adverbian

Anyway I was bitching about how hard it is to come up with feasible planets in Star Wars because sometimes you need a new planet from scratch and sometimes you need to know more about a planet than the 'has jungles, is probably a moon technically' than Wookieepedia will give you, and they're like 'oh yeah I can do something about that'.

So they've written (in Matlab but they swear it will run as a .exe as well and I may be conscripted to embed it as a web tool at some point) a star system generator.

You input what you know about the planet (ecosystem, population, sun colour, does it have liquid water, does it have a moon or moons, is it a moon or moons, temperature averages, atmosphere, you get me) and it will give you the... everything else about the star system, in obedience to real-universe physics. And if you input nothing you get a randomly generated star system.

And I’m like oh I know people who will be into this with a vengeance, and they're not on Tumblr, so this is me seeing who exactly would be keen on, and I cannot stress this enough, a real-physics comprehensive star system generator.

We have a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday to discuss my "valid concerns" so now I need all of you to send me anti-AI resources for that meeting because I am extremely bad at defending my viewpoints on the spot. I get flustered and forgetful and avoidant, so I need to have key arguments and evidence to back it up at the ready. Unfortunately, all my searches for "how to defend my anti-ai stance in the workplace" are only returning articles about "How to convince your employees that AI is a good thing"

Relevant information:

They are mostly looking at MS co-pilot and claude ai

They would be unlikely to use it to make any graphics so stolen art is only fuel to the ethical argument, not a main concern

Confidentiality. If your company allows its data to be put into an AI tool, the AI company may keep a copy on its servers. Your company’s data may be used to train the AI model, which means it may be used to answer other people’s questions. That puts your company’s data at risk of being exposed to competitors or hackers.

Reliability. How does your company plan to quality-check the AI outputs? AI will often sound right, but as soon as you start to fact-check, you will find out that it’s factually incorrect. It often makes up numbers, graphs, and sources. Any AI outputs must be independently fact-checked by a human before they can be used to make any real-world decisions. Otherwise, the company is at risk of making bad decisions based on bad information, resulting in business losses and possibly even legal consequences. EY (formerly Ernst & Young) did a survey finding that “Nearly every large company to have introduced AI has incurred some initial financial loss … often due to compliance failures, flawed outputs, bias, or disruptions to sustainability goals.” Your company should consider those possible financial risks.

Customer perception. Your company should know that the public increasingly perceives AI as high-risk and low-value. It may hurt your company’s brand perception. Here is an open-access article that surveyed a nationally-representative sample of 1100 people from Germany — they found that “while many AI applications are viewed as likely to occur, they are often associated with high perceived risk and limited benefit.”

Functionality. Your company needs to check and see whether these AI tools can actually do the things they are imagining, before they commit to paying for a subscription.

For example, I recently tested my employer’s internal AI tool to see whether it could automatically extract tables of data from PDF articles and put them into Excel. It couldn’t “just do it.” All it could do was give me a sample Python script that I needed to modify and run myself. The output of the script still requires a fair amount of manual cleanup.

Also, the sample script it gave me didn’t even work, because it was based on an outdated version of one of the Python libraries. So I had to debug the Python script myself.

EY — who did the study cited in the previous reblog, finding that businesses often incurred financial losses when AI gave them bad data — recently got bitten themselves. They had to retract a report after researchers caught fake data and references made up by AI. That can’t have been good for EY’s reputation. “EY retracts study after researchers discover AI hallucinations” (Financial Times, May 15, 2026)

“Starbucks quietly retired its AI agent just months after deployment after it miscounted coffee shop inventories and slowed down baristas” (Fortune, May 28, 2026)

“Doctors’ AI Systems Are Hallucinating Nonexistent Medical Issues During Appointments With Patients” (Futurism, May 16, 2026)

“AI hallucinations are infiltrating expert work—and entering the permanent body of knowledge” (Forbes, May 24, 2026)

“How AI Hallucinations Are Creating Real Security Risks” (The Hacker News, May 14, 2026)

We have a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday to discuss my "valid concerns" so now I need all of you to send me anti-AI resources for that meeting because I am extremely bad at defending my viewpoints on the spot. I get flustered and forgetful and avoidant, so I need to have key arguments and evidence to back it up at the ready. Unfortunately, all my searches for "how to defend my anti-ai stance in the workplace" are only returning articles about "How to convince your employees that AI is a good thing"

Relevant information:

They are mostly looking at MS co-pilot and claude ai

They would be unlikely to use it to make any graphics so stolen art is only fuel to the ethical argument, not a main concern

Confidentiality. If your company allows its data to be put into an AI tool, the AI company may keep a copy on its servers. Your company’s data may be used to train the AI model, which means it may be used to answer other people’s questions. That puts your company’s data at risk of being exposed to competitors or hackers.

Reliability. How does your company plan to quality-check the AI outputs? AI will often sound right, but as soon as you start to fact-check, you will find out that it’s factually incorrect. It often makes up numbers, graphs, and sources. Any AI outputs must be independently fact-checked by a human before they can be used to make any real-world decisions. Otherwise, the company is at risk of making bad decisions based on bad information, resulting in business losses and possibly even legal consequences. EY (formerly Ernst & Young) did a survey finding that “Nearly every large company to have introduced AI has incurred some initial financial loss … often due to compliance failures, flawed outputs, bias, or disruptions to sustainability goals.” Your company should consider those possible financial risks.

Customer perception. Your company should know that the public increasingly perceives AI as high-risk and low-value. It may hurt your company’s brand perception. Here is an open-access article that surveyed a nationally-representative sample of 1100 people from Germany — they found that “while many AI applications are viewed as likely to occur, they are often associated with high perceived risk and limited benefit.”

Functionality. Your company needs to check and see whether these AI tools can actually do the things they are imagining, before they commit to paying for a subscription.

For example, I recently tested my employer’s internal AI tool to see whether it could automatically extract tables of data from PDF articles and put them into Excel. It couldn’t “just do it.” All it could do was give me a sample Python script that I needed to modify and run myself. The output of the script still requires a fair amount of manual cleanup.

Also, the sample script it gave me didn’t even work, because it was based on an outdated version of one of the Python libraries. So I had to debug the Python script myself.

At Eden's gate a gentle angel

Stood shining with a bowed-down head,

While dark and fierce, the rebel demon

Above the hellish chasm sped.

The spirit born of doubt and scorning

Upon the spirit pure did gaze,

And felt, through unexpected yearning,

A tender warmth for the first days.

"Forgive me," then he softly uttered,

"I saw you, and your light was true;

Not all within this world I hated,

@earlgreydyke exactly.

Like Aziraphale is a covetous lazy hedonist easily swayed by mortal pleasures into disobedience, he is kinda jaded about Heaven in the book, he is the one willing to deceive a pair of Humans to go assassinate an eleven-year-old for him and the one willing to pull the trigger when it comes down to it… But he’s still also the only Angel who cared more about saving Humanity and the Earth than the beef with Hell, and even in the book he did managed to talk himself into having faith that Heaven will do the right thing and even his first act of disobedience, his lie to God, was because he just cared about humans so much, and he still does, more than any other Angel.

And Crowley is a Demon who has just as much if not more affection and care for Humanity, he often doesn’t have it within himself to actually cause meaningful harm to anyone, as the Serpent of Eden his greatest act of Temptation actually gave birth to human morality… but he’s also very much a slothful hedonist, he Rebellious and self-interested to the point it makes him rebel against Hell itself, and he is still Hell’s most effective tempter and corrupter by far and he did destroy a fellow Demon in cold blood, which was established in the Book as a huge Moral Taboo even for exceptionally cruel and sadistic Demons like Hastur and Ligur.

And then also, their ‘good’ and ‘bad’ actions are full of gray areas. They try to save the world and humanity mostly out of their hedonistic self-interest, both of their most ‘immoral’ actions happened for understandable reasons; Crowley destroys Ligur in what is clearly self-defense and Aziraphale plots out the assassination of a grade-schooler out of a sincere belief this is the only way to save the world. Moral ambiguity and humanity, that’s what this whole story is about, right?

And since GO1 sticks fairly close to the book, I think this idea is preserved… pretty well there as well. Like, I’d say that actually getting to see Aziraphale interact with other not-Metatron Angels helps drive the point even better. But also… Aziraphale lost his jadedness, while his sweetness, softness and faith in Heaven was emphasized, but so were his hedonism, pridefulness and hypocrisy. So it still evens out, just a lateral move, I think. Having Crowley be the first to explicitly mentions the concept of killing Warlock kinda lessens the importance of Aziraphale resolving to do it all on his own, but it’s done to heighten the drama around the subject, so there’s still plenty of impact when Aziraphale actually pulls the trigger…

And Crowley’s effectiveness in and fondness of Modernized Sin Spreading has been greatly de-emphasized but…. At least the new emphasis is on his laziness and deceit, which would still be ‘Hellish’ qualities, although I think this is still a much… safer variation of hellish qualities than letting him be a shameless little shit. On the other hand, Crowley’s rebelliousness and self-interest is emphasized greatly even compared to Book!Crowley, the whole Alpha Centauri plan showcases that he can narrow down the world to just himself and his Angel when things get dire.

…But even at the time it kinda bugged me how the concept of Crowley crossing some sort of Moral Taboo by destroying a fellow Demon with Holy Water was basically entirely gone. Not only was Hell 100% fine with publicly executing Crowley by Holy Water, they killed that other tiny random Demon basically just for the lols!

But, y’know, the Body Swap Sequence was otherwise so fucking Peak by Basically Every Other Metric (including furthering other important themes with Aziraphale and Crowley’s characters) that I was wiling to forgive it. Now, like, I still love all the Body Swap stuff to bits, but I also worry that it was an… omen of things to come. A Bad Omen, if you will.

Because by the time we get to GO3, this through-line is… maybe not exactly entirely gone, but definitely frayed and torn and jumbled. I suppose you can say this whole sequence plays on the whole ‘Aziraphale is simultaneously the Best and Worst Angel’…

But, like, both this scene and the whole Finale in general gives so little attention to Aziraphale’s good qualities, to that kindness and sweetness and courage, to the fact faith and trust and hope don’t have to just be foolish naïveté (And GO3 is not a Subtly Written TV Movie Thingy). And like, it's not just that wanting to enjoy Earthly Pleasures doesn't 'negate wanting to do the right thing, Aziraphale’s ‘sins’ intersect and blend with his ‘virtues’. His Hedonism fuels his genuine kind love of Humanity, his lies to God and Heaven, always to protect innocent Humans, were a demonstration of his conviction and bravery. Only Aziraphale really stands up to his own defense, and quite frankly, it feels mostly to set up the segway to Aziraphale talking up Crowley.

Which honestly just makes the whole situation here worse. Like, first things first, it just demonstrates how much of Crowley's rougher edges have just been... sanded off and retconned out over GO2 and GO3. He is just "The Best Angel" (and by implication, the Worst Demon), no interesting gray-areas nuance there. And in addition to many many other things that are Fucking Terrible about Aziraphale's 'Best Angel' speech (the inability to give Aziraphale a satisfying conclusion to his character arc, invalidating Crowley's own conception of his identity and past, the supposed 'love confession' culmination of the relationship being entirely in PAST TENSE, the massive imbalance in how this narrative treats Crowley vs. Aziraphale...), it also highlights how much we've lost the plot on this Theme of Humanity as it used to relate to the Ineffable Husbands.

In the book it was made very clear that living alongside Humanity has had a big effect on Crowley and Aziraphale, that it shaped them into the Beings we see play things out in the main storyline...

And back in S1 you could... insinuate that this was still the case. Obviously with the bigger focus now being drawn to Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship, you expect there to be a mixture of influences from both each other and Humanity as a whole but... As GO2 and GO3 went along, any sort of influence from being around Humanity got minimized more and more for the both of them. Like, Aziraphale already got so many of his positive traits and character moments attributed to being 'thanks to Crowley' and that absolutely includes his most 'Human' traits. Aziraphale couldn't even figure out how to eat food just from blending in among Humanity, Crowley had to tempt him to that first...

And with Crowley, this whole speech is about how great Crowley WAS, before his Fall, before the Beginning, before HUMANITY. If we see this Stupid Ass Speech as an accurate judgement of Crowley, then he basically burst fully formed out of God's Brow with all of his traits just inherent to his being from the start. Nothing of the things that made him so great were anything he also learned from Humanity or even just subconsciously rubbed-off on him.

Like, y'know, naive ol' me, when GO1 said Crowley was the only Demon to have an 'Imagination' in a piece of dialogue that seemed to deliberately call back to Book!Crowley's inner monologue saying Imagination is one advantage Humans have over Demons, I stupidly assumed that this means Crowley honed his Imagination from being around Humanity! That it was a cool, thematically-poignant moment because despite Crowley's Magical Miracle Power being what is literally keeping the Bentley going, the actual real Superpower behind this iconic badass feat is an inherently HUMAN trait!

...When instead I should've obviously realized that Crowley is just an inherently imaginative uniquely artistic soul who was like this since before the dawn of time and we humans have nothing to do with it, silly me!

It just drives home just how much Humanity has been diminished in this story, that is now trying to conclude itself with a Big Poignant Thing about Humanity. The agency of Humans is all but gone from the narrative that led us to this moment, no representative of Humanity is here to bring in our perspective while those four supernatural beings discuss the fate of the world, and the qualities and influences of Humanity that used to define our two main leads were gradually wiped out to glorify one of them as So Great and Wonderful and the Most Special (and thus also the least interesting version of one of my favorite characters...).

Maybe in a Better version of this scene, Crowley and Aziraphale could've realized that they are actually not that different from Adam Young. That much like him, they are technically 'divine' beings that have lived so long amongst the Humans, shaped by them, have been basically 'adopted' by Humanity, that both of them have much more in common with plain ol' mortal folks then they do with the two other supernatural beings sitting in the bookshop with them, and try to make their arguments from a point of Empathy, from the angle that they do kinda know what it's like to be a Human Person in a world jerked around by the whims of God...

(Something like that would've definitely lead into a 'Turning Human' Ending in much more satisfying and thematically coherent manner. Although I will emphasize that I'm talking about Crowley and Aziraphale turning human AS THEMSELVES, none of this reincarnation mindwipe bullshit that skips over all the emotional catharsis. But also like... maybe not inherently? Adam rewrote reality so that he was always Human and yet he still got to keep his powers, so....)

Instead all of Crowley's observations about Humanity and how much he cares about them is all in the third person, distant, pitying more than it is empathetic.

And Humanity is also diminished in the resolution of our story. Like, both in the sense that, like I said many times before, this whole ‘asking God to kill Themself and create a new universe’ thing is just not… actionable enough, at least not how they played it in the show, to be anything the Human viewers could feel like they could achieve to escape their own problems with systems of oppression, even metaphorically. It might’ve worked if we had more focus on how Crowley and Aziraphale’s Human qualities were the things to defeat God in any meaningful way.

But it’s also about how this conclusion is all about this Big Dramatic Gesture of Purely Selfless Self-Sacrifice for the Abstract Greater Good, which is… obviously there have been cases of Humans acting like this, that’s the whole ‘more grace than Heaven’ thing. But… for the climatic ending, the culmination of a series that supposed to be celebrating Humanity, and moral shades of gray, it is kinda weird for it to end on something so straightforwardly… Heavenly.

Especially when you compare it to the Book/GO1, how Adam’s victory over his Demonic ‘Destiny’ is this very human mixture of wanting things to be better, but also wanting things to be better for your own sake, because you’re the one who’s going to be living in this world…

And love, not just generally for some vague abstract concept of ‘Humanity’, but to the specific people around you that you love, to the places that you love, to the small world you’ve made around you to make sense of the hugeness of the universe…

And, yeah, a bit of selfishness, to avoid the burden of responsibility that comes with being in charge.

And Crowley and Aziraphale, for what little part they actually contributed to saving the world, did so, like I said, out of a mixture of kindness and selfishness. And all of the other Humans who contributed to saving the world did so out of an obvious, yet heroic, desire for self-preservation, and they each had their own quirky self-contradictory mess of virtues and vices…

This all feels very discordant when compared to Noble Suffering Hero Crowley’s Ultimate Selfless Sacrifice as an Ultimate Act of Universal Love to Humanity.