deontoillogical / Deo / Phoebe / Phoe

Is textile work still looked down upon?

Are teachers still underpaid?

Do fathers still walk their daughters down the aisle?

Do men still undervalue fashion?

Do women still shave their armpits?

If you wrote a story that was "free of sexism," and any of these things are still a part of that world, then you are claiming that all of these aspects of society are the natural state of things.

You can write a story that tries to limit sexism, that doesn't deal with tiring themes and where no one is explicitly oppressed. But in order to claim a story is free of sexism, you have to do REAL. SOLID. WORK.

Leveling up your character should be exciting, not frustrating. And yet, I have avoided feeding my characters because they're on the verge of leveling up. It is too easy to get them to the next level, and then I have to choose a new trait for them (I haven't figured out how to delay that) when all I wanted was to give them a cool pair of rainbow socks.

I made a character to dump all the clothes that I don't want another Mii to wear just yet, and they're already at Lv. 20. They have not interacted with a single other Mii.

The game should be perfect for the way I play it, as the game play is mostly "get the new items every day, do some daily maintenance, and watch the crack ships form." It was a fun thing to do before work or during a break. However, the relationship dynamics--the most interesting part of the game--are getting repetitive. Why do they go from acquaintances to good friends? Why does almost everyone like each other? Why are all the scenes they have together like... the same five things?

It feels so empty. Decorating and making this island your own really doesn't appeal to me because of how cumbersome the mechanics are. Similarly, drawing clothes and items is not fun. There aren't enough types of clothes for the amount of customization I would want to do, and the actual drawing UI and program isn't fun to work with.

There isn't enough to customize to enjoy customization. There isn't enough the Miis do on their own to enjoy the fish bowl. There isn't enough for us to do as the player to make up for the other flaws.

...to show how it is so often wrong.

I'm a substitute teacher, and yesterday I caught a student using AI for the math assignment they were working on. I was worried. If this AI was right, it would confirm their biases. I shouldn't have been. They typed in the solution it gave to the program they were on, and, of course, it wasn't correct.

Large language learning models can't do logical or mathematical reasoning. I mean, they can't reason at all. But the way they function puts them at a disadvantage for math problems especially.

For a simplistic explanation, LLMs are self-refining algorithms trained to create the most likely response to a given prompt. They do not know what the prompt actually means. They do not know what the answer means. They don't actually know anything, as they lack the capacity for thought and understanding. However, they are trained to take written patterns from the prompt and apply the patterns in their data set to their responses. This means they can often get things right. Facts, like the color of a blue whale or the amount of legs a spider has, are common enough online that the most likely response to "how many legs does a spider have?" simply is "8." Similarly, math problems like "what is one times two" and "what is the square root of 25" are common enough that these models can appear to do actual calculations.

It is when the questions get less common and/or add more than one step that these models break down. An LLM can appear to calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle perfectly fine. But what if you need it to find the length of one of the legs first based on the area of the square next to that triangle. Maybe it will get the first part right. Maybe. But as it "tries" (the model simply does, as it has no capacity to care and thus cannot try) to follow the series of steps, its answer breaks down. It doesn't know how to handle math with more than one step not just because it does not "know" (a calculator knows nothing and still solves these problems better), but because its algorithm does not treat the math as math. It tries to give a likely answer to the structure of the question and will answer incorrectly because of that.

This, at least, is my understanding of LLMs and how they break down at the slightest complication. It might not be the most accurate way to describe what an LLM does as I am not a computer scientist, but it at least is accurate enough to conceptualize the limitations of an LLM. That's what these students need. They don't know how these generative AI programs work, and thus over rely on them. Hell, the people that are here to teach them barely know how these things work.

If they're going to use generative AI anyway, I want them to understand when it is a pointless endeavor. If they are going to cheat anyway, I'd rather they get the answers from someone online breaking down the problems for them (Yahoo answers or one of those things used to be a great place for people who wanted to cheat on their math homework with the help of people who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT).

I'm worried the lazy kid isn't just avoiding their work, but losing the ability to reason and scheme which are skills that could at least help them in the long run...

I think at this point I'm rambling. I don't want kids to cheat. I don't want kids to use generative AI and LLMs for anything. I want them to be able to think for themselves, use reasoning skills, understand what is being said to them and be able to respond with their own reasoning in their own words. I ask for too little, and yet it's too much.

I wish I was confused why they decided to publish an Astarion prequel in the first place. I know the reason. Money. Even with this shallow reason, a lot of cash grabs end up really good. However, that does not make me any less frustrated at this particular one.

Astarion doesn't need a prequel. That much is obvious. But, more so, he should not have one. The irreverent elf's backstory is complete. The majority of his story line within the game is learning his backstory and trying to convince him not to repeat the same vicious cycle as his abuser--or, alternatively, helping him go down that very path. Either way, his backstory is expounded upon in the video game itself. Anything missing is unnecessary.

We already know when, where, why, how, and who Astarion used in service of Cazador. We have a similarly complete understanding of how he was turned into that thrall in the first place. We understand the thematic weight of all of it. All a prequel would do is give us more details. We don't NEED more details. His backstory is already a fully compete narrative in its own right.

There is an argument to be made that people enjoy going into excruciating detail for every aspect of a narrative. In my personal opinion, I think it cheapens a story. For those that want to put this elven vampire under a microscope and study him, AO3 is the perfect place to go.

Of course, a lot of people misunderstood Astarion's story in the first place. Those that fought for their Tav to smile at ascended Astarion's abusive control over them come to mind. (Imagine ruining a beautiful, complex depiction of the cycles of abuse to appease fans that forgot AO3 and/or mods exist). Perhaps this prequel will highlight just how horrible the path to ascension will be once he goes down it in the BG3 timeline. I've heard good things about T Kingfisher.

Except, I don't think any amount of nuanced, clever writing or even waving red flag in front of their eyes and screaming "becoming like Cazador is the bad ending" will get these fans to understand the game is trying to do something with Astarion's story, and if they want interesting dynamics between their OC and the vampire lord they can write it themselves. Not only that, by publishing the Astarion story first (if they have any others lined it), it is clear the company continues to cater to the most annoying and ravenous part of the BG3 fan base. I doubt their intentions are to dissuade them from their delusions.

Look, I do not doubt that T Kingfisher has written an incredible prequel. I hope the author doesn't hide from his past cruelty, but expands on it. I hope the narrative understands both Astarion's victimhood, and also his role as oppressor. I hope it adds thematic weight to Astarion's story rather than simply rehashing what we already know about the elf but in more explicit detail.

While I hope this book doesn't cheapen the story, I cannot imagine a world where this prequel adds anything substantial. It should not have been made. But now that it's announced, all I can do is hope for the best and brace for the worst.

This is not an indictment of escapist literature as a whole, nor do I seek to assert that one cannot or should not mitigate these issues in their world building if they so choose. However, I have noticed that a lot of literature that sets out to erase the “-isms” of our modern world (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, abilism, homophobia, transphobia) actually serve to reinforce them. Or, in other instances, create a similarly flawed system unintentionally and, in ignorance of what these authors created, ignore those flaws within the narrative.

For example, often I will read a book that exists in a world “without sexism.” However, because the author’s notions of what sexism entails are surface level, sexism seeps in. Soldiers are still revered. Textiles are undervalued. Relationships still suffer from inequity, despite the male lead and female lead’s insistence this is not the case. Women are still expected to be thin and pretty. Or, if the author wants to make a point against fatphobia, she’s expected to be curvy and pretty. Sometimes she’s ugly, but not to the male lead. His lens is the exception to her otherwise plain or ugly appearance.

In other cases, homophobia and transphobia are done away with but gender norms are still intact. That could be interesting to explore if the author is actually willing to explore it.

Worlds without abilism will often forget disabilities are still… disabling.

I’ve read a book that tries to get rid of capitalism. The system they set up gives every act of labor a set of points that can be exchanged. These points can be traded. Everyone’s points are listed in the town center. When asked if this might cause problems where people become competitive about their points or are ashamed when they are in the negatives, the person explaining the system basically said “no,” and then moved on without ever addressing this again.

Well, they also explained that the whole town rallies around those that are in the negatives to help them. This, at the very least, is a privacy concern. It doesn’t matter how collectivist and caring your town is. People are going to want help at their own pace and on their own terms. Broadcasting someone’s depressive episode for all to see is mortifying. (Mind you, the main character went through a depressive episode in the first book and felt shame for not feeling like they contributed to their community enough or correctly. That was their whole arc in book one. Why are we not addressing how this system might have contributed to that in book two???)

Or, what if someone is chronically disabled and can never get into the positives? What if there is no rallying the town can do that will allow them to contribute the same amount or more as their abled peers? Is it not dehumanizing to constantly broadcast someone’s inability to an entire town? The main character would say no, and move on. It will not be addressed again.

The point is, when you take away an “ism,” you canNOT only focus on the surface level. Sexism and racism and abilism and more are not simply issues of blatant, unapologetic bias. They are systemic problems that need to be solved systemically.

Now, what if you do not want to address that at all in your world building.? You want something that doesn’t disrupt the status quo of our world today too much, but you also don’t want to dive heavily into all these systemic issues. You want your escapism set in this familiar, flawed world, but you don’t want to address all those pesky flaws. You can do that! As long as you ensure your fluffy story isn’t accidentally reinforcing oppressive systems, you can still set fluff in our oppressive systems. You must write with intention, or you will end up writing those very biases you hoped to avoid. 

HOWEVER, if you want to genuinely get rid of those oppressive systems for your fantasy world, you HAVE TO do the work. How does getting rid of the rotten roots of our modern society fundamentally change every aspect of the society you are creating? EXPLORE THAT! Then, if you accidentally embed new issues into your world, you can work to get rid of them, or embrace them or explore them. But creating a new world with rotten roots and having the narrative itself–not only the characters who may be unreliable in their biases–ignore all the issues inherent here just recreates the very monsters you sought to destroy.

"We're gonna try to do less invasive procedures before taking out the bone."