2016-10-25-lightning-cables.jpg

Observation/Notes/Commentary

By: Kira Kristine

Note: written during Winter Tangerine’s 2019 summer writer’s workshop.

WOULD IT HAVE BEEN TOO DIFFICULT TO INCLUDE A MODICUM OF SELF-CONFIDENCE IN MY ORIGINAL FUNCTIONALITY? 

Subject sits among a gathering of purported peers and subject is pleased, having apparently been accepted as one of the same group. They speak the same dialect as subject and contain knowledge of the same items of interest. Subject will have performed acceptably. Later, when alone, subject will replay the social interactions that subject encountered and come to the conclusion that subject either: 

a) spoke too much, too loudly, with too much enthusiasm on too esoteric of interests, or 

b) did not speak enough and “gave off a weird loner vibe” (quote via: {redacted}, age 14, subject’s ninth grade biology table-mate.)

Subject will then make program notes and attempt to alter future behavior.

Suggestion: maybe truncate the propensity to hyperfocus on intricate fictional universes at the expense of understanding when to make eye contact and when not to?

I AM AN AMALGAMATION OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF BOTH CREATOR AND END USERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEVERAL PROGRAMMING ERRORS THAT LIMIT MY FUNCTIONALITY WITH BOTH CREATOR AND END USERS. 

Subject becomes familiar with subject’s limitations in all spheres of subject’s functionality and attempts to compensate. Subject is polite even when harmed. Subject leaves situations where subject is unwanted, even if situation is purportedly one to which subject should be welcomed. When subject is pushed outside of subject’s limits and cannot physically leave and subject’s (admittedly limited) powers of charisma fail, subject may either:

a) form perfect rictus to deflect concern and/or

b) seem to regress in behavioral age to a child i.e: subject may become stubborn, or subject may cry for seemingly no reason. 

Subject will then make program notes and attempt to alter future behavior.

Suggestion: maybe utilize the recommended after-market chemical additives with more vigor regardless of the unintended secondary responses? 

I HAVE CHOSEN A CAREER AND/OR HOBBY THAT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON CREATIVITY AND REQUIRES, IF NOT TOTAL ORIGINALITY (AS HUMAN STORYTELLING IS AS OLD AS HUMAN LANGUAGE, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE) THEN A LEVEL OF INSPIRATION TO EXPLORE AND CHANGE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN AND I DO NOT KNOW IF I POSSESS THIS FUNCTIONALITY IN MY PROGRAMMING. 

Subject agonizes over this piece because subject is convinced that the concept of a robot or android as a device describing an unknowable yet limited self is derivative and trite. Subject realizes that it, of course, has all been done before, but subject pushes forward with this framing device regardless of overwhelming doubt because subject has no better ideas. Subject absorbs the words of subject’s peers’ writing and subject’s processes stutter in comparison. Subject may: 

a) self-sabotage to avoid overt or obvious failure, or

b) attempt to compensate with a manufactured indifference.

Subject will then make program notes and attempt to alter future behavior.

Suggestion: maybe abort utilization of a robot or android or A.I. metaphor going forward. As a pre-emption, perhaps also abort usage of homunculi, takwin, golem, tulpa, etc? On a more base level, maybe a return to formal education is advisable in the form of a master’s degree in something practical, like public administration?

I NEVER KNOW WHEN TO FINISH HUGS.

Suggestion: maybe self-confidence should have come standard instead of the above-mentioned perfect rictus that forms automatically when subject is asked “are you ok?”