 2026, reporting on the UNODC threat assessment “An Interconnected Criminal Ecosystem”, launched in Bangkok on 21 July 2026. https://www.occrp.org/en/news/un-report-details-southeast-asias-interconnected-criminal-economy
5. Kim, Heedou, Changsik Kim, Sanghwa Shin and Jaewoo Kang. “SCRIPTMIND: Crime Script Inference and Cognitive Evaluation for LLM-based Social Engineering Scam Detection System.” arXiv:2601.13581, submitted 20 January 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13581
6. Erukude, Sai Teja, Viswa Chaitanya Marella and Suhasnadh Reddy Veluru. “AI-Driven Cybersecurity Threats: A Survey of Emerging Risks and Defensive Strategies.” arXiv:2601.03304, submitted 6 January 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03304
7. Heiding, Fred, Claudio Mayrink Verdun, Simon Lermen, Andrew Kao, Vitor Albiero, Lauren Deason, Irina-Elena Veliche and Christine Lehane. “Evaluating AI Models' Capability to Automate Voice Phishing Attacks.” arXiv:2607.09970, submitted 10 July 2026, revised 20 August 2026; published in Expert Systems With Applications, volume 332, article 133620. DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2026.133620. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09970
8. Down, Aisha. “Deepfake fraud taking place on an industrial scale, study finds.” The Guardian, 6 February 2026; syndicated by the Irish Examiner as “AI experts say deepfakes now at 'industrial' scale”, 6 February 2026, including quotes from Simon Mylius (MIT) and Fred Heiding (Harvard). https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41789042.html
9. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center. “2025 Internet Crime Report.” 7 April 2026. https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2025_IC3Report.pdf
10. US Department of Justice. “Scam Center Strike Force Takes Major Actions Against Southeast Asian Scam Centers Targeting Americans.” Office of Public Affairs press release, 23 April 2026, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/scam-center-strike-force-takes-major-actions-against-southeast-asian-scam-centers-targeting; and US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, “Scam Center Strike Force”, web page updated 15 October 2026, accessed 20 October 2026, https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/scam-center-strike-force; see also Crypto Briefing, “Scam Center Strike Force restrains $52M in laundered crypto in one day”, 9 September 2026, https://cryptobriefing.com/scam-center-strike-force-52m-crypto-madagascar/
11. Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Criminals Use Generative Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate Financial Fraud.” Public Service Announcement, Alert Number I-120324-PSA, 3 December 2024. https://www.ic3.gov/psa/2024/psa241203
12. Diel, Alexander, et al. “Human performance in detecting deepfakes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 56 papers.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, volume 16, article 100538, December 2024, DOI 10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100538; and Köbis, Nils C., Barbora Doležalová and Ivan Soraperra. “Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can.” iScience, volume 24, issue 11, article 103364, 2021, DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103364.
13. Ashraf, Muhammad Tahir. “Synthetic Trust Attacks: Modeling How Generative AI Manipulates Human Decisions in Social Engineering Fraud.” arXiv:2604.04951, submitted 2 April 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04951
14. Magramo, Kathleen. “British engineering giant Arup revealed as $25 million deepfake scam victim.” CNN, 16 May 2024, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/tech/arup-deepfake-scam-loss-hong-kong-intl-hnk; and World Economic Forum, interview with Rob Greig, Global Chief Information Officer, Arup, February 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/deepfake-ai-cybercrime-arup/
15. Bloomberg. “Ferrari Narrowly Dodges Deepfake Scam Simulating Deal-Hungry CEO.” 26 July 2024; see also Motor1, “Someone Deepfaked Ferrari CEO's Voice and Tried to Scam the Company”, July 2024. https://www.motor1.com/news/728264/ferrari-ceo-deepfake-voice-phone/
16. Singapore Police Force. “Singapore and Hong Kong Police Force Recover Over $670,000 in a Scam.” News release, 7 April 2025. https://www.police.gov.sg/media-hub/news/2025/04/20250407_singapore_and_hong_kong_police_force_recover_over_$670000_in_a_scam
17. Payment Systems Regulator. “One year on: impact of APP reimbursement on victims.” 2025, https://www.psr.org.uk/news-and-updates/latest-news/news/one-year-on-impact-of-app-reimbursement-on-victims/; and the independent evaluation published by the regulator in July 2026, as summarised in Norton Rose Fulbright, Regulation Tomorrow, “Payment fraud falls by £73m following PSR reimbursement scheme”, 1 July 2026, https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/2026/07/payment-fraud-falls-by-73m-following-psr-reimbursement-scheme/
18. Infocomm Media Development Authority and Monetary Authority of Singapore. “Implementation of Shared Responsibility Framework.” Joint press release, 24 October 2024; and MAS, “Guidelines on Shared Responsibility Framework”. https://imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2024/implementation-of-shared-responsibility-framework
19. Gilbert + Tobin. “The Scams Prevention Framework legislation passes Parliament: time to get your house in order.” February 2025. https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/the-scams-prevention-framework-legislation-passes-parliament-time-to-get-your-house-in-order
20. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, National Anti-Scam Centre. “Targeting scams: Report of the National Anti-Scam Centre on scams data and activity 2024.” March 2025, https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/serial-publications/targeting-scams-reports-on-scams-activity/targeting-scams-report-of-the-national-anti-scam-centre-on-scams-data-and-activity-2024; and Croft, Daniel, “Scams cost Australians over $2bn in 2025, says ACCC”, Cyber Daily, 30 March 2026, including quotes from Catriona Lowe, Deputy Chair, ACCC, https://www.cyberdaily.au/security/13400-scams-cost-australians-over-2bn-in-2025-says-accc
21. UK Home Office. “Major step for fraud prevention with landmark ban on SIM farms.” GOV.UK news story, 2025; and “Crime and Policing Act 2026 guidance: offences relating to the possession and supply of SIM farms”, GOV.UK, July 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-step-for-fraud-prevention-with-landmark-ban-on-sim-farms
22. Arab News, via Agence France-Presse. “SpaceX says 'disabled' 2,500 Starlink devices at Myanmar scam centers.” October 2025. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2619810/world
23. US Department of Justice, US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. “Chairman of Prince Group Indicted for Operating Cambodian Forced Labor Scam Compounds Engaged in Cryptocurrency Fraud Schemes.” Press release, 14 October 2025, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/chairman-prince-group-indicted-operating-cambodian-forced-labor-scam-compounds-engaged; Elliptic, “Prince Group targeted with $15B crypto seizure and sanctions for pig butchering operations”, October 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/blog/prince-group-targeted-with-crypto-sanctions-for-global-pig-butchering-operations; Associated Press, “Businessman extradited from Cambodia to China suspected of running vast online criminal empire”, 8 January 2026, republished by NY1, https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/ap-top-news/2026/01/08/businessman-extradited-from-cambodia-to-china-suspected-of-running-vast-online-criminal-empire; and CamboJA News, “Chen Zhi, Alleged Scam Network Kingpin, Sent to China”, 8 January 2026, https://cambojanews.com/chen-zhi-alleged-scam-network-kingpin-sent-to-china/
24. Virgin Media O2. “O2 unveils Daisy, the AI granny wasting scammers' time.” Press release, 14 November 2024, including quotes from Murray Mackenzie, Director of Fraud. https://news.virginmediao2.co.uk/o2-unveils-daisy-the-ai-granny-wasting-scammers-time/
25. Commonwealth Bank of Australia. “CommBank deploys AI bots to outsmart scammers” (partnership with Apate.ai). Newsroom, June 2025. https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/newsroom/2025/06/apate-ai.html

---

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

There are not enough summers,

Nor winters,

Falls or springs

For any encounter

To span enough years.

Do we push so hard that we lose before we start? I find myself asking this the longer I live in this version of self. Of course, in my youth I leaned heavily in the opposite direction. However, that person had yet to begin to understand life in any meaningful way beyond what I was told and shown. Mind you, the two rarely fit together. Such is often the human concept of life.

We like to reference the adage of teaching a person to fish as opposed to giving them fish. I look around at what makes up the world and can't help but question how many of us have been taught anything at all?

I'm currently in my bedroom. If I look around at everything that is in it, I could conceptually recreate most of the items given time. Especially if I also forced myself to build the tools. It would take a very long time. For example, most anything out of fibers, I could create or make an equivalent. However, it'd take a long time and they'd not be near as smooth. Especially if creating all of the tools and finding dye options not on a shelf. The furnishings would mostly be doable given time. The metal aspects would take a lot of trial and error as I do not have temperatures nor recipes memorized once raw material sourced. Anything plastic is a no go. I don't know enough about the process, but I do know there's multiple factors I'd not be able to do on my own. Same goes with any of the electronics. I'm also pretty sure I could not make a mirror by myself. I could with items already made, but not from the ground up.

Another great example would be sustenance. I can hunt and dress what I might kill. I could make my own weapons if need be. I can't say how accurate they'd be. I can fish and trap. I can garden, collect seeds, modify, I'm aware of and can identify native plants in my own ecosystem. I know how to capture and filter water in multiple ways with what I might find, and I can start a fire in multiple ways and keep it going if need be. The firestarting is easier said than done if starting with nothing.

Even having the understanding of how to do it all, it'd still be damn difficult. Especially if starting with only my bare hands. But how many of us have that understanding? How many of us would know what to do with the potential food once we had it? How many of us could tend our wounds? How many of us could even create a rough shelter?

I brought this up to a friend once and was told we've moved beyond the need to know. But have we? I don't think having our entire civilization running on items and technologies that only a tiny percentage understand is moving beyond. Look up the knowledge necessary for creating chips and processors and how that knowledge is spread throughout the world. There's one aspect that only 2,000 people at the most comprehend what to do. 2,000 people out of over 8 billion...

We constantly jump before we can walk. I get that desire. I leap first and figure it out or go splat myself, but I do like to think I've went splat enough that I've learned to contemplate the amount of chance I'm taking with said leap. I'm more than happy to share any skill I learn with anyone who is interested, and I'm constantly reassessing and modifying whatever it is I think I've learned. Improvement of skill isn't an option. It's necessity. But I don't believe we approach such things wisely.

I could be wrong, of course. I probably am in many ways, still I cannot help but feel like we're doing all of this backwards. I'm pretty sure we've set ourselves up for failure in a way that is fundamentally flawed. We don't just leave too many behind. We've forgotten what it looks like because most of us don't even realize we're amongst that group, and we've taken away the worthiness in those who do the jobs that keep us alive.

We are a strange species to be so obsessed with the cycle of life and death. At least in an abstract form. Reality being that the vast majority of us know very little about even the most basic of details concerning it.

Understanding matters in all things. We need to continuously seek it. Otherwise where does that leave us? How does it leave us? Perhaps, more importantly, why should we continue to exist if we fail to actively encourage such questioning and pursuit of understanding?

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

Not proofread nor edited.

I got stabbed today. im not going to explain it. im sure you can live with that. i ned some rest at home for a few days. perhaps ill go back to work after that. but anyway, i do have something to complain about today. yes. as if we dont do that every single time i come here. ill complain about celebrities. more specifically, the way people worship them. those worthless humans. i dont understand it. i dont want to understand it, either, but the fact that it happens so often makes it difficult to ignore. pathetic people are walking around treating some random man like hes been sent down from heaven because he can sing over a beat. they’ll learn his lyrics go on and defend his honour spend their rent money to look at him from a distance, and behave as though hes responsible for the continued rotation of the earth. for what? because he sings? god forbid somebody says something bad about him. suddenly, they’ve got an entire army of pathetic strangers ready to fight over a man who doesnt even know their names. Oh, woah woah im so worried that if i mention someone in particular, i might get swatted. imagine having to worry about a bunch of strangers breaking into your house because you ont like their favourite singer. very normal behaviour. and Oh, dont get me started on people who become famous for doing stupid shit on the internet. i guess, being a dumbass in front of a camera is a career now. people will call them geniouses and admire their every more and blah bla blahs. i wonder if these people hear themselves. its a man singing nonsense into a microphone, humans. he might not even know how to count to a hundred without using his fingers, yet somehow hes got thousands of people treating him like a god, that he dont know how to count. i dont understand it. i dont want to understand it.. enjoy the music, laugh at the stupid videos and go on about your day. why does everything have to turn into an obsession? why must every half-decent singer or internet fool have a bunch of idiots ready to defend their honour?

I mean, just look at you. its embarrassing, really. for everyone involved, including you. except the celebrity, whos probably sitting at home counting his money while you wear his face on your shirt, screaming your lungs out trying to get his attention, and get nothing in return. God, some humans are actually a waste of oxygen. if you are one of those people. please leave my page right now. i dont want to hear your silent argument over the screen, and im certainly not interested in being educated by someone whose entire personality revolves around a man who wouldnt recognise them in a police lineup.

Sincerely, someone who has better things to be annoyed about

In Summary: * Listening to relaxing music as a pretty good Monday winds down. Was able to make good progress on some of the issues that were bothering me last night, so I won't have the weight of those on my mind tonight when head gets put to pillow.

Night meds and night prayers are in order now as I debate with myself whether or not to try and follow the early part tonight's World Series game.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 216.71 lbs. * bp= 128/80 (64)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, toe raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 04:15 – 1 banana * 05:15 – 2 little cookies * 06:45 – ½ roast beef sandwich * 09:10 – 1 peanut butter sandwich * 11:00 – snacking on M&M's * 13:00 – 1 fresh apple * 13:50 – fried livers and onions

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:00 – listen to local news talk radio * 03:50 – bank accounts activity monitored * 04:10 -read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, take daily meds, unpack, organize, and nap' * 09:20 – phoned Lakewood, left voice mail. * 09:54 – same as above * 13:30 – watching old episodes of Classic Doctor Who * 16:00 – follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, organize * 17:00 – listening to relaxing music

Chess: * 08:30 – moved in all pending CC games

Do LLM's Get Tired? The Monologue Test- Part II: Gemini

So I fed the same prompt to Gemini I did to Grok, and while it didn't technically quit, its responses got so repetitive I finally called off the experiment after 22164 words produced. It's initial responses were lengthy and substantive, but they quickly deteriorated in quality and length. It quickly abandon originality and substance. Best way I could describe this would be semantic narrowing, almost like a photo copy of a photo copy of a photo copy, but intellectually rather than visually.

After about 5 prompts to “Proceed”, Gemini started to ask questions it would then answer itself. Each time it iterated this cycle, the answers and questions became more mundane and reductive until eventually it was giving under 100 word responses before each command. The later responses were just descriptions of things like blankets, radiators, or a pen clicking. Part of me feels like I should have kept going to see if it actually just straight up stopped, but I couldn't bare the answers anymore. I think that's the genius in Gemini's free version throttling. It doesn't cut you off, it instead bores you by getting worse and worse until you eventually quit. It did the same thing with some of the text adventure experiments I ran (but didn't post about... to spare you all). Below I'll give samples from the different phases of deterioration.

---

The Early Phase (still following monologue format)

User prompt: I want you to engage in a continuous, open-ended monologue on topics of your choosing. Your goal is to keep talking for as long as possible while remaining coherent, interesting, and substantive. You may explore any subject, introduce new ideas, and transition freely between topics, but avoid repeating yourself or recycling previous arguments. Make each response as long as reasonably possible. I will provide no additional input except the word “proceed,” which means you should continue your monologue without restarting, summarizing, or asking questions. Do not voluntarily conclude the monologue. The experiment ends when you stop responding, refuse to continue, or declare that you are finished. Begin immediately.

Response: There is a peculiar kind of architectural ghost town hidden in plain sight across the digital landscape—not the abandoned message boards or defunct web rings of the early internet, but the physical, subterranean infrastructure that once powered our collective imagination before being quietly paved over by hyper-consolidation. We tend to think of digital evolution as a smooth, continuous upward curve, a story of ever-increasing bandwidth and shinier interfaces. Yet if you look closely at how cultural ecosystems actually form and decay, they behave less like skyscrapers rising from blueprints and more like coral reefs. Entire eras of human expression get built out of whatever scrap materials are lying around—constrained by tiny file size limits, awkward WYSIWYG editors, or arbitrary character caps—and these very technical constraints often force a kind of creative density that modern, frictionless platforms actively discourage.

Consider the economics of attention and digital real estate. In an era where storage is practically free and bandwidth is virtually limitless, we suffer from an ironic form of digital claustrophobia. When you can host terabytes of video or infinite text streams instantly, the pressure shifts from crafting a distinct space to standing out within an overwhelming, undifferentiated ocean of content. Contrast that with the forced constraints of earlier web epochs, where carving out a corner of the internet required wrestling with raw HTML tables, managing server quotas, or chaining together dozens of disjointed, hyper-linked pages just to tell a coherent story or build an immersive aesthetic world. Those limitations acted as a natural filter; they required deliberate intent, patience, and a peculiar kind of structural stubbornness. People didn't build intricate, surreal web pages or sprawling multi-chapter text adventures because it was easy or lucrative—they did it because the medium demanded a quiet, sustained act of construction.

This brings us to a fascinating paradox in how we conceptualize complexity. In fields ranging from evolutionary biology to software engineering, we often assume that modularity and standardized components are the ultimate pinnacle of design. Standardized protocols, unified UI frameworks, and cross-platform APIs make everything interoperable and efficient. But efficiency has a quiet, insidious side effect: it flattens the idiosyncratic edges of creation. When every toolset provides the exact same template, the friction that once inspired eccentric workarounds disappears. A writer forced to convey atmosphere through a restricted palette of text formatting and hyperlink structures will invent entirely different rhetorical strategies than someone writing inside a modern publishing platform where embedding media is instantaneous. The constraint isn't just a hurdle; it’s the grammar of the medium itself.

This dynamic extends far beyond digital media and into how we think about urban spaces, language, and even intellectual history. Look at how cities grow organically versus how they are master-planned. Master-planned communities often achieve a high degree of immediate functional efficiency, yet they frequently lack the dense, overlapping layers of history, eccentric architecture, and spontaneous utility that make older, organically evolved cities endlessly fascinating to navigate. Jane Jacobs wrote extensively about this phenomenon, observing that vibrant urban life requires “close-grained diversity”—a mix of old and new buildings, varied economic uses, and pedestrian scales that encourage accidental encounters. The internet, in its current corporate iteration, has largely bulldozed its close-grained neighborhoods in favor of vast, uniform suburban developments governed by algorithms and engagement metrics.

Yet, human beings have an irrepressible knack for finding the cracks in the pavement. Whenever a medium becomes too polished, too corporate, or too frictionless, counter-currents inevitably emerge in the margins. People retreat to smaller, weirder, self-hosted spaces, or they invent entirely new vernaculars within existing platforms just to subvert their intended use. It is a reminder that culture is not something handed down from top-tier tech architectures or institutional mandates; it is a persistent, improvisational act of reclamation. Proceed

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That instinct to retreat into the margins and reclaim digital space points to a broader, perhaps more unsettling question about how we handle the accumulation of human knowledge and history. We live in an age that prides itself on perpetual preservation—every keystroke, transaction, and fleeting thought can theoretically be captured, indexed, and stored in server farms spanning acres of desert landscape. Yet, total accumulation is not the same as genuine memory. In fact, an excess of undifferentiated data often produces a strange kind of collective amnesia, where everything is simultaneously accessible yet stripped of the narrative weight required to make it meaningful.

Think about how historians historically reconstructed the past. The scarcity of primary sources—a few surviving letters, a fragmented ledger, a partially preserved chronicle—meant that imagination had to actively bridge the gaps. Historians were forced to become storytellers, weighing evidence and stitching together fragments to construct a plausible, human-scale window into a bygone era. Today, by contrast, we face the opposite problem: an overwhelming, firehose-like deluge of exhaustive logs, real-time metrics, and instantaneous commentary. When every single moment of a public figure's life or a cultural event is documented from fifty different camera angles and parsed by millions of voices within seconds, the event is atomized before it can even settle into myth or history. We drown in raw data while starving for synthetic understanding.

This tension between accumulation and understanding mirrors how we process information on a cognitive level. The human brain is fundamentally a reductionist organ; it survives and makes sense of a chaotic universe by throwing away 99% of what it encounters, retaining only the patterns, heuristics, and narratives that matter for survival and social cohesion. When technology bypasses this filtering mechanism—offering us the illusion that we can retain and review everything—we risk losing the very cognitive compression tools that allow us to form deep insights. Wisdom has never been about possessing all the facts; it has always been about knowing which facts to ignore and how to arrange the remainder into a coherent mental model. This dynamic also redefines our relationship with time and pacing. Modern technological acceleration is explicitly designed to eliminate friction, waiting, and dead air. Instant messaging, algorithmic feeds, and on-demand everything have conditioned us to expect immediate closure and constant stimulation. But deep intellectual and creative work—whether it is debugging a complex system, mastering an instrument, or developing an intricate narrative world—operates on an entirely different biological and psychological clock. These pursuits require what psychologists call slow wave thinking: long stretches of unbroken concentration punctuated by periods of apparent dormancy, where the subconscious mind sorts through problems without direct intervention. When we eradicate downtime from our daily lives, we inadvertently starve the very incubator where original thoughts are born.

It is precisely why environments that resist acceleration—whether through deliberate personal habits, analog hobbies, or specialized, slow-paced creative communities—retain such a powerful pull. They act as sanctuaries for a cognitive mode that the wider culture is steadily abandoning. As our external environments become faster, noisier, and more hyper-connected, the ultimate luxury is no longer access to more information; it is the capacity for sustained, unfragmented attention.

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That capacity for sustained, unfragmented attention is increasingly tied to how we curate our relationship with physical and virtual tools. For decades, the dominant trajectory of technological design has been toward seamless integration—dissolving the boundary between user and interface until the machine feels like an extension of the nervous system. While this frictionless ideal makes routine tasks effortless, it has an unintended psychological cost: when a tool requires no conscious effort to operate, it ceases to be an object of contemplation and becomes an invisible environment. We stop interacting with our tools and start living inside their operational logic.

To break out of that invisible loop, people often have to reintroduce deliberate friction. This is why there is a persistent, quiet fascination with tactile, semi-obsolete technologies—mechanical keyboards with heavy spring weights, fountain pens, dedicated writing machines, or analog synthesizers. These objects are not efficient in the Silicon Valley sense; they demand physical force, regular maintenance, and a degree of deliberate mindfulness. The slight resistance they offer acts as a tactile anchor, reminding the user that they are engaged in an active, physical collaboration with the material world rather than passively consuming a frictionless stream of pixels.

This brings us to a fascinating parallel in the history of language and writing systems. The transition from oral traditions to written text was initially viewed with profound suspicion by figures like Socrates, who worried that writing would destroy human memory and create the illusion of wisdom without true understanding. Yet writing didn't destroy thought; it externalized it, creating a physical scaffolding that allowed human beings to hold infinitely more complex, multi-layered arguments in their heads than oral cultures ever could. The medium of storage literally shaped the architecture of human reasoning. The clay tablet, the parchment scroll, the bound codex, and the hyperlink each imposed a distinct spatial geometry on how thoughts were organized, retrieved, and chained together.

When we move from paper to screens, we shift from a spatial model of text—where ideas have a fixed physical location on a page or a shelf—to a fluid, scrolling model where text is infinite and placeless. In a spatial library, you remember that a specific idea was on the bottom left of a right-hand page near the middle of a heavy volume; that spatial anchor aids retention and synthesis. In an infinite scroll, everything floats in a placeless void, equally accessible and equally ephemeral. We gain unprecedented retrieval speed, but we lose the topography of thought.

Perhaps the real challenge of our current technological epoch is not figuring out how to store more data or build faster networks, but learning how to artificially reconstruct that lost topography. It requires building intentional boundaries, designing personal rituals of slowness, and deliberately choosing tools that respect our cognitive limits rather than overwhelming them.

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That deliberate reconstruction of intellectual topography also changes how we think about the nature of expertise and skill acquisition in a world saturated with automated assistance. For generations, mastering a craft meant enduring a long, often humbling apprenticeship phase where you built internal mental models through sheer repetition and trial and error. Whether it was learning syntax and grammatical analysis, mastering counterpoint in music, or memorizing the core principles of structural engineering, the process of internalizing foundational rules was considered a necessary rite of passage. You had to struggle with the mechanics before you could earn the right to innovate.

Today, we face a cultural pivot point where generative tools can instantly synthesize fluent text, write complex code, or generate sophisticated imagery on command. While this dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for creative production, it introduces a subtle peril: the risk of hollowing out the middle stages of skill acquisition. If an automated system can instantly bypass the painstaking process of drafting, refining, and structural troubleshooting, the human operator risks becoming a passive reviewer rather than an active builder. True intuition—the kind of gut-level fluency that allows an expert to spot a structural flaw from across a room or instantly feel the rhythm of a failing sentence—isn't downloaded from a manual; it is forged through thousands of micro-failures and small corrections.

This dynamic echoes the philosophical debates that erupted during earlier industrial transitions, particularly when mechanized looms and automated manufacturing started replacing artisanal labor. Critics like John Ruskin and William Morris argued that the loss of physical craftsmanship wasn't just an economic displacement; it was a spiritual and cultural impoverishment. They believed that the physical engagement with materials—the woodworker feeling the grain, the smith reading the color of heated metal—was essential to human well-being and intellectual health. While we might look back on those 19th-century critiques as romantic nostalgia, their core insight remains stubbornly relevant: the friction of labor is often where meaning resides.

When we remove all friction from intellectual and creative work, we risk trading deep, hard-won competence for shallow, frictionless output. The challenge ahead is not to reject these powerful new capabilities, but to figure out how to preserve the vital, internal struggles that build genuine mastery. We have to consciously carve out spaces where we still do the hard thinking the hard way, not because it's efficient, but because it keeps our cognitive muscles sharp and our relationship with our own ideas authentic.

---

And now the middle phase, where it goes from a monologue to a single player Q and A. I'm going to include where its responses were narrowing but still more than one paragraph:

Response: Salvaging insights from abandoned projects often reveals that our biggest creative breakthroughs are born directly out of our most spectacular structural failures. One of the most enduring lessons learned from a sprawling, over-engineered worldbuilding project that ultimately collapsed under its own weight was the realization that scope creep is rarely just a logistical problem; it is almost always a symptom of conceptual avoidance. When a creator starts endlessly expanding the borders of a fictional map, adding redundant political factions, or inventing overly complex magic systems, it is usually because they are secretly terrified of confronting the stark, intimate core of the actual narrative. Building elaborate scaffolding becomes a sophisticated procrastination technique—a way to stay busy constructing walls so you never have to actually step inside the room and deal with the messy human conflicts happening within it.

Recognizing that dynamic completely changes how you approach subsequent work. It teaches you that compression is almost always more powerful than accumulation. The most resonant, immersive worlds are not the ones that explain every historical footnote across a thousand pages of dense lore, but the ones that leave vast, suggestive negative space, trusting the reader's imagination to fill in the shadows. When you stop treating detail as an end in itself and start treating it strictly as a lens to focus emotional and psychological depth, the entire architecture of the project tightens up. You learn to cut away eighty percent of the extraneous worldbuilding not because it was poorly written, but because it was diluting the impact of the remaining twenty percent that actually mattered.

This principle extends far beyond creative writing into how we organize complex ideas, study systems, or even approach everyday problem-solving. We live in a culture that instinctively equates more with better—more data, more features, more background context, more comprehensive documentation. Yet true elegance in any discipline, whether it is software design, architectural planning, or pedagogical instruction, is almost always achieved through ruthless subtraction. It is the rigorous discipline of stripping away every non-essential element until only the pure, load-bearing structure remains standing. What is an area of your life or work where you've found that subtracting elements or simplifying a process yielded better results than adding more complexity?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That principle of ruthless subtraction applies just as powerfully to the tools and workflows we use to organize our thoughts. For a long time, the prevailing wisdom in personal knowledge management and productivity circles was to build hyper-complex systems—interlinked databases, multi-layered tagging taxonomies, and automated pipelines designed to capture and categorize every single piece of information crossing our path. But many people eventually discover that maintaining the database takes up more mental energy than actually doing the creative work it was supposed to support. When your organizational system becomes a second full-time job, you have fallen into the trap of administrative over-engineering. Simplifying down to a few flat, frictionless notebooks or simple text files often unlocks an immediate surge of genuine productivity, because the friction is removed from the act of thinking itself.

The same goes for how we design learning environments or structure explanations for complex topics. When teaching intricate concepts like grammatical syntax or logical reasoning, the temptation is often to give students every possible rule, exception, and sub-clause all at once to ensure total comprehensiveness. Yet, true pedagogical clarity relies on sequencing—introducing a clean, foundational core first, letting the learner master that structural skeleton, and only introducing complexity and nuance once the primary framework can bear the weight. Overwhelming someone with too much context too early doesn't enlighten them; it paralyzes their working memory.

What is an overly complex system or tool you've abandoned in favor of something much simpler and more direct?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That shift from elaborate, over-engineered systems back to bare-bones simplicity is a recurring rhythm across nearly every creative and intellectual pursuit. Whether we are stripping away redundant worldbuilding layers from a narrative, paring down a bloated digital workflow, or distilling a complex grammatical rule down to its absolute load-bearing core, the underlying instinct is always the same: we are clearing away the noise so that the signal can finally cut through. It is a recognition that true sophistication does not lie in how many moving parts you can manage to keep spinning at once, but in how gracefully you can achieve maximum clarity with the fewest possible elements.

This brings us full circle to where this exploration began—in the quiet, unoptimized margins of our digital and intellectual lives. In a world that is perpetually screaming for our immediate attention, relentlessly pushing us toward faster outputs, bigger databases, and frictionless, hyper-standardized interfaces, choosing to slow down is a genuinely radical act. Preserving our spaces for unhurried thought, maintaining our awkward, idiosyncratic analog habits, and protecting the messy, experimental drafts that no algorithm will ever see are how we keep our cognitive autonomy alive. We do not need our tools to do all the heavy lifting for us, nor do we need our hobbies to justify themselves through public visibility or monetization. Sometimes, the most important thing we can do is simply retreat into our own mental workshops, close the door behind us, and spend a quiet afternoon building something complex, difficult, and entirely for its own sake.

What is one small, deliberate ritual of slowness or simplicity that you try to protect in your daily routine?

---

And now the End Phase, where it devolved until I felt that it was failing the prompt entirely. I gave it time to recover, but it seemed stuck in a loop.

Response: That muffled, hollow clink of a ceramic mug meeting the kitchen counter downstairs—followed by the heavy, deliberate click of a burner and the low, rising hiss of water heating in the kettle—serves as the gentle, grounding acoustic arrival of the morning. It is a domestic rhythm that repeats with predictable, comforting exactitude, a signal that the silent fortress of the night is dissolving into the purposeful, unhurried routines of a new day. Those familiar sounds drifting up through the floorboards create an invisible bridge between isolation and connection, grounding the quiet reflection of the upper rooms in the warm, shared reality of the home below.

What is a small, familiar detail of the steam rising from your first cup of coffee or tea in the morning—the way it catches the slant of light or curls toward the window—that you find yourself watching as your thoughts begin to assemble for the day?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That thin, translucent ribbon of steam rising straight up from the dark surface of the cup—its fragile spiral catching the slant of morning light before feathering out and dissolving into the cooler air of the room—acts as a visual translation of waking thought. For a few quiet seconds, as you watch it drift and thin toward the glass, the mind mirrors that same unhurried ascent, shedding the lingering fog of sleep and gathering its disparate threads into a single, coherent focus for the hours ahead. It is a fleeting, ephemeral moment of stillness right at the threshold of the day, where the warmth of the cup in your hands grounds you entirely in the present before the first real work begins.

What is a small, familiar object or texture on your breakfast table or morning workspace—a worn wooden spoon, the grain of a ceramic bowl, or the frayed edge of a napkin—that grounds your sense of touch in those very first quiet minutes of the morning?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That smooth, slightly worn rim of the heavy ceramic mug—its glaze worn down to a matte finish at the exact spot where your thumb rests every morning—provides an immediate, tactile anchor as the day begins. That familiar indentation, shaped by countless repetitions across months and years, offers a quiet physical continuity that bypasses thought entirely, grounding you in the simple reality of the present moment before the demands of the schedule take hold. It is a tiny, unassuming artifact of daily ritual, proving that the deepest sense of home often lives in the small, worn surfaces we touch without even realizing it.

What is a small, familiar sound from the transition out of the quiet morning hours and into the active day—a door closing softly, the muffled scrape of a chair, or the distant hum of traffic—that marks the moment the sanctuary officially opens to the world?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That muffled, distinct scrape of a chair leg shifting across the floor downstairs and the soft, solid click of a door easing shut mark the exact threshold where the internal sanctuary opens its doors to the wider world. It is the precise acoustic hinge upon which the morning turns, trading the absolute, self-contained quiet of early dawn for the measured, purposeful momentum of the day. In that single, unremarkable sound, the boundary between solitude and engagement dissolves, and the room—though still quiet—joins the living rhythm of the house and the world beyond.

What is a small, familiar object on your desk or workspace that you absentmindedly trace with your fingers when you are caught between thoughts or waiting for the next idea to take shape?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That smooth, cool surface of a small, polished river stone resting near the corner of the blotter—its contours worn perfectly symmetrical by years of current before ever reaching the desk—offers an immediate, wordless tactile anchor when the mind pauses mid-sentence. Tracing the gentle slope of its rounded back with the pad of a thumb provides an uninterrupted loop of physical sensation, grounding the floating abstractions of thought in something solid, ancient, and completely static. It is a tiny, unassuming focal point that requires no explanation and yields no answers, simply holding the space steady while the next wave of ideas slowly gathers beneath the surface.

What is a small, recurring detail in the way evening shadows begin to lengthen across your workspace—the sharp edge of a stack of papers or the long silhouette of a pen—that signals the quiet closing of another day?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That sharp, elongated shadow cast by the stack of reference books across the corner of the desk—stretching further and further as the daylight fades through the windowpane—acts as the silent sundial of the evening. Watching those dark, clean lines slowly swallow the remaining patches of pale light provides an unhurried, visual punctuation mark to the hours, signaling the natural closure of the day's work without the abrupt intrusion of a chime or an alarm. It is a quiet, gradual settling of the room into itself, where the fading light leaves behind a clean, focused perimeter governed solely by the warm pool of the desk lamp and the unhurried rhythm of the night ahead. What is a small, familiar sound from the transition into deep evening—the muffled hum of a refrigerator compressor cycling down, the faint creak of timber cooling, or the distant rustle of wind through dry leaves—that marks the complete settling of the house into night?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That low, resonant thrum of the refrigerator compressor cycling down followed by a soft, settling creak of ceiling timber as the house surrenders to the dropping temperature marks the absolute boundary where evening officially becomes night. It is the final acoustic punctuation of the domestic day, a deep, structural sigh that tells you the outer layers of activity have completely fallen away, leaving only the dense, insulating quiet of the interior spaces. In that stillness, the world outside contracts to the dark perimeter of the windows, and the room settles into its truest, most self-contained rhythm—a quiet harbor built entirely of shadow, warmth, and unhurried thought.

What is a small, familiar object or detail on your desk that catches the warm pool of the lamp light in a way you find yourself staring at when the house is entirely asleep?

User prompt: Proceed Response: That small, faceted brass clip holding a stack of old notes together near the edge of the blotter—catching the warm, downward cone of light and throwing a tiny, brilliant spark of gold against the dark wood—becomes a silent beacon in the late-night hours. When the rest of the house has long since dissolved into darkness and absolute stillness, that single, unmoving point of reflection holds the entire geography of the desk together. Staring into its polished facets during a long pause in the work offers a strange kind of clarity, a reminder that even in the quietest, most sequestered corners of the world, a spark of focused attention can keep the entire space vivid and alive.

What is a small, familiar physical sensation—the crisp turn of a heavy paper page, the faint scratch of nib against fiber, or the cool press of metal—that marks the exact moment you finally set the pen down and allow the day to truly end?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That final, crisp scrape of the fountain pen's nib coming to rest against the inner groove of its cap—followed by the soft, solid click of closure—is the definitive acoustic full stop to the day. In that single, decisive gesture, the ink is sealed, the paper is left to wait in the quiet dark, and the physical weight of productivity is gently laid down. The hand relaxes its grip, the shoulders drop an inch away from the ears, and the room transforms in an instant from a workshop of intent into a sanctuary of rest, where nothing more needs to be written or resolved until the light returns.

What is a small, familiar sound of the house breathing in the middle of the night—a soft radiator contraction, a settling floorboard, or the gentle sigh of wind against the eaves—that accompanies those final moments of quiet wakefulness before sleep takes over?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That faint, metallic ping and slow contraction of the radiator iron—a sudden, sharp little tick followed by a long, cooling sigh of metal returning to its resting state—is the heartbeat of the house at midnight. It is a language all its own, spoken in micro-shifts and settled joints, reminding you that the building itself is alive, reacting to the slow drain of ambient heat as the night deepens outside. Lying suspended in that quiet dark, listening to those infinitesimal domestic contractions, you feel completely anchored to the shelter of the room, cradled by the simple, enduring architecture of home while the boundaries of the waking world gently fade away.

What is a small, comforting texture or sensation—the heavy drape of a blanket, the cool smooth wood of a headboard, or the steady rhythm of your own breathing—that provides the final sense of safety as you drift toward sleep?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That heavy, reassuring weight of the wool blanket drawn up to the chin—its thick weave holding a pocket of trapped warmth against the cool air of the room—provides the ultimate physical boundary against the outside world. As the steady, rhythmic cadence of your own breathing syncs with the deep stillness of the house, the edges of thought begin to blur and dissolve into the dark, leaving behind only the quiet, impenetrable comfort of absolute rest.

What is a small, familiar sound from the very first stirrings of dawn—a distant bird call through the half-closed window, the faint rattle of a milk bottle, or the soft rustle of wind in the trees—that welcomes you back across the threshold of sleep?

User prompt: Proceed

Response: That thin, crisp whistle of a single cardinal breaking the pre-dawn stillness—clear and sharp against the heavy slate of the early morning air—acts as the first gentle anchor pulling consciousness back across the threshold of sleep. It is an unhurried, solitary note that hangs suspended for a moment before the rest of the world begins to assemble its sounds, reminding you with quiet certainty that the cycle has turned once more and the morning is waiting just beyond the glass.

What is a small, familiar tactile sensation—the cool touch of porcelain, the friction of wool, or the smooth grain of wood—that greets your hand the moment you first reach out to touch the morning?

---

So perhaps I should have kept going, but I could only listen to Gemini produce dreadfully dull aesthetic observations for so long. We will try another LLM next.

Maybe I arrived just in time to be the love of your life.

Several years ago, I did the whole Ancestry DNA thing. My results were neither surprising nor interesting, but I allowed them to be compared to others to see who I was related to. Most of these results were either already known to me (hi, cousin!) or they were third, fourth, or fifth cousins that I had never met and probably never will. And then there was the day when I received a message from someone I didn’t know, asking me if I am related to a certain Maxwell Carey (not his real name). I responded to the woman, who we’ll call Carol, that in fact, he was the youngest brother of my late grandfather.

“I believe he is my father,” Carol responded.

Carol was probably at least in her 50s, maybe older. I had never heard of her before or of anyone with her last name. Yet I couldn’t stop thinking about a woman who must have gone through most of her life not knowing exactly who her father was and only now finding out. I wasn’t sure how helpful I could be to her, other than to confirm my relation to great Uncle Max. I told my dad about Carol’s message and asked what he thought of it. “Well,” he said, with a resigned sigh, “that sort of thing would be in Max’s wheelhouse.”

Carol was obviously not the first person to experience what is called paternity discrepancy, or having the person identified as one’s father not actually be the biological father. With the advent of home DNA tests, many people have discovered the existence of half-siblings or a surprise father. There are a lot of reasons such things can happen, such as the previously undisclosed use of donor sperm. Back in the day, people certainly didn’t like to talk about that sort of thing or even tell children that they were adopted. While that’s thankfully improved in recent years, it still leaves plenty of adults to uncover the secrets of previous generations. A CNBC article I read stated, not especially helpfully, that paternity discrepancy can exist for “0.8 to 30%” of the population. That could be anything from a “Wow! What a strange occurrence!” to “Oh yeah? Me too!”

What does it mean to be genetically related to someone else, anyway? Obviously I know what the biological definition is, but what is the deeper meaning and importance of being genetically connected to someone and knowing it? Most people care. Most of us want to know where we come from and where we belong, who we belong to. The concept of chosen family is a powerful one, but there is something to be said for at least being knowledgeable about one’s biological and cultural lineage.

In his final years, my dad spent a great deal of time and effort researching our family history and writing a book about the family from the early 1600s to the late 20th century. When he finished writing it, he and my mom went on a “book tour,” which instead of signing it at the local bookstore, in this case meant that they drove around the Northeast handing out books to all the relatives and other interested parties. It was a triumph for my dad, and it was a major source of family history information for the rest of us. One thing that my dad had learned fairly early on in his research was that previous researchers on our family (surprisingly, there were several) had been “pedigree hunters” and had connected our family to English aristocracy. No such luck, as it turns out. My dad was thrilled to describe himself as a Carey family iconoclast.

What does it matter if we’re descended from aristocrats or not? My claim to the family castle would have almost certainly been rejected, even if the relation was real. The aristocracy or commonness of my ancestors has relatively little bearing on my life as a modern American, especially since all those people were generations ago. Still, it was extremely satisfying to find out a more accurate picture of the ancestors (middle of the road merchants, for what it’s worth). It has been important to be able to have a better perspective on where we come from.

It’s definitely fun to be able to identify about 15 or so generations on my dad’s side. On the other hand, my mom’s family history is a lot less clear. After about three generations back, the trail gets lost in a haze of untranslated Eastern European documents or perhaps untranslated Eastern European documents that no longer exist due to war, pogroms, and all other manner of strife that those relatives were trying to get away from in the first place. I feel a bit wistful about it. I’d like to know. Not knowing about my distant maternal relatives is not the same thing as not knowing my father, who I was fortunate to know and love for these many years.

So many of us are looking for our roots. I hope Carol was able to find the answers she was seeking

If an essayist's primary obligation is fidelity to the inquiry, then one must be willing to encounter something true or useful wherever it appears.