by Dan Frey
REPLY
Benjamin,
Look son, I never knew about what was happening with your mom until years after she passed, I’m so sorry about that and wish her parents would’ve reached out to me. I want to be in your life now I’m just not in a position to go hop on a plane. I’m an old man and I got a bad situation here. You’re sitting on millions, married to millions, I know you can afford to share a little. If you want to wait until I can afford to leave work and fly across the country just to visit, then I guess we’re back where we started. It’s sad for me see that my own flesh and blood puts no stock in family.
REPLY
You are un fuckin believable. There’s a million things I wanna say to you now, but I’m gonna cut to the chase and say the one that matters.
THANK YOU. Thank you for leaving all those years ago and freeing me from your toxic bullshit. Thank you for showing me that I had to take care of myself bc that’s what made me who I am today. Thank you for showing me that family’s not just what you’re given, it’s what you CHOOSE. And today I got a wife who’s with me no matter what and a friend and partner who’s like a brother. That’s MY family. And the last thing I need is an old man crawling out of the fuckin woodwork to take what I’ve earned.
So yeah, thank you, now fuck off.
FORWARD OF PREVIOUS EMAIL THREAD
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Hey man, check out the “convo” w my dad. Turns out you were right. Guess you know me too well. Bums me out that that’s what I come from, freaks me out that it’s what I might turn into someday. So yeah I’m just telling you so you’ll like fuckin SHOOT ME if that starts to happen.
REPLY
B—
This is one time I take no pleasure in being right.
I’m sorry if I stuck my nose in prematurely.
I only wanted to help.
I know a thing or two about deadbeat dads, and you are better off without him.
More importantly, you are NOT him.
As a husband already, and someday, I’m sure, as a father.
I don’t need the Prototype to see, you are better.
Your future will be different.
And yes, I promise to shoot you if necessary:)
—A
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, DECEMBER 1, 2021
BOYCE: Look, I’d rather not dredge up all these situations from my personal life. It’s an old, familiar story, OK? I got some money, and it made some problems. I don’t think we need to get into the soap opera of it all.
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): Mr. Boyce, our interest in these matters is not prurient. We are taking a look at how this technology will affect millions of users. It absolutely does matter how it tangles with human relationships.
BOYCE: You can’t ban a technology because of how it could, potentially, affect people’s relationships. Cell phones, dating apps, none of these things are subject to congressional oversight. We’re not talking about life and death here.
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): You are not in a position to define the scope of congressional oversight. And your own testimony has pointed to ways in which the technology actually does create life-and-death situations.
BOYCE: OK, yes, but we anticipate that overall the device will improve human life and safety.
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): Overall?…Mr. Boyce, since you can see the future, let me ask you: Are there people who will die as a result of your technology?
BOYCE: Well…It depends what you mean by “as a result.”
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): That answer hardly inspires confidence.
BOYCE: Look, this is a Waymo situation.
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): Excuse me?
BOYCE: Self-driving cars. Everybody knows they’re coming, the only question is when and how. People argue about what’s the threshold for putting them on the road. How safe is safe enough, right?
Thing is, they’re ready to go already, they’re actually safer than human drivers. For every hundred million miles of human driving, you have around two fatalities. In a self-driving sample set, the rate drops 30 to 40 percent. That means going fully autonomous would save hundreds of lives a year in the U.S. alone. But we’re so scared of people dying from technology, we won’t make changes that will allow technology, on the whole, to save lives. Which, I think, is comparable to the effect we could expect from widespread adoption of The Future.
REP. MICHELLE BAXTER (D-GA): I will simply repeat my question, Mr. Boyce, and remind you that you are under oath and compelled to be truthful: Based on the data you’ve gathered, are there people who will die as a result of your technology, who would not die otherwise?
BOYCE: A more sensible way to look at it is like this: Our technology will be adopted. And I anticipate that fewer people, overall, will die as a result of the adoption. But yes, of course, some people, in somewhat related ways, and certain situations…yes, people will die.
CHAPTER 11
EMAIL—MAY 3, 2021
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Hey man I checked the news today, see the article attached. Kinda freaking out about this. We gotta take a look and figure out what we can do.
Attachment:
NEWS ARTICLE DOWNLOADED THROUGH TF1 PROTOTYPE
FLOODING AT “THE FUTURE” STORES BLAMED ON CYBERATTACK
May 3, 2022, San Francisco, CA
Customers were just starting to stream into the company’s flagship retail location in the Mission District at the beginning of the day when alarms suddenly sounded and overhead fire-control sprinklers were activated. As a downpour drenched the store, workers moved quickly to escort customers outside and cover as many of the floor-model units as possible. Major damage was done, both to the expensive inventory and to the company’s already-embattled reputation.
Nearly identical scenes played out at five other retail locations around the country, in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Austin, Chicago, and New York, all at the exact same time. Officials report that there was no actual risk of fire at any of the stores. Rather, it is believed that the systems were activated by a coordinated hack, which resisted attempts at override.
As a result, water continued to pour down on the interior of each store for hours, until fire crews arrived and were able to manually override the systems. Based on initial reports, there were no injuries, but it is estimated that more than $5,000,000 worth of inventory was destroyed.
Police and FBI investigators are still attempting to determine who was responsible. “Based on preliminary evidence, we’re confident it was a deliberate attack,” said Police Chief Raymond Bautista of San Francisco. Investigators are scouring the store locations for physical evidence, which they say could take several days, while the FBI’s Cyber Terrorism Task Force has opened an inquiry as well.
The multiplicity of attacks appears likely to have been the result of a coordinated operation, carried out by a group with agents operating in several cities. The Future CEO Ben Boyce appeared to affirm this view: “We are being targeted by a fringe group of Luddites, who do not reflect the widespread enthusiasm for our technology.” He added that customers have nothing to worry about. “Moving forward, we will be re-evaluating our security protocols, both in our stores and online.”
Since it became available to the public at the beginning of the year, The Future technology has been highly divisive. While many early adopters hail it as a giant leap forward for the information economy, think tanks have warned of the device’s potential to sow widespread chaos. Some religious groups have viewed it as an indicator of end times, and certain fringe sects have vowed to oppose it by any means necessary. Government watchdogs continue to debate regulation that would dictate how and
if the devices could be sold at all.
At present, there are no plans to cease sales of the product, The Future 1, or to disrupt operations of the company.
ADDENDUM:
As of press time, this paper has declined to participate in publication of future-projected information obtained from The Future 1 sources. Until we are confident in The Future 1 as a stable information source, we will not present such prognostications as news.
REPLY
B—
Yes, this is certainly unfortunate.
But not particularly surprising, given the resistance we’ve anticipated.
And knowing the way our technology works…what can we do?
—A
REPLY
Dude, this means people are gonna be actively trying to SABOTAGE our company. And look at how they’re doing it! It’s like the prank in the library back in the day. It’s somebody who KNOWS US and is trying to fuck with our heads. We gotta figure out who’s gonna do it and stop them.
REPLY
B—
The connection to the library…maybe.
But this is a fairly common way to carry out a cyberattack with IRL results.
More importantly, why bother trying to preemptively investigate, when we know there’s nothing we can do about it?
Or to put it another way—if there is anything we can do, then the technology we’ve created is useless.
Then what it sees is not the future, but one possible future.
If that is the case, then our whole business plan will collapse.
—A
REPLY
I disagree, I think there’s a LOT we can do. Beef up security protocols. Figure out who’s gonna do it and stop them! We’ve got a year, so let’s be the heroes that solve the mystery and SAVE THE DAY. I’m gonna loop in Paolo and get his help to figure it out.
REPLY
B—
Do not send this to Paolo. Or anyone.
Do not try to get more info about who is responsible.
Doing so will only entangle your fate with theirs.
Think about the mother we tried to save in Oakland.
You will only re-create that situation.
You need to forget it and delete that article.
—A
REPLY
NO. WAY. Not OK. I’ll leave out Paolo yeah, fine, but we gotta figure something out, I’m not about to just sit on this.
REPLY
B—
Look at what happened to Nikolai.
He looked into his own future…
and as far as we can tell, doing so merely caused his own death.
Moreover, think about your own role in that situation.
If you hadn’t been there and argued with him about the technology…
if his state of mind had been different…
then his fate (and the future he foresaw) might have been entirely different.
—A
REPLY
Yo man, that is a low blow bringing up Nikolai and honestly so fucked up I don’t even know where to begin.
Are you seriously not gonna take any action here? Super disappointing. That’s not the Adhi I know. The Adhi I know is a fuckin ENGINEER. And when I asked you what that really meant freshman year, you told me it means a PROBLEM SOLVER.
So, it’s time for a next step. We need a machine that goes beyond just “information.” One that lets you actually CHANGE things. Otherwise, we’re on a collision course with an iceberg of inevitability.
In short…yeah, we got a problem here. Both of us, together. Now, are you gonna run out and leave your friend holding the bag on this? Or are you gonna strap in and do your best to find a SOLUTION?
TUMBLR BLOG POST—MAY 6, 2021
THE BLACK HOLE: ANONYMOUS MUSINGS OF A SCI-FI SUPERFAN
“Krishna Was an Alien”
I would like to advocate for classifying religious texts as science fiction.
We have learned enough to dispense with any factual claims they make…
but they may still entertain us, even enlighten us,
if we can view them as made-up stories about extraterrestrial beings.
Sci-fi, like religion, is concerned with the big questions, the cosmos,
epic metaphors to explore the human condition.
The last time a “major” religion was invented (50 years ago)
it was called Scientology, and was created by a failed sci-fi writer.
Perhaps we can all agree to view the Bible less as sacred scripture,
and more as the precursor to 2001 and Dune.
Being versed in the Hindu religion of my family,
I have found myself drawn recently to the Bhagavad Gita,
which becomes far more readable when viewed as a story of alien visitation.
The whole thing begins with Arjuna, sitting on a ridge,
preparing to lead his men into battle.
Desperate to win, to prove himself.
Then the many-headed god Krishna descends to Earth in a flying chariot
(clearly a spaceship, described in the language available 2000 years ago).
Krishna is a 4-dimensional being, timeless,
able to see all events past, present, and future
(much like the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse Five).
Krishna reveals to Arjuna the outcome of the battle,
and even worse, the meaninglessness of the war he is engaged in.
The illusion and vanity of all human endeavors.
After this wisdom is imparted, Arjuna is prepared to leave it all behind—
to call off the battle, and go home with his men.
But Krishna tells him no.
If he leaves, he will leave alone.
He must fulfill his dharma (his duty).
So it is Arjuna’s burden to fight, and drown the battlefield in blood,
even when he knows better.
Most scholars see his dilemma in terms of destiny,
but I would call it the curse of enlightenment—
seeing the futility and meaninglessness of it all,
but still gripped with the need to win.
Still desperate to prove his mettle.
Still attached, by the bonds of human connection, to his army.
He has no choice but to lead them into the fray,
because if he does not do his duty, he does not know who he is.
The knowledge and wisdom of the gods do not save him—
they merely alienate him from his men,
and leave him deeply, fundamentally alone.
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING—DECEMBER 1, 2021
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): Mr. Boyce, have you considered, in the least, the larger implications of this technology, on a moral and spiritual level?
BOYCE: Excuse me?
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): Meaning what this might mean for the soul of the person using it.
BOYCE: No, ma’am, I do not see it as really the purview of a science and technology hearing to get into…religious questions like that.
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): I can feel you snickering at my question, and I’m aware that a California liberal like yourself might not give much thought to such matters. But as the representative of my constituents, 90 percent of whom self-identify as Christians, and all of whom will be affected by your technology, I think you ought to consider how a machine that effectively destroys free will might impact the eternal souls of all of us.
BOYCE: Is there a qu
estion for me to answer here?
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): The Book of Revelation refers to the rise of “a charismatic leader who will deceive the world with his gift of Prophecy.”
BOYCE: Oh, so I’m one of the horsemen of the Apocalypse.
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): You’re the one who said it. Matthew tells us that there is no virtue without choice, yet your machine takes that away. And our nation is built on the value of freedom, yet you give us a technology that tells us we have none.
BOYCE: Listen…I’m not the bad guy here. Our technology is not destroying the fabric of the cosmos, it is just delivering information. And I have been actively engaged in trying to protect the possibility of choice, from the very beginning. I am confident, in time, when we get to another level with our technology, we will actually open up a whole new level of personal freedom.
SEN. ELEANOR BALLENTINE (R-NC): What’s that mean, another level?
BOYCE: I’m sorry, but I am neither able nor willing to discuss that at this time.
REPLY (TO BOYCE’S EARLIER EMAIL)—MAY 7, 2021
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
I have been giving the matter of agency and inevitability some thought.
