AI is not a panacea. This assertion may seem counterintuitive in an era where artificial intelligence is heralded as the ultimate solution to myriad problems. However, the reality is far more nuanced and complex. AI, at its core, is a sophisticated algorithmic construct, a tapestry of neural networks and machine learning models, each with its own limitations and constraints.
The allure of AI lies in its ability to process vast datasets with speed and precision, uncovering patterns and insights that elude human cognition. Yet, this capability is not without its caveats. The architecture of AI systems, often built upon layers of deep learning frameworks, is inherently dependent on the quality and diversity of the input data. This dependency introduces a significant vulnerability: bias. When trained on skewed datasets, AI models can perpetuate and even exacerbate existing biases, leading to skewed outcomes that reflect the imperfections of their training data.
Moreover, AI’s decision-making process, often described as a “black box,” lacks transparency. The intricate web of weights and biases within a neural network is not easily interpretable, even by its creators. This opacity poses a challenge for accountability and trust, particularly in critical applications such as healthcare and autonomous vehicles, where understanding the rationale behind a decision is paramount.
The computational prowess of AI is also bounded by its reliance on hardware. The exponential growth of model sizes, exemplified by transformer architectures like GPT, demands immense computational resources. This requirement not only limits accessibility but also raises concerns about sustainability and energy consumption. The carbon footprint of training large-scale AI models is non-trivial, challenging the narrative of AI as an inherently progressive technology.
Furthermore, AI’s efficacy is context-dependent. While it excels in environments with well-defined parameters and abundant data, its performance degrades in dynamic, uncertain settings. The rigidity of algorithmic logic struggles to adapt to the fluidity of real-world scenarios, where variables are in constant flux and exceptions are the norm rather than the exception.
In conclusion, AI is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic bullet. It is a complex, multifaceted technology that requires careful consideration and responsible deployment. The promise of AI lies not in its ability to solve every problem, but in its potential to augment human capabilities and drive innovation, provided we remain vigilant to its limitations and mindful of its impact.
slash did disrespect the dead but at least he's not leaving the bodies out to rot like a spectacle for all to see. HORRENDOUSLY low bar, i know, but ... eugh
Like... he left Misty's corpse out there for at least a day, maybe longer. Wind Runner and Gorse HAPPENED to find it, and that lead to the Bumble death scene. Clear Sky disrespecting the dead was a relevant plot point.
But the team doesn't remember their own books so they've just totally forgotten that!
Edvard's Supernatural Guide: 4x02 Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester
Time, familiarity, and a two-decades long acquaintance with Buffy and Angel have desensitised me to the idea of an Apocalypse in my television shows, so much so that Bobby’s revelation in this episode that they are dealing with an Apocalypse makes little impression on me. I even remember not being especially affected by it upon first watching this episode in 2015: The end of the world is an average Thursday for Buffy, after all, and I have watched this episode so many times that my reaction to Bobby was first ‘You mean you hadn’t already worked that out?’ For the first-time viewer, however, this is an unexpected escalation and recontextualisation of what came before, such as Azazel’s (Yellow-Eyes’) plans and the involvement of Lilith who was around long before Abraham decided to cut his son’s penis up and start a religion.
The Apocalypse in question starts with the Rising of the Witnesses, i.e. the dead being resurrected as ghosts to take revenge on those who failed to save them in life. This takes the form of people from Dean, Sam, and Bobby’s past returning to exact revenge for failing them. Whether or not the dead in this episode actually blame the hunters they kill for their deaths is up for debate, but is ultimately beside the point. The hunters blame themselves for getting those people killed, and the witnesses can be seen as a manifestation of their guilt. As with 2x04 Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things, comparisons with Stephen King’s Pet Sematary are apt.
The actual thoughts of the dead in this episode are apocryphal because Lilith raised them for a certain purpose, and her influence on their behaviour and thoughts is never specified. Whatever the case may be, a mark on the deads’ hands leads Bobby to the Book of Revelation (as well as other ‘pre-Biblical sources’ including stuff in cuneiform), and thence to the conclusion of Biblical Apocalypse. The only reference to ‘witnesses’ I can find in Revelation is Revelation 11:1-14, the most relevant part being 7-14 where the prophets/witnesses are killed by the Antichrist (the Beast from the Sea/Abyss) in Jerusalem, only to be raised by God three and a half days later and assumed into Heaven. Following that there came an earthquake and lots of dead people.
This bears little resemblance to the witnesses in 4x02 Are You There, God? Other than being resurrected during an Apocalypse. That said, Bobby claimed to be using sources not available to the general public, i.e. parabiblical sources, which is essentially writer-speak for ‘inspired by’.
I wrote a few paragraphs ago that the Apocalypse in Supernatural begins with the raising of the witnesses, but that is just the first the viewer sees of it. The Apocalypse actually began while Dean was in Hell with the breaking of the first Seal, but more on that in my hopefully-not-too-distant analysis of 4x16 On the Head of a Pin. In the penultimate scene of the episode, Cas talks to Dean about other conflicts between angels and demons that week as well as other seals which have been broken, the seals being essentially locks on the cage keeping Lucifer imprisoned in Hell.
(Writing that reminded me of The Wheel of Time where Shai’tan is kept imprisoned by seals. I wonder whether this is where the idea of Supernatural’s seals came from, and whether the idea behind all of them is Morgoth in The Silmarillion.)
Regarding the penultimate scene of the episode, Paula had this to say:
There are also strong biblical allusions to Dean as a Christ figure in this episode, notably the conversation between Dean and “his” angel, Castiel, at the end. The comment, “You expect the angels to just follow you around?” is not only prophetic within the show, but also a reference to the New Testament and Satan’s temptation of Christ. Castiel is neither cute nor befuddled the way people thought he was becoming in seasons five and six. He is a dark shadow – sinister, cold and uncaring. What’s shocking is not the way he threatens Dean at the end (lying like a rug, as we find out later), but the fact that he even bothered to come down and fill Dean in on what was going on. This is a major hint that Dean’s overt place in the universe just got a huge upgrade.
(Read her analysis here)
In short, Dean has now gained such cosmic significance that Cas pretty much is following him around. However, mention of Cas raises the topic of angels, God, and intervention. One of the reasons it took me quite a while to like Cas at first was his pissy attitude followed by his threat to throw Dean back into Hell. As I have written before, Dean is the dog in the show, and woe betide you if you kick him. That said, the threat was completely empty and was just Cas trying to save face by trying to pull rank on Dean. It was an act of prickly narcissism from somebody utterly unaccustomed to having his word or the word of God questioned and challenged.
The pissy attitude preceding the threat was angelic haughtiness. Dean was completely correct in calling Cas and the angels out for not helping them. Something along the lines of ‘I accept it looked like negligence to you, but we had our own battles to fight and could not spare anybody. I’m sorry you had to do this alone’ would have worked fine as a response, but Cas responded with anger which perhaps suggests he knew the angels had done something wrong but refused to take responsibility.
Of course, angels in Supernatural do not make their own decisions, and therefore refuse to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They are just soldiers ‘following orders’. Furthermore, they do not question what they are doing, the orders they are given, or those giving the orders. They are capable of it, but cultish brainwashing and control has stopped them doing so. Cas, however, was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, though it took meeting Dean for it to become apparent. The angels are in essence an abusive, domineering, and controlling family and cult where everybody must obey and sacrifice their own identity and will for the benefit of those in control. The penalty for not doing so is severe, such as what will soon happen to Anna, and Naomi’s treatment of Cas in series 8.
It is fitting that the catalyst for Cas’s change from obedient soldier and cult member to rebel and outcast should be Dean. After all, Dean was raised to be Daddy’s blunt little instrument, but now sees John and his childhood for what it really was and longs for freedom and self-determination. Dean and Cas are on similar paths, but Dean is further along than Cas is.
Returning to the topic of God and intervention, in her analysis of this episode, Paula launched a defence of God who she argues is the target of undue slander and attacks in the show. In the penultimate scene, Dean asks why God does nothing to help in spite of genocide and apocalypses (and John), the inference being that God allows all this evil to happen due to negligence and laziness. Paula’s defence of God is that he gave people free will as a gift and cannot be held responsible for what people choose to do with that.
I can see the point she is making, but she made that point in roughly 2011, long before the truth of God was revealed in Supernatural. I still disagree with it. For argument’s sake, pretend that people in the Superverse have free will given by God and that God is not responsible for individuals deciding to use that to harm others. We can accept that God is not directly responsible for the evil action, but that does not absolve God from doing something to stop it, or at least punish the evildoer.
If my parents had given me a brick for my tenth birthday and I had chosen to put my gift in a pillowcase and hit my sister over the head with it, the responsibility for the action would be mine, but the responsibility would be on my parents to ensure it never happen again and that I am duly punished for my actions. It would be a strange person who would defend any inaction on the part of my parents by saying ‘It’s not their responsibility, you chose to do it and your sister can’t expect your parents to come in and save her when her brother’s being a douche.’
We are also not talking about minor infractions such as giving my sister a pillow-bashing, but millennia of people being killed by monsters and demons,, as well as the aforementioned war, genocide, and disease etc. To make things more personal to the characters, almost everybody Dean knows, loves, and cares about has been killed by monsters and demons. His whole life – 25 years at this point in the show – has been dominated and defined by death and John’s suicidal revenge quest. Dean’s ‘gift of free will’ had nothing to do with this. Sure we could argue that Dean ‘chose’ to remain with John even when he was old enough to look after himself, but I will credit my readers with enough intelligence to see the flaw in that logic without me pointing it out.
I am reminded of a line in Sofi Oksanen's book Samaan virtaan: Putinin sota naisia vastaan ('Crossing the Same Stream: Putin's War against Women') which said something to the effect of: you will not find a woman in occupied Ukraine who would say no to sex with a Russian soldier, because all the ones who did refuse are dead.
I am also reminded of the film God on Trial where Jews in Auschwitz put God on trial for having broken his covenant with the Jews. When the subject of ‘free will’ is raised, one prisoner recounts a story of another prisoner whose children were taken to be executed. The man ran after the car with his children in it, shouting for it to stop. The car stopped, and when the man caught up, an armed soldier took his children out of the car and said ‘Pick one.’ ‘Free will’ does not apply here.
This is of course only really a problem is we assume that God is both omnipotent and benevolent. A simple solution to the problem of evil and suffering is that God can stop it but chooses not to, in which case he is not good and evil exists because God is evil; or God wants to stop it but cannot, in which case he is not omnipotent.
The whole argument is also based on the a priori claim that free will exists at all. Richard Dawkins has plenty to say on that subject, but in the Superverse it is safe to say that free will is a very shaky proposition and that God is the architect of all the suffering in the show, so he absolutely is accountable. As for a hypothetical real-world God, attempts at absolving him/her/it of responsibility (theodicy) read like people lying to themselves in order to avoid cognitive dissonance so they can keep entertaining a fantasy.
Moving on, Bobby’s revelation of Biblical Apocalypse is preceded by Dean and Sam having a heated discussion about whether or not to believe Cas is actually an angel. Dean is being a bit of a denialist blockhead in this scene, though Sam has always wanted to believe and jumps on anything which confirms his bias. They have plenty of evidence to support the idea that Cas is an angel, such as Bobby’s sources which claim only an angel can rescue a person from Hell (though as Paula pointed out, any Crossroads Demon or King/Queen of Hell should be able to do the same), so Dean is wrong to dismiss the idea outright.
His caution and scepticism are understandable, and his resistance reminds me of his inability to believe in miracles in 1x12 Faith and angels in 2x13 Houses of the Holy. In both cases, he was actually correct to be doubtful. However, the main reason for Dean’s resistance here is grave discomfort with the idea of God taking a personal interest in him and his consequential cosmic importance. This is unfortunately something he – and Sam – are going to have to accept and live with for the next 12 years: their lives are no longer their own. In fact, they never were to begin with.
By the way, Bobby claimed that he had pre-Biblical sources, including some in cuneiform, which say only an angel can pull a person out of Hell, but our concept of Hell did not exist in pre-Biblical times (unless I have been grossly misinformed).
Turning the discussion back to the witnesses, Lilith’s choice in people to resurrect was strange (and implies these people were in Hell): I can understand Meg, but Henriksen was an antagonist who appeared in three or four episodes and only switched sides at the last minute. Ronald was a one-shot character who died because of his own stupidity, and I have no idea who the twins are and I do not care enough to find out. The likeliest reason for these characters specifically being included was actor availability, but better choices would have been one or two of the psychic children, Layla from 1x12 Faith, as well as John and/or Mary, people whose deaths Dean and Sam would have felt more personally responsible for. As for Bobby, his wife would have been a natural choice rather than two random children never mentioned before and never mentioned again.
That being said, I did like the inclusion of Meg, and enjoyed seeing Nicki Aycox acting as someone other than the annoying Meg 1.0. Paula described her as successfully portraying the right mix of anger and self-pity. In spite of the fact she was completely wrong about Dean being to blame for her and her sister’s death, it was definitely believable that Meg might think that of the man who not only ‘failed’ to save her, but was directly involved in her death.
Remember how wrathful he was in 1x22 Devil’s Trap while exorcising Meg 1.0? Meg remembers (if we assume it really is Meg). Vanquishing her with the chandelier was significantly less wrathful, but certainly a clever solution – and people say Dean is stupid.
As for her ‘Do you have any idea what it’s like to be ridden by evil for months?’ etc, he might have a better idea than she thinks. He was 29 when he went to Hell, and 69 (or thereabouts) when he was saved. Stuff happened down there.
Before moving on, here is a quote from Paula’s analysis:
We get that it’s unfair of someone like Meg to be resentful of Dean like that. Yes, Dean hurt her when going after the demon inside her, but he didn’t realise it until Bobby told him. After that, he did what he could for her host. And while Meg is innocent of what her possessing demon made her do, that would not let her off the hook if she had been caught and sent to prison or a mental hospital. People still died by her hand and any normal person would feel horribly guilty, regardless of the fact that she or he was unable to stop it (Think of the mother from “I Believe the Children Are Our Future“). So, feeling guilty is hardly an indication of actual guilt.
Hendrickson isn’t even an innocent. He accuses Dean (and Sam) of getting everyone in the police station killed. However, the brothers would never have been there in the first place had it not been for Hendrickson’s relentless ambition and drive to make his career on Dean’s arrest and ruination (regardless of whether or not Dean truly was guilty of what Hendrickson believed about him). Hendrickson essentially admitted to Dean in “Jus in Bello” that it wasn’t about justice or even revenge. It was about his career. So, if we’re looking at who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of Hendrickson and the others (aside from the most directly guilty one – Lilith), it’s Hendrickson, himself.
And again, Ronald was not really an innocent, either. He was so fixated on vindicating himself and his friend that he took an entire bank hostage and got others killed (as well as himself) by locking them in with a shapeshifter. You could argue that Ronald’s actions helped catch it and that could be true. But if you’re going to judge the brothers for a hunt going horribly wrong, you can’t let Ronald off the hook, either.
This is perhaps the most disappointing part of the episode. We are told that the Witnesses are “rabid” and can’t help themselves. They’re in agony and taking it out on those who failed to save them. Well, okay. But for us to buy the central moral dilemma (that their torture is unfair), we have to sympathise with them, even a little, and they just aren’t sympathetic. They are unrelentingly selfish and bloodthirsty.
Unfair but understandable gripes with Dean aside, Meg was in the perfect position to call Sam out on his hypocrisy and generally gross behaviour with Ruby. Not a single word she said to Sam was untrue, and I was surprised that of all the times for somebody to rightfully drag Sam, it would be in a script written by Sera Gamble, but whatever the case, I live for Meg dragging Sam.
Sam also took a fair bit of whumpage in this episode which is also unusual because normally Dean is the one getting knocked about. Getting his faced smashed into the sink by Henriksen at the beginning was especially nasty. Not only was getting hit that hard probably enough to knock him unconscious and cause some internal damage, but I have no idea how his face was still intact after that. If Dean had not come and blasted Henriksen from behind at the last minute, things could have got really nasty. Probably not as nasty as the death Henriksen claims the people at the police station in 3x12 Jus in Bello endured, but still nasty.
Mopey!Sam made a momentary appearance in this episode after Henriksen whaled on him, taking a moment to for a self-indulgent moan about how he and Dean did get Henriksen et all killed, something which dean thankfully puts a stop immediately by saying ‘If you’re not thinking of a solution, don’t be thinking at all’ or somesuch. Ms Gamble, what happened to you over the summer holiday?
Soon after the Henriksen incident, Dean and Sam arrive at Bobby’s house to find him missing. Rather than being sensible and sticking together (Gamble wrote this), the brothers split up with Dean checking upstairs alone and Sam checking the salvage yard alone. While Meg accosts Dean upstairs, Sam somehow manages to work out Bobby is in the back of a van by seeing a reflection in a car wing mirror (I have no idea how that worked) and gets twatted into a car’s windscreen. Why the girls kept Bobby alive for so long is never explained (Gamble wrote this). Bobby and Sam dispel the witnesses with iron around the same time Dean drops a chandelier on Meg.
Shortly thereafter Bobby introduces Dean and Sam to the panic room which he knocked up when he had a free weekend. Presumably this room is a new addition since he made no mention of it in 1x22 Devil’s Trap or 2x14 Born under a Bad Sign when it would have been really useful. Whatever the case, this is where Bobby comes to the conclusion of Biblical Apocalypse, and finds a spell to help vanquish the witnesses. Unfortunately, the spell needs to be cast over an open fire, which necessitates leaving the panic room to get spell components, as well as doing the spell in the living room at the hearth. ...For some reason.
Why on Earth an open fire in the panic room would not work is never explained (Gamble wrote this). Gamble tried to lampshade this problem by having Bobby say ‘What, you thought things would get easy all of a sudden?’, but pointing out the problem with writing does not make the problem go away, like Bobby appearing out of nowhere in 3x04 Sin City. The spell components not being in the panic room is completely believable, but the idea that the spell cannot be performed over a disposable barbecue or a bunsen burner is less so. Of course if they stayed in the panic room, we would not have had the scene fighting the ghosts at the end of the episode, but if the characters have to act stupid to get the final scene as planned, the writing is flawed.
Other flaws in the writing becomes apparent in the scene where Henriksen confronts Dean in the kitchen: Bobby is on the other side of the doors in the living room, but somehow does not hear Henriksen talking to Dean. Sam also felt it necessary to get very close to Henriksen before shooting, even though Henriksen was about to rip Dean’s heart out.
Writing issues aside, the fight scene with the ghosts was generally satisfactory, though one would have thought that three experienced hunters like Dean, Bobby, and Sam would have taken precautions to ensure the salt circle does not get destroyed by wind by e.g. locking the windows properly, or putting double-sided tape on the floor and pouring the salt onto that, or using cling-film to keep the salt in place. Some of the dialogue was generic and lame (‘You could’ve saved us’ to which Bobby should have responded ‘could’ve but I didn’t, sorry.’) but I enjoyed seeing the three work together and cover each other’s weaknesses. None of them could have done it alone. That made a difference from e.g. 3x02 The Kids are Alright (a Sera Gamble episode) where Dean did most of the work of defeating the Mother Changeling but Sam swept in out of nowhere to kill her with a flamethrower.
The day saved, the scene changes and Dean is seen sleeping on the floor in Bobby’s living room (because apparently there are no spare beds in Bobby’s ridiculously big house)). Cas’s presence in the kitchen wakes him and the penultimate scene ensues. Please not how big the kitchen is, and then pay attention to the fact that Cas still insists on standing close enough to Dean that he can count all his freckles.
That almost does it for this analysis but for three final points:
1. It is made clear that this episode takes place three days after Dean’s resurrection, and it has been three days since Olivia (the dead hunter from the cold open) stopped answering Bobby’s calls. The witnesses were raised as soon as Dean crawled out of his grave, it seems.
2. Note once again the difference in how dead men and dead women are treated in the show. Olivia’s body is only shown out of focus and in the distance, whereas Jed’s is shown in full. You might remember me pointing this out several times over the course of the last 62 analyses, and referring to this once or twice:
Male characters get more explicit and brutal deaths. It's no secret that viewers are more uncomfortable watching women get tortured, maimed, and/or killed. If a man and a woman are killed in equally grisly ways (or even if the woman's death is less gruesome than the man), the woman's death is still treated as worse. Extra points if the camera cuts away right before she gets butchered. If a woman does die, and we actually get to see her body afterwards, expect her never to look dead.
(from TV Tropes: Men are the Expendable Gender)
Supernatural is not as bad for doing this as The Walking Dead is, but every time I read or hear somebody talking about how women die more than men on this show, I am reminded of the fact people are completely deadened to dead men.
3. In the picture of the angel raising a man from Hell in Bobby's book, the angel is touching the man's left shoulder, which is the same shoulder Cas held when pulling Dean out of Hell.
Thus concludeth this analysis.
P.S. When watching this episode with a friend last weekend, she noted how funny it would be in Bobby occasionally stumbled across a demon who was caught in one of the devil’s traps and had been stuck there for months.
P.P.S. This analysis is being uploaded on 24th January 2024, Dean's 45th birthday.
"Do you hear, you who so rashly accuse the art of magic? It is an art acceptable to the immortal gods, full of all knowledge of worship and of prayer, full of piety and wisdom in things divine, full of honour and glory since the day when Zoroaster and Oromazes established it, high-priestess of the powers of heaven. Nay, it is one of the first elements of princely instruction, nor do they lightly admit any chance person to be a magician, any more than they would admit him to be a king. Plato -- if I may quote him again -- in another passage dealing with a certain Zalmoxis, a Thracian and also a master of this art has written that magical charms are merely beautiful words. If that is so, why should I be forbidden to learn the fair words of Zalmoxis or the priestly lore. of Zoroaster?"
~Apuleius, Apologia
"Is Witchcraft/Magic real?" Sure! Or no. Who cares? Ask more interesting questions.
"I don't think magic is real." Okay cool! I'm not talking about magic then. I'm talking about philosophy, or poetry, or history.
"I think magic is real." Awesome! Let's talk about ritual, and spells, and grimoires.
It's all the same stuff.
If the question you're trying to ask is "can ritual affect the physical world" that's a great question, I think so! Let's talk about it.
If the question you're trying to ask is "can a person shoot fireballs out of their eyes" the answer is probably not.
But if you ask "is magic real" you sound like the accusers of Apulleius, and their insistence on fish:
"You would have made out a far more plausible case by pretending that I made use of such things instead of fish, if only you had possessed the slightest erudition. For the belief in the use of these things is so widespread that you might have been believed. But of what use are fish save to be cooked and eaten at meals? In magic they seem to me to be absolutely useless."
~Apulleius
You do not know what I do. You do not know what I am. You do not know what you're asking me.
