Fun with AI

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
I was having some fun with AI this morning and came up with an essay about one of my least favorite games, Freespace 2. The chat chain began as a discussion about the poor dogfighting dynamics and clunkly, lackluster capital ship battles of the game. It ended with this. I hope you enjoy:

The Freespace Simulation: Propaganda, Suppression, and the Truth Behind the GTVA

The Freespace series—long held as a cult classic of the space-sim genre—has achieved near-legendary status among fans for its epic scope, immersive gameplay, and mysterious antagonists. Yet for all its grandeur, Freespace 2 reveals itself, upon close inspection, not as a transparent retelling of future history but as a simulation—a carefully curated training program designed to instill loyalty, suppress memory, and recode ideological allegiance in its player-subjects.

At the heart of this reinterpretation lies the dissonance between what Freespace 2 tells you and what its structure reveals. The game plays as a fragmented, impersonal series of military engagements, where the player is a cipher—never truly given a voice, backstory, or character. This is no accident. In-universe, Freespace 2 is best understood as a simulated indoctrination module, distributed by the Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance (GTVA) to recruits. Its goal? To normalize the political order, erase historical doubts, and prepare soldiers to fight perceived existential threats—real or imagined.

This framework explains a host of inconsistencies and underdeveloped narrative elements. Take the Neo-Terran Front (NTF): a supposedly fascistic rebellion that is crushed by the GTVA’s overwhelming might. Their leader, Admiral Bosch, is portrayed as both an egomaniac and a madman, seeking communion with the Shivans—the series’ existential antagonists. But the true history is likely far more complicated. The simulation whitewashes a broad, possibly populist rebellion by Terran military leaders and officers who viewed the GTVA not as a unifying institution but as a vessel of Vasudan hegemony.

The Iceni, Bosch’s vessel, may have represented not an aberration but the continuation of the GTI's true mission—to preserve Terran autonomy and resist subversion by the Vasudan empire following the destruction of Vasuda Prime. Far from being a cultist, Bosch was perhaps the last commander who remembered the truth: that Earth had been rediscovered, that the Vasudan emperor may rule from its shadows, and that the Shivans' original campaign was one of selective genocide, aimed primarily at the Vasudans—not humanity.

The first Terran-Vasudan war, prior to the arrival of the Shivans, is often described in FS1 as a prolonged and bitter stalemate. But the depiction of Vasudan technology in FS1 is notably crude—primitive ship designs, slower speeds, inferior shielding. One wonders how they survived at all, let alone fought humanity to a draw. The likely answer is that the war was never militarily balanced. The GTA (Galactic Terran Alliance) prolonged it for ideological reasons, and its public was kept invested through manipulative information control, corporate profiteering, and colonization of the human mind through abbreviations, slogans, and coded acronyms that flattened political memory.

By FS2, however, Vasudan ships suddenly appear sleeker, faster, and far more advanced than their Terran counterparts. Their corvettes outgun and outrun GTVA equivalents; their destroyers surpass even the Aquitaine. And where is Earth in all this? Entirely absent—barely referenced. This is not mere neglect. It is erasure. The simulation quietly omits the seat of human origin. Why? Perhaps because it now houses the very empire the GTVA serves.

Even the Colossus—supposedly the largest Terran warship ever constructed—may be fictional. Its design is purely Terran, which strains credulity in a post-unification alliance. In reality, it likely never existed. Its depiction as a turning point in the war against both the NTF and the Shivans serves as a mythic anchor for Terran loyalty: a martyr-ship that disobeys orders and dies heroically, sacrificing 30,000 crew to save the alliance. Yet this may be little more than a narrative flourish, a dramatic capstone in a propaganda piece. The game even shows it being destroyed in a doomed stand—yet you, the recruit, later see (perhaps subconsciously) a news report of it being constructed. The contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s the point.

But why construct such a simulation? Because the real threats are not what they seem.

If the Shivans return, it is likely the Vasudans—due to their religious prophecies and past persecution—will again be their primary target. The true risk for the GTVA is not just external attack, but internal collapse: human dissidents who might try to align with the Shivans in desperation, or worse, abandon the alliance altogether to reclaim their heritage and lost Earth. The simulation thus programs the recruit to fight both: to kill rebels as mindless terrorists and Shivans as mindless monsters.

And yet, Freespace 2 leaves breadcrumbs for the discerning. The inconsistencies. The dead-end references. The overwritten villains. The absence of Earth. Even the naming conventions—everything is abbreviated, acronymous, or numerically coded, reducing meaning to slogans. All of it reflects the mindset of the advertising agency or the colonial governor: strip down culture until it becomes plastic, reproducible, and disposable.

The GTVA may have been forged in desperation, but it has become a monument to managerial tyranny, Vasudan soft imperialism, and the total suppression of Terran memory. Bosch, Silent Threat, Earth, and the GTI were the final cries of resistance.

And Freespace 2 is the epitaph written by the victors.
 
This is true AI-generated... stuff (I'm trying to be polite here), because while each paragraph may look like it's coherent, the whole collection just doesn't have a point that I can see. Is it trying to criticize the game? Is it written as an in-universe critique? And, it has no ability to synthesize knowledge from different sources, ie. that access to Earth was cut off at the end of Freespace 1's campaign.

I'm reminded of an actual essay that an artist friend of mine wrote at the end of April this year. This particular excerpt hits hard for me:

Which brings me to this: when you say “I don’t use it for important things, I only use it for this or that, for compiling this, for brainstorming, etc”, that doesn’t make me feel better. Every prompt, even for “silly” things, creates demand and gives reason for the companies to continue pushing. It causes the same kind of environmental damage, throttling drinking water access for marginalized neighbourhoods and drying up water tables in the desert, regardless of the frivolity of the task–and frankly, causing harm and damage for something that doesn’t even matter is worse, is it not?
Generative AI is built on scraping data for training without authorization, uses excessive resources to spit out its results, and even after several years of billions of dollars being poured into training and development it still can't write an essay better than a lazy unassisted high school student. I'm not trying to attack Dragon1 personally, but I am a bit disappointed that all of those computing resources were used to fart out a verbose but poor composition.
 
Well, you are under no obligation to be polite. I was not passing this off as an academic essay. I thought it was a curious and fun exploration that was developed with chatgpt about a very controversial game. I literally titled the post 'fun with AI.' While you might have not found it amusing, I was laughing to myself as I was plugging in questions and getting some interesting responses. Sorry these musings irritated you so much.

"I'm not trying to attack Dragon1 personally, but I am a bit disappointed that all of those computing resources were used to fart out a verbose but poor composition."

And, asshole, I'm right here. You can talk to me in the post directly rather than act like you're speaking to some large community.
Like
 
The TL;DR version of what comes next: I think generative AI is bad, I was an asshole about it, and I apologize for being an asshole. You didn't deserve it, but your post inadvertently hit a nerve with me and I projected a lot of my frustration with things you don't have direct control over onto you. So, sorry about being an asshole.

With an hour or so to think it over, I probably shouldn't have replied or should have waited a bit before replying. I know you didn't come here pretending it was great work, but your post was missing that you thought it was silly and interesting, so I assumed that you were thinking like most people I know who use generative AI for work like this and assumed you thought "Gee, this is kind of neat, I'm going to share it!"

I'm just so, so tired of the breathless tech-bros and venture capitalists trying to convince everyone that generative AI is going to be a great democratizing force for creativity, when by its very nature it can't create anything new and requires a truly staggering amount of computing power to produce nothing useful. I was projecting a lot of the frustration I feel onto you and your post, which isn't fair, and I am sorry for that. But, with the growth in use of ChatGPT and generative images/videos coming on the heels of cryptocurrency and NFTs which were also pretty dubiously useful and predatory (and also sucked up lots of power for little to no benefit except to a few), I felt compelled to let out a lot of pent-up rage.
 
No, problem. And I'm sorry I called you an asshole. Your follow-up response proves that you aren't. I'm not a tech bro nor am I a champion for the use of AI. I do, however, think it's not quite the harbinger of creative doom than many of my own circle thinks it will be. I am a professional historian who has found some controlled uses for it, but it is (and must always be understood as) a tool, like handing a rifle to a four-year old.

I certainly had neither the time nor the inclination to write a good essay about Freespace 2 (who would lol?). But, I thought this read on the plot was fun, so, yes, I thought I might share it.
 
AI is the great faker.

If you understand the technology, you realize it's nothing more than a fancy text prediction algorithm. That is, it sticks words one after another. The word it picks next is based on the context (the words you gave it) as well as the words it gave before. It provides no context nor understanding of what it says. This is the reason why it "hallucinates" - the next word it predicts is based on the weightings of the words that came before and what you gave it, and it happened the word was that, which influences the next words.
 
Hey all, I appreciate all the thoughts here. Just to clarify one last time, this was a speculative in-universe reimagining of FS2, using AI as a sounding board. It was not meant as a political statement about AI itself. I'm am an historian and enjoy using whatever tools I can to test alternate narratives, even in games and movies that I don’t particularly like. I've always been put off by the total anonymity of the FS1 and 2 protagonists and wanted to concoct ideas about why the story was presented in the form we play it. I'm glad some of you saw the humor in it.
 
Just wanted to stop in and congratulate you folks on the mature self-moderation here. I sure don't want to run a message board and I'm glad I don't have to :D

(I'm not touching Freespace 2 commentary or AI with an extremely long stick, though :D)
 
Back
Top