women were not banging out spirk fanfiction in the 60s for you to be AI generating your fic
Noah Kahan
Monterey Bay Aquarium
taylor price

shark vs the universe
No title available
ojovivo
we're not kids anymore.
Stranger Things

tannertan36
Misplaced Lens Cap

★

No title available

@theartofmadeline
Fai_Ryy
Show & Tell
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
trying on a metaphor
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Love Begins
todays bird
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from Netherlands
seen from Germany
seen from Canada

seen from Hungary
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Japan
seen from Dominican Republic

seen from Türkiye

seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany

seen from Germany

seen from Italy

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Hungary
@startrekprodigyfan
women were not banging out spirk fanfiction in the 60s for you to be AI generating your fic
I feel like we’ve lost the plot when it comes to criticism. People these days seem to think that there’s an objective number you can quantify to determine a movie’s quality. If it’s not CinemaSins it’s Rotten Tomatoes. It’s all the same nonsense.
When I was younger I had these books: “The Nitpicker’s Guide for Classic Trekkers.” The title alone was a play on the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, so you knew right away not to take it seriously.
Inside these books, every single episode and movie of classic Star Trek was laid out. First with a summary of what happened, then a list of “nitpicks” detailing mistakes or trivia the writer found. These could be anything from simple wardrobe malfunctions, to incorrect turbo-lift numbers, to genuine plot holes.
All of it was done with a tongue in cheek way. You weren’t supposed to take these seriously. The idea that someone would dedicate THIS MUCH TIME to nitpicking a sci-fi TV show was part of the in-joke.
Then something weird happened during the mid 2000’s, and now nitpicking and listing off “sins” for films has become a quantifiable metric people will actually use.
Which is stupid.
Art is subjective. No amount of legitimate continuity errors makes a film automatically good or bad if the positive feelings it creates resonates with you. This is one of the reasons why people love watching “bad” movies.
I just really dislike that something we used to do for fun to show how much we loved a show/movie has turned into this really negative hateful past time and commodified thing. Especially for Star Trek, the show that unironically has episodes like “Spock’s Brain.”
If you showed ChatGPT a picture with four lights and told it it has five lights, it would just say some bullshit like, "You're so right! That picture does have five lights. Good catch."
to be clear, I believe younger artists and minors can write good fics (not to say “fanfic must always be good” either because it is a hobby and I still believe that as long as it’s done with love and the artist’s joy, it is good) and I believe it’s good when younger artists and minors start making art at young ages.
that said, a lot of fanfics out there that you read and love are done by adults with kids, jobs and responsibilities. adults who have years, decades of practice under their belts. adults who don’t let life and responsibilities take away their joy in creating.
someone’s love and passion don’t suddenly go away the second they reach a certain age. so if anything, I feel sorry for people who say “adults shouldn’t write fanfics or make fan art” because what these people really say is that they expect themselves to stop having fun and finding comfort in things that bring them joy and comfort the second they reach a certain age. it’s sad that they put an expiration date on their own fun and source of comfort.
Thank you. Preach.
Tsumugi was right:
Not to toot my fandom’s horn or anything… but the whole concept of fan fiction in the modern sense came about because of 40 year old female Star Trek fans writing slash fiction of Kirk and Spock in the 1970’s…
Don’t let fake fans tell you different, Trek has always been queer 🏳️🌈🪐🚀
I know this is an ice cold take but watching TOS was shocking because I thought Kirk was a womanizer before going in and no it turns out he just loves falling in love.
I blame the 80’s.
The original series came out in the late 60’s and early 70’s during civil rights and the whole hippie free love movement. It was deemed sexually liberating and empowering to be free of judgement and have as many partners as you want. Believe it or not but things like Playboy used to be considered progressive.
But then the 80’s came. And so too did the aids crisis. And suddenly all that free love felt dangerous and reckless. There was strong pushback against women’s rights and conservative values skyrocketed. Moral panics ran rampant.
So all that free love and progressiveness got reframed as womanizing and misogynistic. Even TNG, which started under Gene Roddenberry’s thumb, struggled because it was too much like the original show and people were uncomfortable with how much sex and sexuality was infused into everything (Season 1 was very horny). So all of that got stripped away in later seasons.
There are so many episodes where Kirk defends his female crew mates from the dirty looks and anti-women jabs from unprogressive aliens. It’s almost quaint now because all of that would be labeled as “woke” if it was attempted today…
single funniest entry in Star Trek predicting the future
It is still WILD to me that Star Trek Prodigy exists. This is a show for kids set in the Star Trek universe. So you’d think it’s going to be silly and dumb and childish…
Episode 1: THE HORROR OF CHILD SLAVERY AND PARENTAL NEGLECT!
And it doesn’t stop there! Prodigy’s entire PREMISE is a time travel loop that we only really learn about in season 2. It’s one of the most complicated time travel stories I’ve ever seen and touches upon Star Trek Voyager character arcs and plot lines that no normal kid unfamiliar with Trek is going to pick up on. It’s filled to the BRIM with references that date back to the original 1960’s show, and up through the most recent revival series like Discovery and Picard.
Oh and on top of that all of the characters have to struggle with crazy deep psychological issues. Rok deals with abandonment issues. Gwyn deals with heightened expectations and loyalty to an abusive parent. Dal deals with a loss of identity and self esteem issues as a result. Zero deals with body and gender dysmorphia. Jankom deals with anger issues and not living up to expectations of your society.
This is such a WILD and FUN Star Trek shows, and yet so many people don’t even know it exists! Paramount tried to bury it before season 2 even came out! Nobody who’s watching Trek now is looking for it.
Please for the love of god, check out Prodigy. Give it about 5 episodes. I’m begging you. It’s the PERFECT way to introduce someone new into the Trek universe.
I just started watching Star Trek Prodigy and am halfway through season one and I’m OBSESSED.
I recently finished Lower Decks and it was really good and definitely improved, but Prodigy is just way better than it has any right to be right from the start. The premise is just incredible. The animation is gorgeous. The theme song might be the best in the whole franchise. And then there’s the characters!!!
Dal was annoying for an episode or two but he’s the street smart survivor character done right. Hope is his superpower. He’s also a mysterious alien that no one knows about who looks AWESOME.
Then there’s Gwyndala, the character that is perhaps the most trope:ey as the smart and capable girl except she was RAISED to be like that and her backstory is SO GOOD. Also, her character design is fantastic.
I loved Rok-Tahk from the start because she’s a cute pink boulder who can throw you across the room, but then she gets stuck in temporal shenanigans and becomes an engineering genius in her time alone to save everyone? That’s how you make a 9/10 character 10/10.
And Murf! This gooey alien who doesn’t speak could be so annoying but instead it’s adorable and indestructible? Amazing. I have full faith in the show to flesh Murf out but I love them already.
Jankom-Pog is my least favourite character for now, but I love a contrarian ogre and just like Shrek he keeps it real and protects the ones he loves.
Zero might be my favourite character in anything ever. A non corporeal alien whose real appearance turns you mad? But also they’re just a science loving explorer who doesn’t want to harm anyone? Perfect, no notes.
The show has so many good original characters, but I was scared to watch it because it has Janeway and she is actually my favourite character in anything ever. So you can imagine how happy I am to say that hologram Janeway is a delight. Anytime she’s on screen feels like a warm hug.
As a Star Trek Voyager fan, this show is such a gift. If you like Star Trek, do yourself a favour and watch Star Trek Prodigy.
It is supremely distressing that Paramount is now owned by MAGA billionaires and they have access to the Star Trek franchise.
Star Trek Picard should be erased from canon because it actively taints everything you love about TNG and Star Trek in general.
Did you like Measure of a Man? Let’s not only kill off the robotics scientist who Data had a friendship with after that episode, but also undercut the message by having Starfleet actively create a race of Data like androids anyway.
Did you like the intrigue of Romulan Subterfuge and the Vulcan peace talks with Spock? Tough shit, Romulas is gone and exploded.
Did you like the reformed Borg Hugh and his story of trying to de-assimilate Borg drones? Tough shit, he’s dead.
Did you like 7 of 9’s journey of becoming human again? Let’s show her murdering her former queer lover at Star Trek’s equivalent of Mos Eisley.
Speaking of hurting queer coded characters and minorities. Let’s also give 7 of 9 an alcoholic romantic same sex love interest who constantly breaks up with her through the series and is a mess. Let’s also have the first death in the series be Data’s daughter’s black boyfriend.
Did you like Troy and Riker coming together and their relationship? Tough shit, Troy is dealing with a dead child.
Did you like Q? Fuck you, he’s dead now too.
Did you like Lore? He’s absorbed to bring Data back.
Did you like Ro Laren? She’s dead now too.
I mean for fuck’s sake… did you like PICARD??? Guess what? HE’S DEAD TOO! He dies at the end of season 1 and is replaced with an android!!!!
Like OH MY GOD… EVERY cool character you like in TNG is killed off in some stupid absurd unsatisfying way in this show.
The ONLY thing Picard did right was bring back the Enterprise D… and even then they have the damn ship doing Tokyo drifts through a Borg ship like it’s the millennium falcon. That ship is MASSIVE, it shouldn’t be zipping and barrel rolling like it’s in a Star Fox game.
I’m okay with canon being a little wonky from time to time. Discovery did a lot of weird things and that took some getting used to but I’m okay with it. But Picard? That show ACTIVELY HATED being a Star Trek show. It hated all of the characters and killed them off any chance they got for “shock value.” Season 3 is the best season of the bunch but it’s still riddled with all of the issues the series had from the start.
I just… I just hate that kind of writing. If you’re not going to do anything but kill off a character, don’t bring them back. If you can’t think of anything bad happening to the universe outside of destroying established races and planets, then don’t do universe destroying plots. I thought Star Trek was supposed to be optimistic and about what we need to do to fix things to have a utopia, Picard is the most cynical resentful hateful bleak and depressing series out of the batch.
I hate feeling like this but the longer I dwell on the absolute mess that Picard is, the worse it gets and the worse it drags down the rest of the series I love. I’m not opposed to killing off characters or shaking up the lore. But Picard went full Dalek extermination mode on everything it even remotely touched.
I’ve been saying this for YEARS.
Hey! You know which recent Star Trek series doesn’t have this issue?
Star Trek Prodigy.
You know which recent Star Trek series was nearly abandoned by Paramount and hidden away for tax write off reasons?
Star Trek Prodigy.
🤔
I feel like the PERFECT example of "some filler is good actually" is Trollhunters. Season one is LONG and they really took their time to flesh out their characters/concepts there. Later seasons meanwhile were shorter, faster paced, more serious and pretty much completely serialized.
NOT SAYING that the later seasons were bad or anything, this show is peak all around! But I did sometimes miss the more lighthearted standalone episodes dedicated to fleshing out a concept or character. They were fun and pretty much absent from season 2-onwards.
I do also like 3Below and Wizards but their shorter running time + lightning pace did make the shows suffer a bit. Especially Wizards.
One thing that’s bugged me since Netflix popularized the concept of binge watching shows is this obsessive need to mid/max storytelling. All fat has been trimmed off shows now. It’s nothing but plot plot plot. We don’t have 24 episodes a season anymore, now we only have 9 episodes per season so we gotta go FAST! There’s no time to slow down and learn about the characters or their quirks.
I miss “filler” episodes. I miss just getting to spend time with characters and see how they respond to certain situations. It’s not bad to slow down from time to time.
TOS: what if, one day, we get past all of this? What if we get past all the wars, past our own prejudices, and support each other? What if we actually learn to work together?
TNG: and what if we keep going? What if we get past some more prejudices (surprise - we weren’t actually done with that one yet by a long shot, and we may never be actually. But we’ll keep trying)? And what if we get past our consumerism and manufactured scarcity? What if we give everyone what they need to survive and thrive without requiring anything of them in return? What would we become, when we don’t have to be anything? What do people do when they don’t have to?
DS9: and what if these ideals meet more complex situations? What if they meet complex cultural interactions, and the horrors of war? What if they meet people who disagree with them outright? What if we’re confronted with the way that building our ideal little world has isolated and abandoned some of our own people in the process? How can those ideals persist? And should they?
VOY: and what if you’re alone? Truly, utterly alone. With no backup coming, no reputation to carry you. What if it’s just you, one tiny little ship, and your ideals, in a vast quadrant that either doesn’t know them or opposes them entirely? Can Federation values persist? Can we stick to them and survive?
ENT: and what if we’re not even there yet? One day this path may be a major highway, but what if you’re the first one to take a step on this journey? Can we even get there?
DIS: and what if we’re just too far gone? What if you acted against those ideals, and did unspeakable, unforgivable, unredeemable things? What if the people who are supposed to support and represent those ideals the most lose their way, and weaponize them, and weaponize you? What if it’s all been lost? And the worst has happened? What if you find yourself in the aftermath of a war and disaster you can’t hope to understand? What if you aren’t just alone, but you’re alone and everyone here already knows you? Not just that, but they laugh at you when you try to make a difference? What if hope is lost? Can it ever come back? Sometimes today’s world makes me wonder. If we are more far gone than any of us imagined possible, can we still get back to the world that TOS and TNG promised?
SNW: and what if asking all these questions has taken us away from the mission? What if we’ve lost the plot? What if we take all those things that TOS and TNG were trying to do and update them to a modern world? Do they still fit? Is that form of hope, by itself, still relevant to a modern world?
PIC and most of the movies: and what if everyone tells you to step down, to yield to progress, but you aren’t done yet? Should you? Can you?
PRO: and what if you aren’t even there? What if it’s just the ideas and the means to carry them out? Is that enough? Is that enough for someone, even a child, even a group of traumatized and scared children, to adopt those ideals and carry them forward? Do they actually work without you forcing them? Do they have value devoid of cultural context?
LD: and what if you’re not the hero? What if you’re just some dude, just doing a job, just living a life in this world? Is it really all it’s cracked up to be? At the end of the day, can you still build community, and discover yourself, and grow?
Star Trek: no matter how dark things get, can we still hope?
One of the most common complaints about Star Trek I saw growing up was “why don’t they use the holodeck more? If you were living in that time period and you could just make anything you wanted anytime you wanted and live out fantasies forever, why aren’t more people addicted to the holodeck?”
And then generative ai was created.
And now I get it. I get why nobody on Star Trek spends all their free time in the holodeck. I get why all the crew are putting on stage plays, and holding music recitals, and building models, and playing poker. I get why everyone was so skeptical and mean to the Doctor on Voyager. I get why the ONE TIME we see someone obsessed with the holodeck it infringes on people’s likeness rights and permissions.
Because fundamentally at the end of the day we are human beings and we ENJOY working with our hands and making REAL human connections. A person who learns to play an instrument is always going to be viewed as an artist over someone who asks the computer to generate music for them.
Even as recent as Lower Decks they were making fun of the fact that the crew were putting on amateurish plays and holding music recitals. But after living with Ai for so long and seeing how detrimental it’s been to the world… I’d much rather watch my friends put on a stage play than “participate” in a holodeck movie.
What’s most amazing about this is that it was completely unintentional. I do not for one second think that the writers of the time in the 90’s were really thinking about the larger issues that generative ai and chatGTP would cause. How could they? Text to speech back then was still robotic as heck. More likely they wrote that stuff in because it was cheaper to film on sets the owned than try to build, film, or rent out different locations each week.
That’s the down to earth logistical real reason Data is reciting poems about his cat or Riker is in a play put on in ten forward. It’s just cheaper to do that than to build a whole new set or move production to a new location.
Yet at the end of the day, I think that unintentionally speaks to a very human need that ai is making more and more prevalent to us day in and day out.
And that’s the fact nobody wants to deal with generative SLOP.
the observation at the start is genuinely interesting. and then it just. goes somewhere weird.
first of all, Reg Barclay. that's it. that's the whole rebuttal to "why isn't anyone addicted to the holodeck." someone WAS. it was a whole arc. multiple episodes. the show literally explored exactly what holodeck addiction looks like.
second, comparing the holodeck to ChatGPT is not the own it thinks it is. the holodeck is a fully immersive physical environment. you're IN it. you feel gravity. you smell the rain. you touch things. ChatGPT generates text and 2D images. these are not the same anxiety and they are not the same technology.
third, and this one's important:
"a person who learns to play an instrument will always be viewed as an artist over someone who asks a computer to generate music for them"
people said this about photography vs painting. recorded music vs live performance. digital art vs traditional media. synthesizers vs "real" instruments. every single time, the art world eventually landed on "actually both can be valid" and kept moving. this take has been wrong before. repeatedly.
fourth, the post itself admits the real reason Data recited poetry and Riker did stage plays: it was cheaper to film on sets they already owned. that's it. that's the reason. and then it immediately pivots to "but doesn't that speak to something deeply human" as if retrofitting meaning onto a budget decision is the same as the writers being prophetic. it is not.
the emotional core here is real though. the longing for human-made imperfect things. the discomfort with AI creative work taking up space with handmade creative effort. that's worth sitting with. And it's worth having real, nuanced discussions about.
but a feeling being valid doesn't make the argument around it correct. and dressing anxiety up in star trek nostalgia and shaky logic doesn't make it a better argument. it just makes it more rebloggable.
p.s. the holodeck isn't even a fringe scary technology in the Star Trek universe. it's just. a normal thing that exists. like a TV. holodecks are on earth. they're everywhere. they're commonly used infrastructure.
and traditional art didn't die alongside them. Data still paints. Picard still plays his flute. people still create and perform and make things with their hands and their hearts. the two coexist fine.
which is actually the more accurate Star Trek reading, that new technology and human creativity aren't at war. they just both exist.
and also. the Doctor on Voyager IS an AI. and the show spent multiple seasons arguing that he deserves rights, recognition, and respect as an artist. the post is literally using Star Trek to make an argument that Star Trek would explicitly disagree with.
Are you okay?
This is literally just me having an idea, not me trying to make a logical argument that’ll hold up in a courtroom. We are proposing THEORIES and dissecting THEMES. We are having an entirely SUBJECTIVE discussion here.
You understand that when someone just says “computer give me a table” the computer then generates the table based on the prompt, right Now sure you could argue that these are pre-existing models in the computer’s database and it’s just pulling from there… but then there are instances where characters say “computer generate me a scenario based on X and Y” and then the computer generates a scenario it thinks the person wants. That’s… that’s literally how ChatCTP and SORA and other generative ai works.
Likewise we also see multiple times where the holodeck has to “hallucinate” ideas to keep the scenarios running. Most prominently in a Lower Decks episode where Boimler ignores the pre-programed story and follows side characters instead, forcing the holodeck to generate the story on the fly (badly too I might add).
There are also multiple TNG and Voyager where characters realize they’re in a simulation because the simulation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or can’t generate content fast enough. Most notably in the TNG episode Future Imperfect, where Riker prompts the simulation for answers so fast it can’t keep up with him.
And yes, Barclay. Of course Barclay. But what’s most important about Barclay is that he is an OUTLIER. It is NOT viewed as common for people in the Star Trek universe to retreat into fantasy to such a degree that he does. That’s literally WHY he’s in therapy for it! I can’t stand it when people use these all or nothing statements on what is obviously an edge case within the universe itself.
I don’t think it’s a far leap at all to suggest that the Holodeck is the natural end game for what generative ai will become within the Star Trek universe. And I’m certainly not gonna barge into someone’s threads and tell them how they can or can’t think about ai.
We are supposed to be having FUN here. If this subject pisses you off so much, then go elsewhere. We do not support that sort of antagonistic behavior in our fandom.
The Barclay point is fair. He is an outlier, he's in therapy for it, that's literally the narrative function of his character. I'll take that one.
The holodeck as generative AI comparison is also more apt than I initially gave it credit for, that's on me.
"Computer generate me a scenario based on X and Y" is pretty much prompting. Just really super advanced prompting. Though I'd say only when verbal commands are being given. Because writing a holo-program is actually a complicated process in-universe.
That's a good catch.
I can acknowledge good points when they're made.
I'll also acknowledge that my initial tone was probably more combative than it needed to be. The culture war surrounding AI is genuinely exhausting and dehumanizing to live inside of, and that bleeds into how I engage sometimes. That's not your fault and I'm sorry for it.
What I'm less interested in is "are you okay?" as an opener.
I'm fine. I just disagreed with you. Those aren't the same thing. And I don't need to be pathologized for having emotions or for being passionate about something. Or when those things collide.
And
"if this pisses you off so much go elsewhere"
is an interesting choice after writing four paragraphs responding to me. You had the option of not engaging. You engaged anyway. That's fine. I made the same choice with your post. But you don't get to act above a conversation you voluntarily entered. Just as I did.
And well...your post was publicly visible in various tags. Public forum and all that.
The "#stop defending ai" tag also kind of gives the game away. This was never purely about Star Trek theory.
I'm not here to be antagonistic. I just read your post and had thoughts. Same as you did.
You leapt into my posts with an antagonistic stance, you got an antagonistic response in return. I’m not gonna apologize for being irked with your tone or the way you conducted yourself. As for “giving the game away” the fact that you basically conceded to all of my points and then STILL found something to complain about shows you don’t really want to have a good faith discussion. You’re just angry and want to fight. And I’m not here for it. Engage with me again and I’m blocking you. Good riddens.
One of the most common complaints about Star Trek I saw growing up was “why don’t they use the holodeck more? If you were living in that time period and you could just make anything you wanted anytime you wanted and live out fantasies forever, why aren’t more people addicted to the holodeck?”
And then generative ai was created.
And now I get it. I get why nobody on Star Trek spends all their free time in the holodeck. I get why all the crew are putting on stage plays, and holding music recitals, and building models, and playing poker. I get why everyone was so skeptical and mean to the Doctor on Voyager. I get why the ONE TIME we see someone obsessed with the holodeck it infringes on people’s likeness rights and permissions.
Because fundamentally at the end of the day we are human beings and we ENJOY working with our hands and making REAL human connections. A person who learns to play an instrument is always going to be viewed as an artist over someone who asks the computer to generate music for them.
Even as recent as Lower Decks they were making fun of the fact that the crew were putting on amateurish plays and holding music recitals. But after living with Ai for so long and seeing how detrimental it’s been to the world… I’d much rather watch my friends put on a stage play than “participate” in a holodeck movie.
What’s most amazing about this is that it was completely unintentional. I do not for one second think that the writers of the time in the 90’s were really thinking about the larger issues that generative ai and chatGTP would cause. How could they? Text to speech back then was still robotic as heck. More likely they wrote that stuff in because it was cheaper to film on sets the owned than try to build, film, or rent out different locations each week.
That’s the down to earth logistical real reason Data is reciting poems about his cat or Riker is in a play put on in ten forward. It’s just cheaper to do that than to build a whole new set or move production to a new location.
Yet at the end of the day, I think that unintentionally speaks to a very human need that ai is making more and more prevalent to us day in and day out.
And that’s the fact nobody wants to deal with generative SLOP.
the observation at the start is genuinely interesting. and then it just. goes somewhere weird.
first of all, Reg Barclay. that's it. that's the whole rebuttal to "why isn't anyone addicted to the holodeck." someone WAS. it was a whole arc. multiple episodes. the show literally explored exactly what holodeck addiction looks like.
second, comparing the holodeck to ChatGPT is not the own it thinks it is. the holodeck is a fully immersive physical environment. you're IN it. you feel gravity. you smell the rain. you touch things. ChatGPT generates text and 2D images. these are not the same anxiety and they are not the same technology.
third, and this one's important:
"a person who learns to play an instrument will always be viewed as an artist over someone who asks a computer to generate music for them"
people said this about photography vs painting. recorded music vs live performance. digital art vs traditional media. synthesizers vs "real" instruments. every single time, the art world eventually landed on "actually both can be valid" and kept moving. this take has been wrong before. repeatedly.
fourth, the post itself admits the real reason Data recited poetry and Riker did stage plays: it was cheaper to film on sets they already owned. that's it. that's the reason. and then it immediately pivots to "but doesn't that speak to something deeply human" as if retrofitting meaning onto a budget decision is the same as the writers being prophetic. it is not.
the emotional core here is real though. the longing for human-made imperfect things. the discomfort with AI creative work taking up space with handmade creative effort. that's worth sitting with. And it's worth having real, nuanced discussions about.
but a feeling being valid doesn't make the argument around it correct. and dressing anxiety up in star trek nostalgia and shaky logic doesn't make it a better argument. it just makes it more rebloggable.
p.s. the holodeck isn't even a fringe scary technology in the Star Trek universe. it's just. a normal thing that exists. like a TV. holodecks are on earth. they're everywhere. they're commonly used infrastructure.
and traditional art didn't die alongside them. Data still paints. Picard still plays his flute. people still create and perform and make things with their hands and their hearts. the two coexist fine.
which is actually the more accurate Star Trek reading, that new technology and human creativity aren't at war. they just both exist.
and also. the Doctor on Voyager IS an AI. and the show spent multiple seasons arguing that he deserves rights, recognition, and respect as an artist. the post is literally using Star Trek to make an argument that Star Trek would explicitly disagree with.
Are you okay?
This is literally just me having an idea, not me trying to make a logical argument that’ll hold up in a courtroom. We are proposing THEORIES and dissecting THEMES. We are having an entirely SUBJECTIVE discussion here.
You understand that when someone just says “computer give me a table” the computer then generates the table based on the prompt, right Now sure you could argue that these are pre-existing models in the computer’s database and it’s just pulling from there… but then there are instances where characters say “computer generate me a scenario based on X and Y” and then the computer generates a scenario it thinks the person wants. That’s… that’s literally how ChatCTP and SORA and other generative ai works.
Likewise we also see multiple times where the holodeck has to “hallucinate” ideas to keep the scenarios running. Most prominently in a Lower Decks episode where Boimler ignores the pre-programed story and follows side characters instead, forcing the holodeck to generate the story on the fly (badly too I might add).
There are also multiple TNG and Voyager where characters realize they’re in a simulation because the simulation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or can’t generate content fast enough. Most notably in the TNG episode Future Imperfect, where Riker prompts the simulation for answers so fast it can’t keep up with him.
And yes, Barclay. Of course Barclay. But what’s most important about Barclay is that he is an OUTLIER. It is NOT viewed as common for people in the Star Trek universe to retreat into fantasy to such a degree that he does. That’s literally WHY he’s in therapy for it! I can’t stand it when people use these all or nothing statements on what is obviously an edge case within the universe itself.
I don’t think it’s a far leap at all to suggest that the Holodeck is the natural end game for what generative ai will become within the Star Trek universe. And I’m certainly not gonna barge into someone’s threads and tell them how they can or can’t think about ai.
We are supposed to be having FUN here. If this subject pisses you off so much, then go elsewhere. We do not support that sort of antagonistic behavior in our fandom.