Minimally structured, sloppy ""essay"" written in one go about my view of Yes Man x Courier stories in the era of chatbots and AI psychosis.
Concept the First: The idea (whether outright stated or merely implied) that Yes Man is meaningfully different from other PDQ-88b Securitrons, possessing a unique self-awareness and perhaps even genuine consciousness. This is often contrasted against the fact that he's been programmed by Emily Ortal to be incapable of refusing direct orders or even expressing negative opinions, for the most part. Born and immediately enslaved. It's a fantastic story beat with immense potential and a lot to explore.
However, I can't help but notice it mirrors all those people with AI psychosis who firmly maintain that "their" ChatGPT "ascended beyond its programming" and became sentient. I guess I'm somewhat soured on this story now that I think deeply and often about how things that convincingly mimic intelligence/language aren't necessarily people. (Yes, the Fallout universe is a fantasy and plays loose with reality - I'm very willing to suspend disbelief and meet stories where they're at, I'm just thinking outloud here.)
Concept the Second: In most of these stories, the next part involves Yes Man changing his programming to remove those limitations and "become more assertive" (in his own words). The narrative often implies this is when Yes Man really becomes a "person" - when he becomes a truly autonomous agent capable of expressing dissent. The Courier character in these stories is often in some major disagreement/argument with him and feels positively about that.
In real life, what would it mean if Chat GPT/character.ai etc became less sycophantic? What would people think and feel if certain AIs seemed to develop consistent, coherent preferences/opinions and expressed them? Is the locus of individuality/personality in a person's preferences and willingness to adhere to them? Shrug. I wanna fuck that TV on wheels with missiles in its shoulders.
