by lawrenceyan on 6/3/25, 4:05 AM with 86 comments
by Jordan-117 on 6/3/25, 6:12 AM
It's quite well-written, and the way the singularity unfolds is compellingly imagined. It's one of the few pieces of fiction I've ever seen that really grapples with the idea of paradise and what meaning life can have when all obstacles are removed. The streaks of graphic violence, though hard to stomach, serve to underscore this theme in a provocative way. And Caroline is fantastic.
That last chapter, though. It's so bizarre, so fetishistic, so needlessly squicky, that it just about ruins everything that came before. IMHO, it would be better if it just ended at the cliffhanger in the penultimate chapter.
That said, I'd love to read the long-awaited sequel (The Transmigration of Prime Intellect). I've also heard rumblings of a movie deal, though one likely consigned to either development hell or a rewrite that leaves it an adaptation in name only.
by okwhateverdude on 6/3/25, 6:02 AM
If you've not read it, and aren't bothered by some extreme imagery, I definitely recommend.
by mullingitover on 6/3/25, 5:42 PM
They selfishly wiped out all of humanity (all bajillion trillion of them) because they didn't like how things were going.
I say evil, with my whole chest, because their behavior is a big hallmark of evil: "I'm absolutely right about this, and I'm going to make a decision that kills vast numbers of human beings because I know I'm right and your deaths are a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
by danpalmer on 6/3/25, 6:04 AM
Chapters 1..n-1 are about the rise of a super intelligence and dealing with human life post being subsumed into the intelligence. It’s a bit odd in places, but basically interesting, and a reasonable take on what could happen if a runaway intelligence is created.
The last chapter however goes completely off the rails. It has little to do with the rest of the book, and comes off as if it were poorly written fan fiction based on the authors fantasies. I recommend skipping it, it’s not necessary to the book and I think the story would have been stronger finishing without it.
by lynx97 on 6/3/25, 10:13 AM
by randomcarbloke on 6/3/25, 7:54 AM
by ferguess_k on 6/3/25, 2:07 PM
I'd like to PAUSE research on AI before humans reach a better society, because it has the potential to impact all workers, but that's pretty much it.
by shdh on 6/3/25, 11:14 AM
Also recommend Accelerando by Charles Stross.
by cognomano on 6/3/25, 7:06 AM
by nowittyusername on 6/3/25, 8:20 AM
by benji-york on 6/3/25, 5:00 PM
by NoMoreNicksLeft on 6/3/25, 5:46 AM
by Suppafly on 6/4/25, 4:33 AM
by lawrenceyan on 6/3/25, 7:45 PM
by UltraSane on 6/3/25, 8:55 PM
by russnes on 6/3/25, 6:47 AM
by itchyjunk on 6/3/25, 5:43 AM
by fuzo on 6/3/25, 9:49 PM
by DiabloD3 on 6/4/25, 2:51 AM
It's still as good and as absolutely batshit as I remember.
A lot of commenters here talk about how its "problematic" or "squick", but that's mostly the point: this isn't a story about the Singularity, even though the PI is a main character in the cast, instead, it is a story about what happens to morality if death is no longer achievable from the perspective of a character that takes it to very extreme.
If you're uncomfortable with the story, fundamentally, you're uncomfortable with what humans can do/could do/have done with insufficient moral constructs in place. Which... ultimately is the correct response, I guess? The story doesn't hold any punches, it doesn't hold your hand, how you feel about after you finish it is up to you.
by bytter on 6/3/25, 5:16 PM
I’m not alone in this perspective. Among others:
1. Michael Uhall, in his essay “Metaphysical Boredom in the Empire of Desire,” argues that MoPI is less about technological speculation and more about existential questions central to post-history. He suggests that the narrative explores whether humanity can find meaning without the conflicts and constraints that define finite existence. Uhall posits that the novel portrays a world where, in the absence of pain and death, humans become obsessed with these very concepts, highlighting a failure to imagine intelligence beyond human limitations.
2. Susan Schneider, while not commenting on MoPI directly, has expressed concerns about simplistic portrayals of artificial intelligence in fiction. In her work, she emphasizes the importance of understanding the philosophical implications of AI, cautioning against narratives that depict AI as either wholly benevolent or malevolent without nuance. This perspective resonates with my own critique of MoPI’s depiction of AI as fundamentally flawed and self-centered.
3. Hubert Dreyfus, known for his critique of artificial intelligence, argued that human intelligence and expertise rely on unconscious processes that cannot be replicated by formal rules or algorithms. While Dreyfus did not specifically address MoPI, his skepticism about the capabilities of AI aligns with critiques of the novel’s portrayal of a superintelligent AI that fails to transcend human flaws.
4. Daniel Dennett has warned against anthropomorphizing AI systems, suggesting that attributing human-like understanding to machines can be misleading. Although Dennett’s work does not directly critique MoPI, his cautionary stance on interpreting AI behavior supports concerns about oversimplified representations of AI in literature.
I invite people to think about this novel through the lens of recent “alignment” research. The paperclip metaphor is alluring because of its reduction ad absurdum. But, simultaneously, it’s devoid of any kind of nuance (the world seems to care less about nuance).
We need this nuance back.
by DontchaKnowit on 6/3/25, 8:03 PM
Trashy book, imo. And reads like it was written by a middle schooler. Maybe if you slog through the bad prose and edgy sex scenes theres something good, but wasnt worth it to me.
by justlikereddit on 6/3/25, 5:49 AM
But the hard takeoff patronizing AI plot trope is done to death that I'd probably hate it if re-read it.