The Dignity Law... how do you want to live...?

You know one thing I have realized about humans, that kinda sucks, is that even though it's life threatening 'petty' will still crop up. In the situation you're describing, I doubt people would even bother making a constitution. They'd probably be on 'do what they can to survive' and not worry about the 'big picture'.

EDIT: That also brings up the question- how is Seeker helping them to survive? It can somehow manipulate everything but at the same time no one but Baker knows it exists?

 

Kinda out of left field, but still pertains to their need for children thing.

You could have a pregnancy draft, that starts at 18 until about 30.
Have clinics setup and both men and women have to participate,
but there is no contact, beyond getting the base genetic materials
needed for artificial insemination.

(How I got this idea, well don't ask).

 

Which is why I'm throwing it in their face. No more apathy. If you want to do nothing, you get to watch people die from it. If you're okay with that, I'll zap your ass back to primitive language skills, and be sorry for it, but it will save the future(, dammit!). If they're at "do what they can", they'll be ready to "do for each other", especially since there is a plan of what to do, up to a point.
Seeker, though somewhat diminished, is still Seeker. Its "attitude" is unchanged by events. It has given more priority to human survival, all in fact. Remaining unknown keeps its purpose to a non-issue. People would freak if they knew their brains were invaded by nano-gens (not remotely Seeker's fault), and double freak if they knew Seeker was keeping the abomination in check. Their reaction, especially under stress would not be thankful.
Seeker is helping by knowing exactly where everything is at any time, keeping people coordinated and working together, suggesting a course of action, and providing assistance from remaining prepared technology.
The majority of Seeker's manipulations was the prep plan for regional disasters, before the strike. After what's been destroyed, there's just enough super duper automatons, complete instantaneous information and communication, and drones capable of bringing it to people, to at least encourage them. They will definitely guide them. This ain't wandering forty days in the desert, though it may feel much worse
I might break my arm patting myself on the back if I pull this off.

 

Okay, see- survival mode is different than apathy. Survival mode is not worrying about the future, survival mode is worrying about today. If you don't know if you're gonna have enough food for tomorrow, why are you gonna bother trying to have a kid? You might be killing yourself and the baby with that one. Obviously it's different for those who were pregnant at the time of the catastrophe. But at the same time- a shell-shocked apathy just might be a reaction for a significant portion of the population. It takes something to pick up and keep moving after a disaster like that- and not everyone might have it. (And on that note- why is 'zapping back to primitive language skills' a 'helpful' reaction?)

Also I'm not sure about the 'do what they can'/'do for each other' thing. People are primarily selfish- I can see a 'we're better off surviving together' mentality but that doesn't mean that guy who can't/won't contribute just gets left behind.

So how does Seeker keep people 'working together' and 'suggesting courses of action' without alerting people to its presence? Through the automatons? So the automatons bring the people food and water and the like?

 

I'd go farther and say that they're just plain stunned. If someone pulls you from the rubble, you're probably going to go where they tell you, and eat what they give you, and appreciate it at some level. People will be somewhat pliable, early on. They won't quite be ready to engage in debate, likely for long enough to establish, "go here for your next meal", and, "take this lady's arm", or, "help clear this area for the mothers and kids to sleep." If you're ready to act, this momentum will be there to exploit.

There inevitably are already children involved (whatever form). Hope is motivating. If it's clear that children are priority, someone will want to have them, to share that advantage - likely without a word spoken. Again it's a question of momentum, and hope. People are in 'drowning-man' mode. If it keeps them moving toward a goal, I would have no problem taking advantage of it. If the next day's food is provided, then you're likely to follow the day after. Woe unto those that do not.

If you take no advantage to keep them moving, then yeah. It's appalling, but not all will be saved. There's heinous(?) ARPA formulas for casualties of this very kind. Will you stand in sympathy, and die with the unwilling, abandoning the motivated to die also? Besides, those fit to be heroic can have a miraculous influence on the unmotivated. It will be demonstrated wonderfully. There are also formulas for this (derived from ARPA data).
'zapping' is a scene I'm working on where Baker is frustrated he can't save more than just the formula percentage. He is reminded by Seeker that this action will be suppressed, but for the most dire circumstance, and with due consideration.
The story starts with 11? percent survivors. It is a number that will not last, tragically. Would you want to take on that responsibility. I wouldn't. (well, I mean I... dammit!) I did

Rare as they are, the automatons do much to inspire hope, save lives, and thrill and entertain. Gohd, they're so frikkin' cool! They're also feasible right now. Robotics has got it wrong!
(Ooh, who knows the number for Elon Musk?)

 

Aright, this makes sense. Stunned, but there's someone external giving directions. Some might have more initiative, they can handle more complex directions. Some will take off and do the opposite of what their told though, keep that in mind. There is no 'one size fits all' response to human behavior- put two people in the same situation and you're gonna get two different results.

This you're loosing me on. How is it made clear children are a priority? How soon after the disaster? Yeah hope is motivating- but to be honest if I lived through an apocalypse the furthest thing from my mind would be 'oh I need to have kids!' It would be 'I need to find the best situation possible for me and my loved ones.' The automatons point people towards food and water and the like- but what happens when it runs out? What happens when someone decides 'hey I want more I'm going to steal someone else's and/or murder them for it'? Daily survival will probably be a goal for a long time- kids will happen without encouragement.

I'm not sure what the 'formula' bit means to be honest. Yeah its appalling 89% of the world dies- but it's an apocalypse I expect something like that. And why is saving more people an action that will be suppressed? (And on that note- what does 'suppressing' look like?)

I'm going to ignore that last question because I feel like it's an off the cuff joke type. I think you got a solid idea on what the automatons do- but remember reactions to them are probably widely varied. I find it likely there might be some humans out there that get it in their heads the automatons must be destroyed- maybe they blame them for the apocalypse.

 

I've started and rewritten a few posts trying to articulate my problems with this premise without coming across as attacking you. I don't want to, because I think there's an interesting idea here, that could make for a good story. But from what I've got so far, I think I can pinpoint one problem. Namely, the AI is a plot device that really needs to be a character.

In your world summary, you keep using the influence of this AI to handwave any problems or complications, but if it's smart enough to do this, then it should have a personality and agenda. And that agenda (or the methods it uses to pursue that agenda) may not be perfectly in sync with what the characters in the setting or you as the author believe to be right. Indeed, it shouldn't. Characters who are simple mouthpieces for the author usually come off as being annoyingly preachy.

Other posters in this thread have pointed out why people might not trust or obey its dictates (maybe with good reason--having good intentions or being very smart doesn't make someone infalliable), and those problems shouldn't just be handwaved away, especially not with sweeping statements like "everyone will want to have babies" or "everyone will accept one man one vote". They're where the meat of a "creating a new society story" will come from--I'd also suggest looking at historical things like the Russian Revolution of the aftermath of the Black Death, where society was being remade after some big unheaval..

 

Humans: Create nano-gen, trying to control seizures, abandon R&D - too dangerous.
Seeker: Evolving for decades, collecting all information, making investments, covertly controling research.
Military: 911: Steals nano-gens, makes more, uses in Afganistan, kills our guys too, keeps multiplying uncontrolled.
Humans: abomination of nano-gens in every brain, suppresses activity, unless controlled by some miracle.
Seeker: miracle control of nano-gens and electronics, our silent protector, uses our tech to watch us for decades, manipulates tech to create global nano-cam cloud (billions/cubic meter), records everything for 2 decades, makes preps.
Suppression: Seeker let's go of individual nano-gens. Progression: twitch/sting, stop intent, lethargy, weakness, paralysis, unconscious, memory loss, seizures, death, anything else dramatic/believable.
Boom: as self.

I'll have to write an additional vignette for survivors gone mustang. Most die. Some get lucky. Seeker keeps speaking thru any DPD near them. Maybe twitch their step occasionally so they move closer to help?

All these are awesome questions, provoking much thought. Daily survival depends mostly on people gathering and setting up to sustain themselves. If they haven't done so in 30 days, they may die. There would have to be vignettes for success, and failure, and luck. There would be some kids, but not enough in some places. Attrition is going to continue for a long time, too. There are moral, comfort, and pragmatic issues, which is great for the story. It would be irresponsible to neglect contingency planning, which is also great for the story.

There's a happy ending, believe it or not. The point of the story is how we deal with the issues. The greusome entertainment of what happens when we don't is cover for a deep dive into our state of mind as a species perhaps?
Seeker refuses to govern, as do the automatons.
Representation and committy has failed, and a man has been chosen as Administrator. He's unhappy, but willing to serve the people in the form of The Dignity Law.
What do you want him to do? What should he tell you to do?

 

Okay first of all I think @Azuresun has a really good point here. Seeker needs to be a character, with faults and failings, and not just 'omnipresent all knowing AI' plot device. And that might solve your problem too, what does Seeker want to do? What does it think humanity should do? Butt that against Baker and his thoughts and opinions on what humanity should and shouldn't be allowed to do and there you go!

So there's a lot of very subtle manipulations like that. But that doesn't keep 'rogue' survivors from deliberately taking off if they see a drone again. Also why do 'most' die? Humanity survived without Seeker for a long time, I imagine some might do just fine without its direct guidance.

Okay so, the priority on kids is more 'save the living ones' than 'make more' at first. Understandable. Also what do you mean 'not enough kids'? To keep the next 'generation' moving forwards? Just nudge groups of cooperative survivors together into a bigger group.

So, suppression is used very sparingly. Yet with humans being humans, crime and violence are probably going to skyrocket in a bad situation like this. Also if people who mean to do bad are constantly kept from doing it- that's going to be noticed. They aren't gonna be happy about it. Maybe think a bit about how that's going to look and how that might cause conflict between Baker and Seeker.

One thing I have come to realize, is that you cannot 'force' people to be 'better' though going through a trauma. In fact sometimes (most times?) it just makes people worse. I have no confidence in humanity in general, so maybe I'm just projecting, but I see a post-apocalyptic situation and I'm like 'yep, time for all the terrible ways humans treat each other to turn fatal instead of petty.' It sounds like you're projecting a bit too, wanting to show how a 'one man' ruler is more effective than a 'committee'. Which yes, is more effective, but a committee allows for more voices which means it's harder for a dictator to sweep in and turn everything inside out.

 

Aggreed. I was afraid to make Seeker a character so soon cause it starts out as just a machine. I would then describe its turning point to sentience, and let it evolve into a character that develops an idealized definition of humanity. Recognizing this, it would place limitations on itself, and find a Trustee.
Now I suppose I could have it as the narrator, though I need POV to show others thoughts and typical third person stuff. I think Seeker reading thoughts would be hell for the reader! I know I don't have the experience to write that way. Seeker can read common patterns, like intent or decision, because there's a different part of the brain that creates the action, to suppress. I don't know if I can handle more than that?
Should I have Seeker tell its own story as prologue? Then forward or rewind to a different beginning of some sort?

Well it actually could negate intent by disallowing the neural message to action. It can't prevent decisions, only actions. It's sort of a hobbled free-will thing. People will think drones are responsible for suppression, as well as other things than Seeker. It's more fun to watch em flail.
The irony is Seeker only controls the nano-gens by keeping them 'at bay'. Logically, it's off-the-hook because its action is to not do something and let certain nano-gens do what we idiot humans released them to do. Seeker wins, morality loses, except that Seeker doesn't want to play that way. There's an ironic parallel in that Seeker wants a way of relieving its burden of control over humans, the same way Baker wants to get out of leading them as a dictator (The Tyrant).
Rogues. There might be habitable patches within running distance, so we would be directed where he ran, anyway. If an idiot tries to run towards danger or desolation, then yeah, they would be stopped. Their singular impulse to 'harm' themselves, results in a 'pliable' state, so someone can take their hand and lead them to sustenance.
Yes, there will be people who do well alone, and the State will leave them for later, but the story says we all need each other so I will have to take that on as a challenge. God help me.

Not enough survors will make it the whole way, certainly not enough will survive to produce kids, left on their own. In the exodus, two children wont make it alone. Seeker can see them, and any adult near them, and won't let any run away. In that scenario, 'one is three'. Any adult that dies, abandons two children to die. It's a game of numbers, but it's not a game. If you see a kid alone, congratulations, you're a parent! I consider the odds bad for the kids, 50percent make it to ninety days, down to 25percent in 180days, worst case? There will have to be some breeding incentive, or we're stupid. Trust me, in reality, I'm runnin straight for a meteor, not away. Please kill my ass, please.

People will think it's drones. It's going to be fun!
Intent. The model for the brain will be decision/intent, message, action, return message, memory. If the first message is suppressed, there's no memory. That's sorta how anesthesia works. They'll think about it, and it'll just pass. Every time they decide, they'll think it's the first time.

You can intervene in any pattern, IF you do so at the right time - que Seeker. We both project, and I'm a cynic, too. But it's a boring story, that.
Oh yeah, he's not a one-man-ruler - que the Delegate Trustees, chosen by Seeker, not Baker.
Everything's already turned inside out. The committee is everyone, all connected, like we are now, all at once. Only, you just speak, whenever. Seeker is listening...

But me an Baker are listening for that pesky Dignity Law.

 

Aright I am gonna concentrate on fewer bits because I think I'm getting it and don't feel the need to comment on everything. Maybe think of Seeker less as 'machine-to-character' and maybe think of it starting off as a 'baby' almost? Not literally of course, but it starts out cold, unfeeling, robotic, and then gradually starts to understand humanity more and more and gets to be more of that 'character.' But then again if it evolves into a 'character'.

As the prologue, I really don't know. I think it'd be neat to read some Seeker POV but that'd be up to you.

There is so much fridge horror in this build I love it. People aren't allowed to be people, once they decide to do something some other consciousness decides isn't 'allowable' something triggers in their brain and they forget the thing they were gonna do. They try to take off to 'freedom'- that's prevented too.

But also- don't do that thing where you pick a 'theme' and hammer down on it to the expense of the story. You want to show how people need each other? That's a good story! But it can happen on a 'smaller' scale too- five people that have found a little place away from where Seeker 'wanted' them to be and have made a life. Maybe even one person, who struggles more, but still manages to get by. When I read a book that's obvious the author is wanting to preach a message more than write a story, I want to chuck it across the room. I hate that. So much.

You know you don't need 'incentive' for people to 'breed'- they'll do that on their own. This still doesn't explain how breeding would be 'encouraged' though, drones tromping around informing people of the necessity for more children?

Laws are rules aren't my thing, man. XD Just let Seeker and Baker figure that one out, let it be flawed, and that'll enhance the story. Also note that when you codify laws like that, there are gonna end up being loopholes, and be aware what Seeker might do for those 'loopholes'.

 

Done. Let me know if you want to see what I came up with. It's a bit of 'lore'.

What's scary is it's nearly possible, now!

Yup, gotta agree on the op-ed idea. The best solution isn't always the 'best' answer. Every time someone makes a decision, there's a story behind it. It's a really worthy thought to leave some isolated independence as a 'look ahead', something to create after people reconnect to their humanity. It would be Seeker/Baker's responsibility to allow some alternative communities. There's a story in how they would plan that, cause there's no way it's gonna be frontier settlements and wild west. That was shortsighted the first time around. A little freedom, not a free-for-all. Of course, I'd have to write all those little stories, for a dollar.

So it would be a matter of setting something up to let em do their own thing. No woods to run off to, anymore. Some kind of Lover's Lane?
It's funny, I was wondering how I could make use of all that marketing psychology for something in the story. Flying drones-with-ice-cream-cones!
I just hate the propaganda thing. Love to figure out some way to make that fall on it's face!

I have to think of the for-their-own-good thing, and maybe have a knock-down-drag-out fight before Baker agrees to a 'mock constitution', and enjoy the irony of drowning-man-syndrome, as people ratify anything they think will get em out of deep shit! Maybe have a few something's-better-than-nothing conflicts.