[HN Gopher] Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division
___________________________________________________________________
Book review: There Is No Antimemetics Division
Author : ibobev
Score : 184 points
Date : 2026-04-06 13:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.stephendiehl.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.stephendiehl.com)
| dinkleberg wrote:
| It's a fun book. Definitely worth a read.
| frankfrank13 wrote:
| I have not read this book. I've been avoiding it for a while for
| the dumbest possible reason, which is that I _only_ associate
| this book with SWE 's.
| nusl wrote:
| It's worth a read, at least the first half, just because it's
| really fun.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| Exactly what a SWE would say.
| nusl wrote:
| I'm not a Single-Wombat Entity if that's what you're
| accusing me of. I do, in-fact, have multiple wombats making
| up my person.
| bluewin wrote:
| Researcher here, if you like antimemes as a concept then this
| is a nice treatment that introduces people to what it means and
| how one needs to think around them in order to function.
|
| It's a bit off kilter but well worth it
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Good timing, the Kindle version is $1.99 right now.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| Please don't 'buy' digital items from Amazon, because you won't
| actually own them. Pay extra, support your local bookshop and
| get a physical copy which you will actually own.
| hectdev wrote:
| This disregards the benefit of a single device that is easy
| to carry. Love where this is come from so maybe do both if
| you can.
| caconym_ wrote:
| It's a trade-off. I love the convenience of ebooks, but not
| owning my books is just categorically unacceptable to me. I
| want my daughter and anyone else coming after me to have
| free access to them, not to have to jump through Amazon's
| hoops (if such hoops even exist) for access.
|
| I have a Kobo that I use to read the non-DRM ebooks I'm
| able to acquire. One such source is downloads from the Kobo
| store, when publishers make the non-DRM file available.
| shimman wrote:
| I use a kindle but I have never bought a book on the kindle
| store ever (been using it for 10 years). Totally doable and
| not hard to avoid... especially since the smaller stores
| not only have better sales but the author typically gets
| more money too.
| sublinear wrote:
| Amazon allows EPUB downloads for publishers that have chosen
| to go DRM-free.
| Semaphor wrote:
| First I'm hearing of that, is there an easy way to tell
| that's available?
| gh02t wrote:
| It usually says somewhere in the description I think.
| E.g. this one (good series, btw):
| https://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Peace-Old-Mans-Book-
| ebook/...
|
| > At the Publisher's request, this title is being sold
| without Digital Rights Management Software (DRM) applied.
|
| Not sure how universal that is, but I've seen similar
| language on several other books.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Oh wow, that's hidden. Thanks.
|
| Wait, OMW book 7? Wtf? Thank you even more! That'll be up
| next after my Hyperion re-read (RIP Dan)
| gh02t wrote:
| It's an enjoyable read, hopefully it's the start of a
| whole new arc in the series with more to come. My only
| real complaint is it's short and I want more. If you
| never read his other Interdependency series, it's also
| great.
| Semaphor wrote:
| I think I read all of his series, yeah. Interdependency
| was great.
| presbyterian wrote:
| They used to allow downloads of _all_ books, which you
| could then rip the DRM from, but they got rid of that last
| year. Huge disappointment, and is why I don 't buy books on
| Kindle anymore.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm more interested in rewarding utility because that gives
| me better things.
| root_axis wrote:
| I basically always start with digital, if the book is good I
| always buy a physical copy for my shelf.
| Insanity wrote:
| I do something similar - but I'm quite picky with books I
| buy due to limited physical space.
| tantalor wrote:
| I borrowed it from the library.
|
| Support your local library!
| layer8 wrote:
| I really appreciate that sentiment, but on the other hand 98%
| of the books I buy I won't read a second time (because
| reading a new book will almost always trump rereading an old
| one), so I'm actually fine with not owning most of them,
| especially at $1.99 prices. The few that I deeply care about
| I buy a physical copy of.
| mooxie wrote:
| I think the dynamic pricing algo is on to us - I see $13.99 at
| Amazon and clicked on a Google Play Books link for $1.99 that
| then became $13.99 magically, same for Apple Books.
| SendItUp wrote:
| Loved this book. Definitely a mind trip
| Schmerika wrote:
| Nice review; covers all the best points of the book, and its
| place in the world, without too many spoilers.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| I wonder if this is for the rewrite or the first version.
|
| I read the first version and thought the first half was good and
| that the second half felt clunky. To the point where i don't
| recommend it to anyone (not a huge negative, there's just better
| books out there).
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| I had the opposite reaction. The second half was garbage, but
| the first half was so good and original I'd recommend it just
| for that.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| The first few chapters of that book are some of the coolest
| I've ever read. I agree it really drops off in the second
| half, but would still recommend it to people.
| Insanity wrote:
| Same! I just finished the book a few days ago. The first half
| is really good, a cool premise and interesting story. The
| second half just got a bit too weird for me and by the final
| chapter I was happy it was finished lol.
| k__ wrote:
| I liked piecing the story together in the SCP wiki.
|
| Later I read the first version of the book and it was okay,
| but the vibes were a bit lost.
|
| The new version of the book I didn't even finish.
| yellottyellott wrote:
| > the first half was good and that the second half felt
| clunky
|
| > The second half was garbage, but the first half was so good
|
| so you had the same reaction?
| cwillu wrote:
| > To the point where i don't recommend it to anyone
|
| > but the first half was so good and original I'd recommend
| it just for that
|
| Attension span so short you couldn't even make it to the
| second half of the _sentence_ before dismissing it
| moss_dog wrote:
| I think this comment is unnecessarily harsh.
|
| To anyone confused (like me), the commenters above had
| opposite _recommendations_ despite having similar
| opinions of the book.
| cwillu wrote:
| They were being snarky about a comment when they
| literally didn't read the entire sentences they were
| being snarky about. No, I don't think I was unnecessarily
| harsh.
| yellottyellott wrote:
| fair enough, i guess my brain got stuck on reconciling
| the first thing that i whiffed on the differing
| recommendations lol
| joemi wrote:
| I had the same issue. I figured it out before I'd have
| commented similarly, but I completely understand where
| the confusion came from and I don't attribute it to your
| reading skills.
| awestroke wrote:
| The rewrite is excellent
| chroma wrote:
| The author's other stories like _Ra_ and _Fine Structure_ have
| the same issue, in my opinion. He has interesting ideas, but
| cannot seem to write an ending.
| Philpax wrote:
| It seems to be for the first version, judging by the use of the
| original names, which is odd because the review's from this
| year.
|
| The rewrite definitely improves on the ending and its delivery,
| but it's still largely the same plot, so it may not address all
| of your issues.
| mentalpagefault wrote:
| This review appears to be of the first version despite the
| recent date. (The rewrite filed the serial numbers off the SCP
| references and changed character names both for copyright
| reasons and to provide a degree of separation from the
| original.)
|
| I read both versions and agree that the second half of the
| first version was very abstract and difficult to follow. While
| I would consider the first half of the new version more edited
| than rewritten, the second half got a significant overhaul
| which fixed almost all of my issues with it and made for (in my
| opinion) a much more satisfying ending. I would recommend
| giving the new version another chance, though those who read
| the first version may find the new character names distracting.
| (Most didn't bother me, but Marion Wheeler -> Marie Quinn never
| felt quite right.)
| FabHK wrote:
| The article says:
|
| "And at the top of the food chain sits SCP-3125 (renamed in
| the published edition, but the designation is so perfect I am
| using it anyway) ..."
| yakattak wrote:
| Crazy timing. My copy of this is being delivered today from the
| local bookshop. Great review.
| xnx wrote:
| 24 days ago: Sci-Fi Short Film "There Is No Antimemetics
| Division" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47363133
| troupo wrote:
| There's also a short web series which is very good:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm3ywOKVBeAp1CmOhpsfu...
|
| I haven't seen the short film, so cannot compare.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Really didn't like this adaptation.
| gostsamo wrote:
| TBH, the ending of Ra was a big letdown for me and though I like
| the small stories, I have the feeling that the author has issue
| building larger arcs. Still curious about this one and might read
| it just for the premise.
| k__ wrote:
| Writing good endings is hard.
|
| I liked Ra, but I liked Fine Structures more.
| grimgrin wrote:
| You can read the original here https://scp-
| wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub
|
| There is also the rough draft. I've only read the wiki and the
| first draft of book
|
| Oddly I gifted the actual book away before reading it (I can buy
| it again, I thought)
| scrumbledober wrote:
| It's surely not a great book and if you are someone who reads a
| book every few months i wouldn't recommend it. It's very weird
| and different and fun, though. I suggest it for people who read a
| lot of sci-fi and are looking for something that doesn't feel the
| same as 10 other books they've already read.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm smack dab in that "reads a book every few months"
| demographic, and also in that "people who work with formal
| systems for a living" demographic mentioned in this book
| review.
|
| I would absolutely recommend it for people in the vicinity of
| these two demographics. It's worth it for the originality. Both
| the plot and the storytelling format are very weird and very
| original.
| chis wrote:
| Yeah my take is the exact opposite. It's such a page turner
| that the book has become one of my default recommendations for
| people looking to get back into reading. Of course you have to
| be a certain type of nerd to appreciate it.
| jmgimeno wrote:
| Couldn't finish it. I suppose it was not for me.
| cws wrote:
| This article says "Book Review:" but then doesn't provide the
| title of a book. I'm confused.
|
| :)
| rtaylorgarlock wrote:
| It's in the title: "There is no Antimemetics Division"
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54870256-there-is-no-ant...
| davrosthedalek wrote:
| What title?
| andrewla wrote:
| Why would you disagree with the parent post and then fail to
| provide the title of the book in your own response? Just give
| the name of the book, please.
| zelias wrote:
| What book? There is no book discussed in this article
| lukifer wrote:
| What article? This is an HN-only discussion post.
| gowld wrote:
| Weird HN bug: I somehow managed to get to an orphan
| /reply page not attached to any submission thread.
| chairmansteve wrote:
| What is HN?
| enopod_ wrote:
| What article?
| swanson wrote:
| I tried making this joke to the author when the book was
| released ("I purchased the book, but the link just took me to
| an empty page") and, unfortunately, they didn't get it and
| tried to give me customer support
| rapnie wrote:
| What are you talking about? Did you perhaps cross-post by
| accident to the wrong thread?
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Whoa, you mean bringing terminally online memes into the real
| world is awkward and cringe? How unexpected
| nusl wrote:
| I suppose this joke only works when you've read it. I should
| take my meds, else I'll forget.
| rapnie wrote:
| Just took mine. Please take proper quarantine measures when
| reading back these comments then, or you'll put us all at
| risk.
| nusl wrote:
| Log entry: Tried building a wall out of hard drives, but
| Gate walked around them and kept coming. Walls of
| information ineffective. I've forgotten my name, so I
| suspect this may be my final entry.
| drxzcl wrote:
| You can't forget to take class W mnestics. Not unless someone
| prevents you from taking them.
| munificent wrote:
| I liked this one a lot. If you like weird fiction and enjoyed
| Jeff Vandermeer's Annhilation, there's a good chance you'll like
| this.
|
| If you don't like weird fiction, odds are you'll bounce off it.
| Grambo wrote:
| I loved the Southern Reach trilogy but didn't finish TINAD. I
| thought the premise was pushed too far and that less would've
| been more. OTOH the atmosphere of oppressive bureaucracy of
| Authority is still one my all time favorite scifi reads.
| jppope wrote:
| The book was good but I struggled to finish it. You as a reader
| are encouraged to read because the ideas are so good but then it
| becomes hard to endure through to whatever resolution was
| waiting. For those unfamiliar, it will feel something like
| Momento - you start to feel yourself changing as you work through
| it. Worth a go for anyone looking for something different.
| EliRivers wrote:
| The core conceit lent itself so well to a (subverted)
| introductory "As you know" chapter that I didn't even notice it
| until I'd read it. Bravo for that alone.
|
| That said, from the review: "open source maintainership as cosmic
| horror." Genuine laugh.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| I read this.
|
| It's got some provocative ideas, which Stephen foregrounds.
|
| It's got a great hook, and like most writing incubated under
| circumstances like this, it leans hard into polished sharp
| introduction into a well-considered world with a very specific
| flavor.
|
| It's also--no better way to put it--crappy as a novel.
|
| It's not because the author can't string sentences together.
|
| It's because that's not what makes a novel function as a novel.
|
| Epic opening and premise establishment: 10/10
|
| Nice "plot twist", predictable in its inevitability if not its
| specifics; conforms to genre: 7/10
|
| Narrative arc: 2/10
|
| Ability to sustain meaningful tension and interest while working
| through the de rigeur mechanics of filling hundreds of pages:
| 1/10
|
| I get that there is a new readership with different expectations
| and styles of reading. (Looking at you tiktok; looking at you
| Dungeon Crawler Carl; looking at most successful YA fiction
| especially that which gets SPICEY and is released in 8-book
| series with a new volume every 11 months)
|
| If you're silverback and relish long-form fiction as previously
| conceived: set expectations accordingly.
| doug_durham wrote:
| I am a "silverback" and have read all of the classics of the
| SciFi genre and I loved this novel. An unconventional topic
| like this isn't going to fit all of the norms of writing. I
| thought it was well written and I love his dialog. I'm looking
| forward to future work.
| bluewin wrote:
| Yeah, it's trying to cohere the structure of the book with
| the topic matter which I really appreciate. It doesn't always
| quite land, but I think it was really worthwhile. Although I
| can understand how someone who is looking for a "normal"
| novel might be dissatisfied. But to me it's a bit like house
| of leaves, you need to accept the meta-conceit of the book
| being subject to the effect of its contents.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I dislike the ending, at least of v2. In it, the author basically
| gives a fleshed out (christian, neoplatonist) metaphysics to the
| world he's created which basically amounts to: heaven exists,
| humans win against the devil, etc. And the ending itself is a
| self-conscious version of an ascension narrative. It's a very
| 90deg turn ending to a book otherwise more interested in a world
| in which heaven is never accessible.
| mpalmer wrote:
| It's the strongest possible memetic weapon humans would have -
| I think it's entirely consistent with the meta-nature of the
| book, especially the self-conscious part.
| mjburgess wrote:
| If the take is religion is itself the weapon and the
| depiction given is mere evidence of that, OK, that's at least
| avoids the ending being totally awful. HOWEVER
|
| The book spends much of its time saying the transcendent
| cannot even be represented, to people, to us the read -- then
| just represents it, and in a tawdry christian way.
|
| I think the violation of that norm, as well as the ending
| being played straight -- with literally a long paragraph
| explaining with ideaspace is... that's a fourth-wall break
| into christianity imv
|
| Which makes the whole book read as, "the issue with humans is
| our physical bodies in a fallen world which are limited. just
| die, go to heaven, then you can know/represent/understand
| everything. Yay! Death!"
|
| OK. Just kinda naff.
|
| It reads as a religious person who accidentally wrote a good
| sci-fi book then hurridly, at the end, reminds us all that
| its really a parable with a Noble Message that in Death all
| things are trascended.
| doug_durham wrote:
| I read the book and at no time did I think "Christianity".
| It seems like motivated reasoning on your part. At no time
| did the book ever preach, or was even moralistic.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I'm referring to the ending of the published version,
| which is quite different than v1, which ends abburptly,
| in particular the sections before and after:
|
| > "She steps back from him. She flexes what could be
| wings."
|
| > "In ideatic space everything is possible and everything
| is real and every metaphor is apt. She sees a galaxy of
| shining points: people, all the people who have ever
| existed, packed almost densely enough to form a
| continuum, living and dead, real and fictional and
| borderline. Similar people, who think in similar ways and
| who stand for similar things, are closer together.
| Significant people, the famous and iconic, are brighter.
| There are stars for inanimate entities, too, and events
| and abstracts: countries, homes, works of art, births and
| first steps and words, shocks and dramas, archetypes,
| numbers and equations, long arcs of stories, grand
| mythologies, philosophies, politics, tropes. Every truth
| and lie is here. Ideatic space itself--the human
| conception of it, at least--is here too, a fixed point
| embedded inside itself. The idea of the Unknown
| Organization is here. The idea of Adam Quinn is here.
| Marie, rising, waking, is here. And occupying the same
| space as the first brilliant spiral is a second, its
| counterpart, a galaxy whose points are relationships
| between the points of the first: what each person means
| to each other person. Loves, mutual and unrequited;
| admirations, aspirations, intimidations, fears, and
| revulsions. Conceptions and misconceptions. There is
| Adam's shining link with Marie, and Marie's link back to
| Adam. And Marie's link to the Organization. And at the
| core of the whole dazzling ecosystem is an ultimate
| singular point, to which every other point is connected:
| humanity.
|
| > And the whole thing, the entirety of human ideatic
| space, is being torn apart. U-3125 hangs above it, a
| monumental, blinding new presence, a singular entity more
| massive and luminous than both spirals combined. Its
| malevolent gravity drags humanity and all human ideas
| into its orbit, warping them beyond recognition. Beneath
| it, within its context, everything becomes corrupted into
| the worst version of itself. It takes joy and turns it
| into vindictive glee; it takes self-reliance and turns it
| into solipsistic psychosis; it turns love into smothering
| assault, pride into humiliation, families into traps,
| safety into paranoia, peace into discontent. It turns
| people into people who do not see people as people. And
| civilizations, ultimately, into abominations.
|
| > U-3125 is titanic in its structure, brain-breaking in
| its topology. It comes from another part of ideatic
| space, a place where ideas exist on a scale entirely
| beyond those of humans. Its wrongness and[...]"
|
| > "She sets a course. Outbound, to the deepest limit of
| ideatic space."
|
| Etc. The references to U3125 _incarnating_ , and it being
| The Adversary. And the explicit ascention narrative with
| Mary getting wings, flying thru clouds of Ideas -- which
| are actually _animate_ and incarnated in this world, ie.,
| they are souls. I mean, it 's terribly misjudged ending
| biophysboy wrote:
| Is this book just riffing about embedding space? I
| thought about reading it eventually, but the quoted
| passage is kind of annoying/tedious
| skeaker wrote:
| No, it really just gets like that at the end which is
| what this chain has been going over.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Could be religion/Christian.
|
| But, also, all systems. Capitalism. Governments.
|
| I took it as all 'groups of people' form these
| 'structures', that can then take on a life of their own.
|
| I don't this this was supposed to be specifically
| christian
| Insanity wrote:
| The last 2 chapters made me not want to recommend the book. I'm
| so divided about it because the book started of incredibly
| strong.
| jadbox wrote:
| This has been my feeling on Dune book 4 - God Emperor of
| Dune. While it contains several great banger quotes, it leans
| way more conservative than the previous books to the point
| that it was difficult to finish. "Oh no, female warriors
| kissing! ICK!!" and Leto's whole "Humanity _NEEDS_ me as GOD
| EMPEROR because this IS JUST THE ONLY WAYYY!" are just some
| examples.
| vermilingua wrote:
| I think you may have missed the point of GEoD
| Insanity wrote:
| Book 1-3 of Dune are masterpieces IMO. Book 4 was still
| good although I didn't enjoy it as much as the trilogy. But
| I still consider it part of the same overall "Leto/Paul
| arc".
|
| Book 5-6 were okay, but didn't live up to expectations.
|
| To go on more of a tangent, I really thought these books
| would be impossible to turn into films, but the Villeneuve
| films are good so far!
| guzfip wrote:
| > metaphysics to the world he's created which basically amounts
| to: heaven exists, humans win against the devil, etc. And the
| ending itself is a self-conscious version of an ascension
| narrative. It's a very 90deg turn ending to a book otherwise
| more interested in a world in which heaven is never accessible.
|
| FWIW, this just seems to be what's popular now. Pretty
| regularly now, I'll see social media posts and memes mocking
| [media franchise X] for being anything other than that very
| basic good vs evil plot with clean resolution, as if these
| people didn't have plenty of Marvel slop to consume.
|
| I will say this is tangential to the culture war, but seems to
| exist outside of it too.
| ByThyGrace wrote:
| I don't think this is much of a spoiler: in Ra (same author)
| you get just what you're looking for and, ironically, that's
| with another revised ending. Even with the christianic subtext,
| which is at times manifest. I've read both and the writing is
| overall superior. As it should be, antimemetics is his first
| work I think? Writers have historically become good from mere
| practise.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Did I lose chapters or is v1 horribly different? It was so
| psychologically defeating I was in a very weird malaise for a
| week.
| piskov wrote:
| Some were edited out for more linear structure, some were
| dropped due to copyright.
|
| I enjoyed both versions, though the ending in v1 is somewhat
| crumpled
| gmuslera wrote:
| It was a great book, but this review of it have its own value.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| This review is just a plot synopsis. There are no quotes from the
| book to give me a sense of the quality of the writing. The review
| feels targeted at somebody who is already bought into the
| premise, not somebody from the outside who wants to know if
| "There Is No Antimemetics Division" is a good book or not. In
| that sense, it totally fails as a book review.
| doug_durham wrote:
| I have never read a review and got a true notion of whether the
| prose is good or not. Is that really why you read reviews? I
| thought this was a great review because it very concisely
| described what is an unorthodox book. If you want to see if the
| prose is any good, read the book. It is a good book by the way.
| throwaway27448 wrote:
| It sounds like you're describing a summary (which does not
| deal with quality) rather than a review (which necessarily
| deals with quality). The posted writing seems to fall
| somewhere in between.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| Yes, I read reviews to learn if a book is good or not. Quotes
| from the book that are carefully selected often help to
| showcase what the author is capable of, on top of a clear
| description of their writing style. I want the reviewer to
| sell me on what moved them.
|
| That is different than whether or not the reviewer was
| compelled by the ideas in the book. If the reviewer is a good
| writer, then I've learned something. Then, I know that
| somebody who is a good writer thought the ideas in a book
| were interesting, which by the transitive property, implies
| the author being reviewed is also a good writer. In this
| case, I don't think the reviewer is a very interesting
| writer, so I'm not convinced that they are a good judge of
| interesting writing.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > If you want to see if the prose is any good, read the book.
|
| I don't read complete plot summaries of books that I ever
| plan to read. That's why I look for "reviews." The only
| reason it's hard to write a review is because you can't give
| away the plot, but you have to give a sense of the appeal and
| the quality of the book. Otherwise, it's just a summary.
|
| I can't know what books are available on the market through
| introspection. The only way I can know about them is through
| being informed. I don't want to read a complete plot summary
| of a book I have yet to read. If the only way I can find out
| about the existence of books is by having the plot spoiled,
| that's not optimal.
|
| edit: Also, tbh, if a book's plot is good, I don't need you
| to tell it to me. The person who came up with the plot
| already carefully came up with the way they wanted to tell it
| to me. Not sure why you think you can do better if you think
| the book is good. If the book is awful to read but the plot
| is interesting, feel free.
|
| > It is a good book by the way.
|
| The reason this doesn't work as a review is because I don't
| know you, and I don't know what you like. If you can say this
| in a way in which it doesn't matter whether I know you or
| what you like, and give away the least plot possible to
| accomplish this, you've written what most people are looking
| for in a review.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Agreed, and plot itself doesn't make a good book either.
| Some have very interesting plots but terrible prose and
| pacing while others are vice versa. Therefore a "review"
| that is merely a plot summary actually says nothing of the
| quality of the work.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| If you say to just read the book then what's even the point
| of writing a review? I could say the same about any book
| which renders the advice meaningless.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I've noticed this too online and on YouTube, where "reviewers"
| conflate a plot summary with an actual review of the pros and
| cons and often deeper analysis of a work. These days I need to
| go to specific subreddits to get true reviews beyond surface
| level details, such as at r/TrueFilm.
| mkeeter wrote:
| The review is also heavily LLM-inflected, to the point of being
| distracting.
|
| GPTZero gives it a 100% chance of being AI generated, and I've
| found that these tools may give false negatives from a well-
| prompted model, but false positives are rare.
|
| If you are looking to tune your intuition for AI-written text,
| here's an interesting list of their quirks (ironically provided
| as a Claude skill for removing those quirks from emitted text):
|
| https://github.com/stephenturner/skill-deslop/blob/main/refe...
| geoffschmidt wrote:
| I'm not so sure about false positives being rare.. ZeroGPT
| flags the Gettysburg Address as 96% AI generated:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1s0y.
| ..
|
| (I tried it just now and got the same result as in that post)
| mkeeter wrote:
| Fair enough, I accept "the blog post was written by someone
| from the 1800s" as an alternative hypothesis.
|
| edit: For what it's worth, I also just tested the
| Gettysburg Address (using the "Bliss Copy" from [1]), and
| got a "100% Human" score.
|
| [1] https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/g
| ettys...
| comboy wrote:
| It's not a well-written book. It's an interesting book (more
| like a story).
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Oh no, a book that tells a story.
| measurablefunc wrote:
| Written by AI.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| I listened to the Audible version and either I read a completely
| different book or the anti-memetic effects are real, because the
| main character in the article has a different name and the plot
| synopsis doesn't seem to match up.
|
| My short review would be: the book is very one-note, it's like a
| horror movie that keeps doing the same jumpscare over and over
| again. Despite this I managed to enjoy it.
| mjg2 wrote:
| I just finished this book and complained about it the whole time.
| The prose is amateur and peppered with cliches (e.g. you should
| be fined for publishing the phrase "their suit was so sharp it
| could cut"). His attempt to write about the inner thoughts of the
| characters was pretty simple. The descriptions of violence and
| horror also felt child-like, especially the dialogue during those
| moments (e.g. Redd's introduction). The landscapes are bland,
| with lots of repetition. Personally, the redaction technique got
| boring fast when he would take up entire pages of the book to
| convey absent memories. He could use his words to convey this
| instead of black-boxes.
|
| I will give the author credit on how they deal with their
| characters' memories and the re-development of their thoughts,
| and the usage of time-jumping was reasonable (some books jump
| around too much, as if these time-skips improve a boring plot).
| Also the convention for how they solve their dilemma was
| enjoyable.
|
| Overall, I think the author relies too much on a vocal fandom
| around the SCP Foundation to glorify the book. I think there is
| potential for a saga of books but there needs to be more effort
| in the drafting and editing process to raise the quality of the
| books to the level the universe deserves.
| piskov wrote:
| Have you read free online version or 2025 edited/paid one from
| penguin books or what have you?
| gravypod wrote:
| Do you have any recommendations for science fiction books that
| explore interesting ideas?
|
| There is no Antimemetics Division was really interesting in how
| some of the scenarios play out. I don't read much but I've been
| trying to do that more. I really liked the book.
|
| Things like the memory consuming entity, async research, etc I
| enjoyed.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| I really like Ray Nayler's work, who intersects his real
| experience in international politics with science fiction
| technology. His Tusks of Extinction uses the sci-fi notion of
| brain transfer and bringing back mammoths to explore the
| economical pressures behind poaching. His "Where the axe is
| buried" explores surveillance state technology with political
| bodies that feel like real modern nations.
| yaky wrote:
| Blindsight by Peter Watts explores interesting ideas about
| conscience and intelligence, but these ideas are wrapped in a
| mediocre action movie plot that becomes nonsensical by the
| end.
| bluewin wrote:
| Annihilation By Jeff VanderMeer
|
| Diaspora by Greg Egan
|
| Anathem by Neal Stephenson (this one is a bit like doing
| homework but worth it imo)
|
| If you vibe with short stories Exhalation by Ted Chiang
| Crystal Nights by Greg Egan isn't bad either
| evnp wrote:
| Great list, thanks. Seconding Exhalation, that story in
| particular but also the whole collection. Guess I'm
| checking out Egan next.
| bluewin wrote:
| His book is great, but to be clear I feel like he writes
| exactly one book. I've read it in many forms and it's an
| amazing book. But don't be surprised when you realize
| that every book is just him trying to find a new way to
| look at the same object over and over again.
|
| Very enjoyable but his short stories are great because
| they force him to focus on one idea instead of how his
| whole world view fits together.
| renjimen wrote:
| I love all these. I'd add Blightsight by Peter Watts to the
| list. It has the creepy, psychological bent of Annihilation
| combined with the hard science elements common to qntm's,
| Neal Stephenson's and Greg Egan's books.
| bluewin wrote:
| I'd push back on the redaction point. One of the primary
| conceits of the book is that the information is _generally_
| affected, which includes the contents of the book itself. While
| doing multiple pages is kinda taking the piss, the general idea
| is much better than just verbally stating it is hard to
| remember.
| pnw wrote:
| I read whatever version of this book was available to download in
| 2020 and really enjoyed it. Some very original ideas. I didn't
| find the writing clunky, and I read way too much.
| kiddico wrote:
| I read it in chunks from the wiki and feel the same. Maybe I'm
| not a discerning reader but it stayed in the front of my mind
| for a good few days after.
| krackers wrote:
| Are there any real-life examples of antimemes? How would
| antimemes even propagate given that they'd "die out" immediately?
| nusl wrote:
| If they did, we wouldn't know. Those that do/did know would be
| dead.
| joombaga wrote:
| Maybe not exactly an antimeme, but my mind went to biology.
| Measles can destroy memory B-cells and T-cells, causing
| immunological amnesia.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002885
| krackers wrote:
| Oh nice example! I guess more generally it's possible for an
| antimeme to spread if the mechanism of transmission doesn't
| involve conscious transmission.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| There is a genre of music that my old roommate was into which
| titled all of their songs and albums in obscure Unicode
| characters with no known pronunciation. Songs in this genre may
| not be perfect antimemes, but I think their resistance to
| reference is an antimemetic property.
|
| Also, chromosomes are nucleotide-encoded memes, and linear ones
| use teleomeres to impose limits on the number of replications
| they support, so that's another imperfect antimeme.
|
| I know of no antimemes whose antiemetic nature comes from their
| ability to interfere with the human mind, but then again, I
| wouldn't know about them if they existed, which is more or less
| the book's point.
| bluewin wrote:
| A malicious antimeme would be a dark pattern in web design
| for handling privacy/data/etc. Something designed to satisfy
| whatever law/regulation requires them to have the option
| while making the ability to find/remember/interact with it as
| hard as possible.
|
| Another candidate is the common usage of memory-holing, where
| important information is removed from public perception
| maliciously. The Dubai Chocolate thing technically falls into
| here, as does the whole "war in Iran to distract from the
| Epstein files" thing. Frankly the whole Epstein stuff is
| riddled with malicious memes and antimemes to deliberately
| muddy the waters. Similar to deliberate attempts to inject
| insane conspiracy beliefs "the moon controls our brains" into
| conspiracy theories that are too close to something real "mk-
| ultra".
|
| Consciousness for an antimeme is more of a classification
| error in my mind, as consciousness as a concept is
| permanently warped. But you could describe a secret
| society/dark family secret as a form of living antimeme,
| hiding some information and preventing it from being shared
| using a variety of means.
| bluewin wrote:
| I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this and the
| character of antimemes. Even ended up writing a whole taxonomy
| and mathematical framework for it.
|
| In general a meme is specific to an entity-pair, with self-
| censoring information as a subset of antimeme that makes the
| information itself remove itself from the mind that learns it.
| In general though, information that is an antimeme is not the
| same thing as a category of information that _describes_ an
| antimeme.
|
| So, "your parents weird sextape" is generally antimemetic, you
| are unlikely to share that information yourself and I would not
| expect to see many examples where someone posted this. Your
| password is also antimemetic in most cases.
|
| That said, information may contain both antimemetic and memetic
| components, such as "the game" (I just lost). The rules
| inherently are antimemetic and self-censoring, however the
| memetic component ensures this is still transmitted effectively
| to as many people as possible. A more entity-pair specific
| meme-antimeme relation is "where the good drug dealers hang
| out", which is information that is highly memetic or
| antimemetic under different conditions.
|
| I think the key isn't to think of these things as strict
| categories, but labels we ascribe to a more continuous measure
| of memeablity.
| walterbell wrote:
| Short film: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47363133
| My mission was to create a Sci-fi Noir episode of the Twilight
| Zone by way of David Lynch and Phillip K. Dick. Big shout out to
| Dan Erickson and Ben Stiller for speaking to my soul in
| Severance. And of course to the enigmatic QNTM for sparking my
| imagination with the original story, "We Need to Talk About 55".
| Long live the SCP Foundation.
| zuminator wrote:
| I happen to be in the middle of this book right now, so I only
| lightly skimmed tfa, but my copy is about Marie Quinn, not as
| Diehl says, Marion Wheeler. I do recall that name from an older,
| less cohesive 2020 ebook version that I had started reading years
| ago but set aside. Are there different protagonists in different
| markets? Or different perceived realities?
| prepend wrote:
| I bought it a few years ago before the new book deal and the
| name is Marion Wheeler.
|
| I believe it was self published back then. Although it's a
| beautiful hard cover that was only like $14 on amazon. I found
| it funny that it's one of my favorite recent hardcovers and is
| cheaper and self published.
| rienbdj wrote:
| It was a fun read but I don't understand the cult following this
| book has.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-06 23:00 UTC)