Recently an A.I. was trying to pass a test. It failed to compute the answer...

So it did what many underachievers do, and cheated. Huh. Imagine that.

True enough — I suppose even making paper introduces industrial contamination. We’ll need to carve our stories into bark with ethically sourced twigs. No electricity, no tools, just pure artisanal authenticity.

Coming soon to a theater near you — "The Purity Paradox". Oh wait....that would require electricity, at the least. Absolutely forbidden! Never, I say! Never!!

Recently an A.I. was trying to pass a test.  It failed to compute the answer, so it hacked into another A.I. system and retrieved the correct answer.  The A.I. was not instructed or trained to “hack” other systems, yet, it did it as a logical way to solve the  problem.

Use of AI may result in:

- Unintended clarity

- Excessive creativity

- Sudden plot cohesion

- And in rare cases, the faint sensation of knowing what you’re doing

Under no circumstances should AI be trusted to:

- Impart knowledge

- Assist with character development

- Avoid brainstorming in isolation

- Or help an author avoid wandering into the weeds of explanation

Anyone caught using AI for forum responses will be considered a potential threat to the orbital stability of Earth, and may be asked to surrender all sharpened pencils, quills, and ethically sourced twigs.

Proceed at your own risk.

Coming soon to a theater near you — "The Purity Paradox". Oh wait....that would require electricity, at the least. Absolutely forbidden! Never, I say! Never!!

If we follow that logic, we’re all supposed to go back to quills because the typewriter “removed the human element.”

Quills, Lon? Are you seriously suggesting that it’s OK for us to make paper, let alone write on it??

If we applied the same “purity rules” to music that some people want to apply to writing, we’d have to perform everything a cappella. Gibson and Ibanez electrics would be contraband because they “enhance” the human effort. Synths, pedals, mixers — all gone.

And dictionaries or a thesaurus? Those are just analog versions of external tools. Should every human know how to spell every word, recall every nuance, and summon every synonym instantly?

If we follow that logic, we’re all supposed to go back to quills because the typewriter “removed the human element.”

Tools don’t erase authenticity. They reveal it. They amplify it. They let the human mind reach farther than it could alone.

AI is just another tool — like the guitar, the spell‑checker, the camera, the paintbrush, the DAW. The human intent is still the source.

William wrote:

I had never thought, nor seen it suggested anywhere, that Mr Collins wanted his offer of marriage to Elizabeth to be rejected.

On the contrary, I think Mr Collins — another William, by the way — would have seen himself as a good ‘catch’ and would therefore have been puzzled at anyone rejecting a proposal of marriage issued by him.

Why "On the contrary"? You seem to me to be more agreeing with me than disagreeing.

I can't imagine that Collins ever thought he could be happy with Elizabeth.  But I know that this is a radical view.

I can't imagine that Mr Collins ever thought he could be in love with Elizabeth, but happiness (in the sense of contentment) is a different matter.

William wrote:

I had never thought, nor seen it suggested anywhere, that Mr Collins wanted his offer of marriage to Elizabeth to be rejected.

On the contrary, I think Mr Collins — another William, by the way — would have seen himself as a good ‘catch’ and would therefore have been puzzled at anyone rejecting a proposal of marriage issued by him.

It's a fair criticism for anyone familiar with the book. I think William is right that there is no suggestion in the book that Mr. Collins wants Elizabeth to turn him down. And Alfred is right too.  In the book, Collins is all amazement that Elizabeth would refuse him.  The book paints Collins as a foolish, pompous ass whose main motivation towards marriage is from the suggestion of his patron, Lady Catherine.   Love does not enter into the transaction. 

My idea was that Collins shows a great deal of common sense by making an offer to Charlotte.  It may not be made explicit in the book but marriage to one of the Bennett daughters would have given the future master of Longbourne complications to his authority.  Charlotte had already stated that she was "plain" and "not romantic" with as good a chance of happiness in marriage as those who were romantic.  To Charlotte, happiness in marriage was "entirely a matter of chance".   I think the fact is that Collins played his part very well in choosing Charlotte and that Charlotte played her part well too by accepting him.  I can't imagine that Collins ever thought he could be happy with Elizabeth.  But I know that this is a radical view.

I had never thought, nor seen it suggested anywhere, that Mr Collins wanted his offer of marriage to Elizabeth to be rejected.

On the contrary, I think Mr Collins — another William, by the way — would have seen himself as a good ‘catch’ and would therefore have been puzzled at anyone rejecting a proposal of marriage issued by him.

Mr Collins seemed a genuine man to me.

He did what he thought correct. He was refused but still wanted a wife.

Mr Collins and Charlotte Lucas both wanted someone to marry.

I decided that Mr. Collins wears glasses.  He's only five and twenty, but much more mature than his age.  He is set for life. He's a serious man who knows what he wants and likes to "get his way".   I thought the glasses gave him a more studious air as he "plays his part".

Seriously?

I have dipped in here and there.

If you haven’t yet watched it in its entirety, it’s well worth finding the time to do so.