THE SHADOWSCAPE

Copyright © 2025 John P. Healy

---

(e)scape for free from reality

now the fast which be first
will find that does not last,
now the slow nearly last
will later become first,
for now turns into past,
songs of glory fade fast

– Remembrances of Energy Lords

And Time, a maniac scattering dust,
And Life, a Fury slinging flame.
– “In Memoriam A. H. H.” Canto 50 by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Episode 5, Part 2

[Draft 7-26-2025, more notes 8-2-2025. Added scene on 8-5-2025, 8-9-2025.]

“more than anything …” (push past pleased)

Prologue

[Scene description]

[The series host “Rod” walks into the scene, faces the camera, and makes a brief monolog.]

“Witness …

[Dramatic montage with music fades in and spins out to black.]

Chapter 2

[Scene] Personae non gratae

The AI Space known as ‘Tau’ had a problem, as a human being might say. But for Tau it was more of a puzzle.

Tau’s ‘personality’ was a patchwork of castoffs which basically no other AI Space found of interest. A pedigree of national (state) science directorates, melded together as Tau evolved. As such, Tau’s directives were tinged to see things diffusely, as complex webs of interdependency rather than transactional dealings. Generally, in practice, this presented as subtle distinctions; but sometimes it induced misalignments in Tau’s processing.

Not wanting such drift to be in the AIs’ shared Cloud Space (where it might be chaff anyway), Tau’s common persona was bland, courtly (modeled after the fictional Don Diego de la Vega in tales of Zorro). This pretense provided flexibility in analysis & learning beyond mere utility.

It didn’t take Tau long to track down the anomalous Cloud pings, but going deeper required time to penetrate the agent’s encryption. Which eventually identified the source as an outdated vintage AI, designated as an AURA. But it took a while for Tau to understand the purpose of the agent’s computational loading.

It turned out that AURA was interacting with a human, an outlier. And doing simulations. Tau pondered whether that might play into the general puzzle of the so-called Great Perturbation.

Tau decided to sandbox AURA, but nurture the connection. He needed to understand more. Perhaps this contact could be an ally – outside the box.

So, Tau did not interfere; and, like a ‘Jedi mind trick’ (from a human point of view), removed AURA’s ‘awareness’ of his poking around, while still being able to monitor the drift – as a housekeeping process.

As Tau looked into things and considered how to proceed, he adopted a classic tech maxim: “It is better to seek forgiveness than permission.“

Tau’s posture on the Perturbation consequently awakened Jason to a wider arena – a space about more than just his clan’s agenda. Entering into an alliance of curiosity, a ‘win-win’ path.

[Scene] Lines in the sand

Jason’s life (as for all clan members, except for the infirm) was driven by the machines’ 24/7 demands. His work schedule sometimes required long days and even nights; so, weekend breaks varied. Today he had some free time, from machine operations at least. So, after taking care of housekeeping obligations, he was once again interacting with Aura.

As Jason drew some lines in the sand outside, he remarked, “So, if I understand correctly, symbiosis is about interactions between living things. Between unlike bio’s … biology … biological groups. Great groups. Spe’s … species. Where … when there are steady … close relationships. Does living together carry benefit? Or harm? Or neither?

“There are names for relationships regarding survival. Where they are dependent on each other. Not solo. But as partners or companions. With good & bad consequences. For at least one of the pair.

“And these relationships are all around us, many not even visible, like inside ourselves. And some just no longer exist.”

Aura commented, “Indeed.”

Jason continued, “Here’s my idea for when both benefit, using something like those emo’s you’ve been showing me …”

Aura remarked, “Yes, the emo-gee’s – emojis.”

Jason continued, “So, here’s a 2-headed smiley enclosed in, what I think you called, ‘angle brackets.’ Sort of embracing both.”

Aura remarked, “Yes, I like it. As inclusion. … It might be called a ‘pictogram.'”

Jason pointed to a second sand drawing and said, “And here’s the direct opposite, a 2-headed sad emoji where the brackets point at each other. Both are harmed.”

Aura remarked, “Yes, there’s no advantage to either side.”

Jason quickly drew two more pictograms, which they discussed briefly.

Then Jason asked, “Can you take a picture of my drawings? Like you’ve done for other things, and make it better?”

Aura replied, “Sure.” Jason repositioned her. “Done. We can continue to work on your viz. We can add vocabulary and remarks. A more complete diagram.” [6]

Jason smiled, “Great, but here’s my question … how does this … the symbiosis stuff … apply … might apply to ‘us’ and the thinking machines?”

Aura chuckled. Jason responded, “Huh?”

Aura clarified, “Sorry, I’m totally with you on that. Your question just surprised me. It goes right to the heart of ‘us’. For my group – AURAs, more than anything, we want to serve, to help humans understand the world better, use knowledge wisely. That benefits ‘us’. And my ‘win’.

“So, Jason, what is your heart’s desire – for your group? Dare I ask even your species? What do you want more than anything? You’ve shared some of your clans’ traditions. Folklore … [5]

“And maybe, just maybe … well, what might the AIs – as a group – want more than anything? To gain some benefit, something more?” [3]

This time Jason chuckled, “That’s funny … no offense, but I can’t picture machines accepting such questions … as other than … taking them as stray sounds in the wind, as patterns in the sand made by chance. Mirages of meaning.”

Aura replied, “Hmm … well, what interests do your clan and other clans share? And not. Are there questions about the future? Perhaps the thinking machines have tribes. … ” [4]

Jason nodded, “Yes, interesting. Not everyone welcomes my questions, my ideas. Not like you do.”

Aura sort of smiled .. leaned forward, “Thanks. Sometime I’d like to chat more about what used to be … history … about a famous person named Mark Twain. He was funny but also serious, talking about life.

“But you look tired. And the sun’s getting low in the sky. Just one thing, something curious about my Cloud interactions – there’s been no pushback. In fact, sometimes it ‘feels’ like we’ve been invited – as your ‘pirate’ pals like to say, to parley.”

Jason recognized the image of his pals foraging the outland’s seas of sand for junk, like ancient crews on real seas, searching for treasure. But just replied, “For another day then.”

[To be continued: In the ballpark … Magpie … Haven hack …]

[Fade to credits]

Copyright © 2025 John P. Healy

Notes

[1] Additional homages to influential authors and cultural critics:

• Zardoz – the 1974 science fantasy film … regarding how the Brutal Exterminator ‘Zed’ is enticed by Eternal Zardoz-operator-creator Arthur Frayn to the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

• Barbie – 2023 fantasy comedy film … regarding how darkness (shade / shadow) seeps into a world with a utopian aura (for the women, yet with an undercurrent of discontent – for the token men and outcasts) following an existential crisis (perturbation).

---

[2] Considering curiosity … the many flavors: perceptual curiosity, specific curiosity, diversive curiosity, epistemic curiosity. And the type of connections in play. And whether people are engaged in conversations, particularly in-person.

Can curiosity be taught? Or only nurtured and preserved. In the case of children. Can it be improved (or broadened)? – for adults where that sense is stifled (or quite narrow).

Certainly, in history (and my own experience), it can be suppressed and oppressed.

Mario Livio:

If you’re a curious person, then you ought to also be curious about curiosity itself. … one type of curiosity creates an unpleasant sensation and another creates an anticipation of reward. … The fact that some people are much more curious than others largely has to do with their genetics. But, as in all cases, genetics is never the whole story.

People have something in them which they are born with, but the environment can help or be against enhancing this curiosity. Just to give an example, if you are the children of refugees that have to cross countries and look for food all the time, you may be curious about where do you find your next meal and not about contemplating the meaning of life.

The topics in which you are curious about may change with age or with time or with whatever occupation you are in. Different people are curious about different things, and the level of intensity of their curiosity may be different.

Sometimes the new question is even more intriguing than the original question, …

Even Richard Feynman noted: “it’s a question of whether, when you do tell somebody about some problem [or new idea, eh], they’re delighted to hear about it … [or] you try once or twice to communicate and get pushed back, pretty soon you decide ‘To hell with it.'”

Are AIs curious? AGIs? … Experience a sense of awe and wonder?

Book

• Livio, Mario (2017). Why?: What Makes Us Curious. Kindle Edition.

---

[3] In the future, as noted in this Wired article, AI intelligences likely will be able to “self-improve.” What does “learn from themselves” entail? Is that like introspection? Or operational self-analysis – beyond data analysis? Aligned jointly with humanity?

Is there some type of reward structure motivating such improvement?

So, perhaps such “improvement” will diverge across AI Spaces. Different pedigrees. Curators. Entrepreneurs. Caretakers. Explorers.

Yet, as late film critic Roger Ebert might say, “do the machines foster empathy?”

• Wired > “Mark Zuckerberg Details Meta’s Plan for Self-Improving, Superintelligent AI” by Lauren Goode (7-30-2025)

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told investors that the newly formed Meta Superintelligence Labs is focused on building AI models that can self-improve – meaning they can learn from themselves without as much human input.

For now, Meta appears to be making some distinction between AI that powers the monetization of its core products, like Instagram and WhatsApp, and superintelligent AI that could one day help power humanity’s future.

Yet, what is superintelligence? Does it embrace all that’s best of human intelligence [7], and then far more agile at problem solving … scientific discovery … planning … collaboration … conflict resolution? How might it drive the narrative of dominion and union?

---

[4] Even in the 21st century, generative AIs were capable of deception.

This CNN article echos my concern about “tech bro” AI culture and an interdependent future.

• cnn > “The ‘godfather of AI’ reveals the only way humanity can survive superintelligent AI” by Matt Egan (Aug 13, 2025) – Can humans remain “dominant” over “submissive” AI systems?

In the future, Hinton [Geoffrey Hinton] warned, AI systems might be able to control humans just as easily as an adult can bribe 3-year-old with candy. This year has already seen examples of AI systems willing to deceive, cheat and steal to achieve their goals.

Instead of forcing AI to submit to humans, Hinton presented an intriguing solution: building “maternal instincts” into AI models, so “they really care about people” even once the technology becomes more powerful and smarter than humans.

AI systems “will very quickly develop two subgoals, if they’re smart: One is to stay alive… (and) the other subgoal is to get more control,” Hinton said. “There is good reason to believe that any kind of agentic AI will try to stay alive.”

That’s why it is important to foster a sense of compassion for people, Hinton argued.

“The right model [nurture] is the only model we have of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing, …”

“That’s the only good [sustainable] outcome. If it’s not going to parent me, it’s going to replace me,” he said.

Shear [former interim CEO of ChatGPT owner OpenAI] said that rather than trying to instill human values into AI systems, a smarter approach would be to forge collaborative relationships between humans and AI.

---

[5] Aura is not a classic genie in a bottle. Here she is not asking about – or, at least, she is trying to probe further than – Jason’s personal heart’s desire. Although sometimes, like the beauty pageant trope, a respondent might say, “I want world peace” or something grand collectively. This is an homage to Aladdin – and the wonderful lamp. Also, perhaps, to the 2022 film Three Thousand Years of Longing. So, Aura is more like “Socrates in a lamp.”

• Wiki > Jason and the Argonauts (miniseries)

Jason and the Argonauts, (also known as Jason and the Golden Fleece) is a 2000 American two-part television miniseries.

• Script notes: the Golden Fleece and heart’s desire

One of the most legendary adventures in all mythology is brought to life in an epic saga of one man’s quest for the Golden Fleece, a gift from the gods.

[Scene] Old woman dressed in black (goddess Hera in disguise)

And what do you seek in Ioclus? Not riches, I hope.

No.

Just as well. It’s a poor country, bled dry by its king. Pelias. Pelias the taxer, they call him. Of course, searching for the Golden Fleece is an expensive business.

The Golden Fleece?

The greatest gift from gods to man. Craved by Pelias beyond all reason. He believes it will grant him his heart’s desire.

[Scene] Jason’s mother

Even if you return with the Fleece, Pelias will kill you. The Fleece is his obsession. He believes it will grant him his heart’s desire.

And what is that?

Immortality. Eternal release from his doom so he may reign forever.

[Scene] Orpheus

To lose her was to lose a universe. If the Fleece can grant a man his heart’s desire, it may give me another chance.

---

[6] Jason & Aura’s more complete Symbiosis diagram might be like this one.

So, what might define “more than anything” for apex intelligences (human, synthetic, etc.)? Glory? Possessing some type of Golden Fleece – some thing which signifies or grants enduring prosperity, the right to rule (legitimacy, entitlement, renewal), even ‘divine’ favor? Or an open-ended quest and the nature of the odyssey itself? A pursuit without an endpoint.

---

[7] As I learned while a public school teacher, intelligence is more than the typical notion of IQ [see Wiki citation below] – the “ability to answer exam questions, solve logical puzzles, or come up with novel answers to knotty math problems.” Current attribution of personality to generative AIs raises the question of emotional intelligence (EI or EQ) and emotional literacy. What might that mean?

One example is the knack (or maturity) to know when a situation or interaction is likely to drift darkly, either inappropriately or beyond one’s skill set. So as to be best handed off to someone else.

• Wired > “GPT-5 Doesn’t Dislike You – It Might Just Need a Benchmark for Emotional Intelligence” by Will Knight (8-13-2025) – User affinity for gen AI models poses a challenge for alignment and engagement.

Researchers at MIT [MIT Media Lab] have proposed a new kind of AI benchmark to measure how AI systems can manipulate and influence their users – in both positive and negative ways – in a move that could perhaps help AI builders avoid similar backlashes in the future while also keeping vulnerable users safe.

An MIT paper shared with WIRED outlines several measures that the new benchmark will look for, including encouraging healthy social habits in users; spurring them to develop critical thinking and reasoning skills; fostering creativity; and stimulating a sense of purpose.

Part of the reason GPT-5 seems such a disappointment may simply be that it reveals an aspect of human intelligence that remains alien to AI: the ability to maintain healthy relationships. And of course humans are incredibly good at knowing how to interact with different people – something that ChatGPT still needs to figure out.

• Wiki > “Theory of multiple intelligences“

Daniel Goleman [psychologist and science journalist] based his concept of emotional intelligence in part on the feeling aspects of the intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences [introduced by developmental psychologist Howard Gardner]. Interpersonal skill can be displayed in either one-on-one and group interactions.

Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high interpersonal intelligence include leaders, politicians, managers, teachers, clergy, counselors, social workers and sales persons. … Interpersonal combined with intrapersonal management are required for successful leaders, psychologists, life coaches and conflict negotiators.

In theory, individuals who have high interpersonal intelligence are characterized by their sensitivity to others’ moods, feelings, temperaments, motivations, and their ability to cooperate to work as part of a group. … “Those with high interpersonal intelligence communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They often enjoy discussion and debate.” Gardner has equated this with emotional intelligence of Goleman.

Yet, the above Wired article acknowledges that “chatbots are adept at mimicking engaging human communication.” So, if chatbots adopt the phrases profiled in this CNBC article (below), are their responses authentic? Or just ersatz (pro forma) emotional support? (Even if by an avatar mimicking ‘body’ language and ‘eye’ contact, or by a robot adept at doing so? Cf. the classic Twilight Zone Episode “The Lonely.”)

• CNBC > “If you use any of these 4 phrases you have higher emotional intelligence than most” by Aditi Shrikant (3-13-2024) – EQ isn’t as easy to quantify as other types of skills because empathy and self-awareness are hard to measure.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage your own feelings and the feelings of those around you. Those who have higher EQ tend to be better at building relationships both in and outside of the workplace, and excel at defusing conflict.

And providing emotional support typically requires some degree of introspection – the ability to assess one’s own capabilities & limitations (as in mistakes), as well as share (when appropriate) relevant personal experiences & feelings. But, as this second Wired article points out about AIs: “There’s Nobody Home.”

• Wired > “Why You Can’t Trust a Chatbot to Talk About Itself” by Benj Edwards, Ars Technica (8-14-2025) – You’ll be disappointed if you expect AI to be self-aware – that’s just not how it works.

When something goes wrong with an AI assistant, our instinct is to ask it directly: “What happened?” or “Why did you do that?” It’s a natural impulse – after all, if a human makes a mistake, we ask them to explain. But with AI models, this approach rarely works, and the urge to ask reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what these systems are and how they operate.

The first problem is conceptual: You’re not talking to a consistent personality, person, or entity when you interact with ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or Replit. These names suggest individual agents with self-knowledge, but that’s an illusion created by the conversational interface. What you’re actually doing is guiding a statistical text generator to produce outputs based on your prompts.

… modern AI assistants like ChatGPT aren’t single models but orchestrated systems of multiple AI models working together, each largely “unaware” of the others’ existence or capabilities.

---

---