I like the suggestion, I do think there's some potential confusion with the association of the almighty social media "algorithm", at least for more casual observers. I've heard some more technical folks using the term "Statistical Inference Machine" which I do think presents what is talked about as AI more earnestly. Makes it clear that it only serves to make associations, no "intelligence", etc.

I think that most social media algorithms are machine learned, and would qualify as 'AI' under the current, extremely vague, usage of the term. But, I do quite like 'Statistical Inference Machine', 'SIM' has a good ring to it (perhaps too good, too marketable). Though, I'm concerned it might imply too much human handedness

... now I fear the pursuit of such a development will be, likely already is, stalled indefinitely. For this reason, I suggest pushing back against their premise of 'AI' and carving out a more accurate term, though I'm yet to find anything that properly suits, myself. My apologies for the rant, and, indeed, a very insightful website you have - which I intend to return to and continue, perhaps complete, reading.

Hey, really appreciate you taking the time to comment. I agree, the term AI is misleading as it conjures images of things like SHODAN and the like, which we wouldn't even be in the same universe as with their current construction. If you do come up with or run into anything better, please let me know. Thank you again for reading and commenting!

Tysm!! I would say my main issue with the last two books was Raul. I did and do not like him. Neither as a person or how he developed. I maybe would have felt differently if everything wasn’t told directly from his POV. I found him insufferable. And I did not like his relationship with Aenea. No one in the later books besides De Soya felt as compelling as the main cast from the first books.

I loved all the parts with De Soya!! I love the crucifix stuff. It has been a minute, but I remember feeling like everything was slogged down with too much description. The part on the mountain world sticks out in my memory for being like pages on pages of detail and nothing really happening. Another big problem for me was all the retcons. I found them to be unnecessary and ultimately unsatisfying.

And I did not like the demystifying of the Shrike. I would have been ok with never knowing some things. I still would say the series as a whole is some of my favorite scifi. It was worth reading all of it to the end and I would read them all again. Nothing for me beats Fall of Hyperion though. Oh how I love Martin Silenus!!!! Sorry for the paragraphs XD!!!

I wish Neocities comment system were moderately more robust, since I see no way to reply to a reply — so instead I must reply to myself. I get that about Raul, he's very much just an observer, actually most of the characters don't feel to be moving but instead being pushed by outside forces. And the relationship between Raul and Aenea was rocky at best, but I felt that the author managed to tell it just well enough -

that it avoided the ruin (of the story) it was prone to cause. I quite liked the Catholic church myself, how it was corrupted so readily, my only complaint is that Lenar Hoyt's character didn't make much sense. I think I prefer the second 2 because it explains -almost- all the elements set up by the first 2. I thought the first 2 kind of failed to set up the setting in a meaningful way, and I'm not a huge fan of -

detective or military stories, whereas most of the first 2 are primarily focused on Bawne Lamia's detective work and Colonel Kassad's military tendencies. To be honest, I found those parts to be a trudge to traverse — especially Kassad's. But, they held my interest with the AI mysteries and setting intrigue, which is where I feel the latter books strived.