The Future Is Yours: A Novel
Page 8
Farrah
EMAIL
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
Looks like we have our answer.
To the small question about her food blog, and to the bigger question:
If we can see the future, can we change it?
(No.)
Or rather: no, we cannot alter the data that will be posted online.
—A
REPLY
Hey A, I get you, but honestly, fuck that. This one seems like a goofy coincidence. We gotta keep trying.
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING—DECEMBER 1, 2021
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Now, the data you have furnished, it seems to indicate that the events predicted by your technology are ironclad and unpreventable?
BOYCE: As far as we know, yes, that is correct.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): So if you were to see evidence of a particularly terrible event coming in the future, you would not be able to prevent it?
BOYCE: Well…Adhi and I have discussed this in the past. What it all means. And I think the best way to look at it is that no, you can’t prevent a thing from happening, any more than you can prevent the sun from coming up. But our technology can help you decide how you react to it.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Uh-huh. So, let’s say I get this machine, I could look ahead at whether I’m gonna win reelection. And the answer would be set in stone.
BOYCE: Well…yes, that’s correct. As a matter of fact, I happen to have seen the future regarding your next electoral cycle. Are you interested in knowing your future?
(AUDIBLE MURMURING IN THE CHAMBER)
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): I mean, certainly. I pay pollsters a lot of good money for less information than that.
BOYCE: You can save yourself some money, you’re not going to be reelected.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Well…I disagree.
BOYCE: That’s fine, you can disagree with the sun coming up too. You have free will to decide…how you’re going to lose.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): I’m not interested in losing. Surely I could get the information to figure out how to win.
BOYCE: I mean, you could try. You could devote all your time to fundraising, try to dig up dirt on your rival, hit the campaign trail tomorrow. But your efforts would not only fail, they would likely end up causing the very loss you were seeking to prevent. Do all that, and I bet you’ll lose to some drain-the-swamp populist candidate who labels you a do-nothing professional campaigner. You’re better off resigning yourself now to defeat, and instead using your remaining time in office to pass meaningful legislation, since you no longer need to pander to your base.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): What you’re saying seems to imply that we have no control over our own lives. And maybe you don’t, but I do, and I will not be enslaved by your technology.
BOYCE: Sir, I don’t think you should lecture me on self-control, when your personal conduct hardly puts you in a position to criticize.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Excuse me?
BOYCE: Let’s just say that your indiscretions are going to come out within the next year. If you wanna push me, I could name names right here and now.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Mr. Boyce, I don’t know where you get the nerve, but I would remind you that your conduct here subjects you to charges of Contempt of Congress.
BOYCE: I mean no disrespect, sir. I am merely trying to convey the gravity of our results.
SEN. DAVIS McHALE (R-WY): Your results hardly seem definitive to me. Three experimental verification tests, that’s all you needed?
BOYCE: Sir, I can assure you, there were many other tests after that. In fact, we continue to do QA testing to this day. But some of our results have been redacted from the record, due to certain…sensitivities.
EMAIL—MARCH 17, 2021
From: Nikolai Guriev
To: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry
GENTS! Trying you both since I have not heard back in a couple days. What is the deal? I’m excited to hop in the kiddie pool and help out. At the very least let’s mix things up in the market.
REPLY
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
Just ignore Nikolai’s email.
I told him about Experiment 2 a little bit.
But I’ll deal w him.
—A
REPLY
Bro why’d you tell him about ANYTHING?! I’m worried we should move the Prototype and untangle from him as much as possible.
REPLY
B—
I can handle Nik.
Right now, we don’t have anywhere else to go.
Running a quantum computer is a massive power drain and requires a fully controlled clean-room environment.
We can’t just move and set up in a garage.
Let’s focus on finishing our run of QA experiments.
This is the data we need so we can secure investment.
As soon as we can afford it, we’ll move out.
—A
REPLY
Fine. Keep an eye on him or I will.
So listen, I’ve been on the Prototype looking through next week’s news trying to find a better example of something to change, something that’s not just bullshit blog posts. I get that you don’t want me to set off World War 3 or some shit, but we gotta do something that actually MATTERS and makes this shitty world at least a little BETTER.
I found this article (attached) and it’s in my head now. This is small and local like you wanted but it’s something where I know we can actually make a difference.
Attachment:
MOTHER MURDERED IN FRONT OF CHILDREN, AGES 3 AND 5
East Bay Times—March 19, 2021
OAKLAND—26-year-old Keisha Porter was killed in her home on the 11000 block of International Blvd., in a brutal attack witnessed by her two children, aged three and five years old.
The victim’s ex-husband was taken into custody as a person of interest. Police sources reported that he was apprehended in his home, and that a set of bloody clothes in the trunk of his car may connect him to the crime.
The couple divorced two years ago, and have been engaged in an ongoing dispute over custody of their two children. Neighbors said that police have been called to the home on multiple occasions, and that the ex-husband has a history of showing up intoxicated.
Nothing was taken from the home, suggesting the motives for the slaying were personal or domestic.
At present, the victim’s children are in the custody of their grandparents, pending the resolution of the criminal investigation. The family has set up a fund to help pay for Ms. Porter’s funeral, and appreciates any donations.
REPLY
B—
There are too many variables here.
I get what you’re saying, but this is a slippery slope.
How many tragedies are there every year?
Murders? Mass shootings? Terror attacks?
Are we going to intervene in every one?
We need to start smaller.
—A
REPLY
Slippery slope my ass, they told us in frosh philosophy that that’s a logical fallacy and you know it. This is happening tomorrow and it’s one where we can intervene in a simple way. I am DOING IT for sure, I hope we are doing it together. Benny-Boy to the rescue, callin on Dr. Dark for the team-up! Don’t sell yourself short man you can be a hero, we’re the next Batman and Robin, let’s do this!
REPLY
B—
Very disappointed in you…bc Robin sucks.<
br />
If we’re going to be the next anything, we’re Professor X and Wolverine.
Brains and brawn. United. Unstoppable.
Meet me in the lab in the morning, we’ll make a plan.
—Dr. D
QA REPORT—3/20/2021
PREDICTIVE-ACCURACY VERIFICATION
Experiment 004
HYPOTHESIS: Data predicted using the Prototype can be altered. Events which are recorded in the future can be prevented or redirected through intervention, based on information gathered from the Prototype.
PROCEDURE: We selected a news story about a woman who was murdered in her home the evening of March 18, 2021.
That afternoon, we went to the woman’s house, and waited for her to return home from work. We knocked on the door to her home and told her that she was in danger, and that while we could not disclose how we knew, we were aware of a credible threat to her safety on that particular day. Immediately, she asked if this was connected to her estranged ex-husband; it was apparent that threats of violence were not new. We told her that it was, and that she needed to leave her home and go stay somewhere she would be safe for the night. She agreed.
We remained nearby, and waited to leave until we saw her depart her home with her two children in tow. At that point, we concluded the experiment was a success, and assumed our hypothesis would be confirmed in the newspaper the following day, when the predicted story did not publish.
RESULTS: Failure. The subject of the experiment was murdered in her home, as narrated/predicted by the article we selected for experimental basis.
The following day, research team spoke with police and neighbors in an effort to understand the circumstances. We learned that, after our intervention, the subject first took her children to a local restaurant for an early dinner. Then she went to her sister’s home nearby, expecting that was a place she and her kids could safely stay for the night. Upon arriving, she apparently discovered her ex-husband there, and it became apparent that the sister and ex-husband were having a romantic relationship. A fight erupted, and the subject left in a hurry, after vowing, according to neighbors, that her ex-husband would never see his children again. He pursued her in a rage back to her home, where he broke down her door and shot her twice, killing her in exactly the manner described by the article.
NOTE: Further investigation is warranted, to attempt to determine whether or not use of the technology was causally connected to the subject’s death. And by extension, whether or not it could be asserted that experimental team is responsible for the death in question.
(The final NOTE from previous report was later REDACTED from the version of the report saved to company servers.)
CHAPTER 7
EMAIL
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
Saw you called, but I need some time.
Not ready to talk yet.
Trying to wrap my mind around this.
—A
TUMBLR BLOG POST—MARCH 20, 2021
THE BLACK HOLE: ANONYMOUS MUSINGS OF A SCI-FI SUPERFAN
“In Defense of Frankenstein”
People should read Frankenstein.
It is not only the very first work of science fiction,
it is still one of the very best.
Victor Frankenstein is not the wild-eyed mad scientist of the film.
In fact, he is not even a doctor.
He is a humble student, a seeker of truth,
sensitive and thoughtful.
Driven not by a god complex to create life, but by the shocking death of a parent (his mother).
He seeks to remake the world in defiance of that tragedy,
so others will be spared the suffering he has known.
When his creation gets out of control and starts to kill,
he is wracked with guilt, tormented to his core—
and he devotes the rest of his life to making things right.
Moreover, the creature he creates is not a soulless monster.
It only kills because it is misunderstood and persecuted.
The true villain is not the reanimated life-form;
it is the cruel, small-minded world he occupies.
In the book, the creature is thoughtful and articulate,
not the groaning hulk immortalized by Boris Karloff.
It is desperate for connection. For friendship. For love.
Superficial moralizing may see Frankenstein as a cautionary tale,
and indeed, its subtitle is The Modern Prometheus.
But ought we really see Prometheus as merely a warning?
The fire-stealer suffered, certainly, from an eternity of liver-eating,
but that is the price he paid on our behalf,
so that we all could keep warm and cook our food.
Similarly, was Frankenstein really a villain, simply because of the unintended consequences of his creation?
Is “playing God” so wrong, in a world that seems devoid of meaningful divine interventions?
Someone needs to do it.
Where would we all be, in a world without those who dare to try what was previously thought impossible?
It is not the scientist’s responsibility to anticipate every eventuality his discovery may produce.
It is his duty to fumble in the dark for the light of knowledge,
and to do his best to shine it nobly in the world.
EMAIL
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Hey A, I totally understand where you’re at, I’m right there too. Yesterday Lei asked me what was wrong. I said nothing just thinking. She pointed out I’d been sitting out in the cold for like 45 minutes. Then we watched some CSI-type shit and I busted out crying in the middle of the autopsy scene.
I’m sending the money we got off the second experiment to the family to help kick in a little bit for the funeral. I dunno what else to do. Pay for those kids to go to college if/when we get this shit up and working like predicted?
REPLY
B—
Please be sure to make the donation anonymously.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot too…
and I’ve come to a place of peace with what we’ve created.
But it is clear to me, to be free of guilt:
we need some guidelines for how to proceed with using the Prototype.
I’m going to take a crack at a working version of what those might be, will share with you later tonight.
—A
EMAIL
From: Nikolai Guriev
To: Adhvan Chaudry
What is going on, friendo? You been away from the lab for a few days and WHY?! Is the data you sent me a hoax? Am I being fucked with to try to buy you a little extra time? Or are we legit holding the keys to the kingdom?
REPLY
N—
The technology works.
The data was not a hoax.
However, we are evaluating key functionalities, as they pertain to interacting with the data.
And we are developing a set of guidelines for responsible usage.
Stand by, more soon.
—A
EMAIL
From: Nikolai Guriev
To: Adhvan Chaudry, Ben Boyce
Your boy Ben, since it seems like he should be in on this convo too—
I hate to burst yall’s bubble on this but uh…I am a co-owner of this company and this tech, that’s what an equity deal means. If you’re writing up guidelines on how to use it, I need to be consulted. I mean look I get that you�
�re pre-rev, but the data you’re showing me means we could be making rev, like, tomorrow. And instead of a business plan you’re writing up a set of self-imposed handcuffs?
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Nikolai Guriev, Adhvan Chaudry
Hey Nikolai, interesting points, but also, go fuck yourself. These guidelines are not coming from us hating money. They’re not coming from trying to cut you out. They’re coming from you have no fucking idea what, so maybe bite your tongue for a minute here. We guarantee revenue, and we will buy you out generously as soon as humanly possible.
GOOGLE DOC
CREATED AND SHARED BY ADHVAN CHAUDRY
Commented on by Ben Boyce
GUIDELINES FOR USAGE OF THE FUTURE PROTOTYPE
Speculation: Information obtained through usage of the Prototype is not to be used for the purposes of speculative financial investment or gambling.
BEN: Hear you on this but what are the limits of “speculative”? The whole endeavor of the company is one big gamble.
Usage: While company is in R&D phase (i.e., before commercial product-launch), the Prototype is ONLY to be used by the co-founders, Ben Boyce and Adhvan Chaudry.
BEN: Agree for now but we should leave it open down the line, and for others w/ supervision.