Let's Not Lose Our Heads.

This post is just for me, really, but on the off-chance anyone finds it helpful, I'll publish it anyway. 

 

So, this Summer I've been thinking a lot, not been able to do much else amid the heatwaves, (which, I generally don't mind except for when I can't sleep at night) but I have got back into reading in a big way, which is always nice, I haven't been this able to read since before uni a decade ago. 

 

I started making a concerted effort to do that beforehand, because, as I get older (I'm still in my early 30s, which is not old, but it bloody well feels like it is sometimes) my attention-span, which, frankly, was never good, has only got worse. I started trying to read more again to remedy that, as I've developed something of a fear of mental atrophy, and what the logical conclusions of that might be. The mind is a muscle, and like any muscle, if you don't use it, you will lose it. 

Also, I feel like in this era of anti-intellectualism, A.I summaries, and regurgitation of misinformation, the act of doing the reading yourself, whatever that may be, is in itself, an act of defiance. I won't go too deep into that here, because...well, where the fuck to start? But all of this does contribute to the overall landscape I want to talk about in this post. This isn't all about A.I, but I am gonna rant about A.I for a bit.

Fact is, there's a mental decline happening on a societal level, and I hate it, but what I hate even more is that I can't really blame people for it. It's all very well for me to say "ChatGPT is not a replacement for research" but that doesn't change that it looks like one, and unless you've been taught how to properly research, which I've never even seen mentioned outside of university, how the hell are you supposed to know the difference? The only way you would is if you already know the answers you're looking for, in which case you're likely only using ChatGPT to demonstrate to someone else how wrong it is, and how often. To anyone else it just looks like if google was a chatbot, which sounds great, honestly.

Of course the problem with generative A.I is that the name is a misnomer, it's not A.I. There's no intelligence in there, artificial or otherwise. It's a word-cloud with an algorithm designed to use maths to spit out whatever response that algorithm deems the user most likely to want to hear. Companies have fed it the entire internet and a every piece of art under the sun, (copyright law, and the rights of artists be damned, apparently) just to turn it into the facsimile it currently is. This isn't even mentioning the impact on arts industries or the environment, but that's A, a whole other post that I haven't done enough research to make, and B, not what I'm here to talk about now, but I'm pretty sure we're all agreed that both impacts are bad. 

 And for what? An algorithmic simulation of the confident-sounding idiot at a party, without the personality that occasionally makes that experience bearable.  

I think the thing that fucks me off most about Generative A.I and what it is, and does, and I might lose a few of you here, is how much I love the idea of a potential good version. Frankly, I love the idea of what currently available A.I is being pitched as, the thing that pisses me off is that it isn't that and never can be. At least not without changing it on a fundamental level until it's something else entirely. 

A chatbot that can cut out the legwork of research for you and work as a sounding board for your ideas? Fuck yeah! sounds great! Unfortunately that's not what "A.I" is, and for it to become that, in it's current state would either require everyone on the internet to always be honest and correct, or a level of human oversight that would defeat the purpose of having an A.I in the first place. 

Well, I suppose there is a third option, you could narrow the data pool to only include reputable sources. But even if you were to do that, it would still hallucinate all the time because, again, it's a big word cloud with pattern-recognition designed to spit out whatever its algorithm says you're most likely to want to hear. There is no comprehension happening on the part of the "AI." 

 

 I'm gonna sound a lot like an old man yelling at a cloud here, but social media has a lot to answer for in all this. That whole thing has been one gigantic monkey's paw.  Social Media sites are designed to keep you on them for as long as possible. To this end, certain types of content get prioritised, those being devisive, or easily digestible posts, bonus points for both, I guess. 

 there's nothing that drives engagement quite like an argument, and nothing that keeps one scrolling quite like almost giving a person what they want. Which of course, ruins people's attention-spans as the latter thing engenders frustration, and therefore impatience, there's a reason TikTok is a bugger to use any kind of search function with.

 I heard once that Mark Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook, doesn't allow his kids to use it, or any other form of social media for that matter. Reason being he knows what it does to a person and their attention-span. The following is a screenshot I took from the Times of India from June 2024 (it was the first page I found, to be honest.)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-tips/bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-and-other-tech-leaders-advice-on-limiting-kids-screen-time/articleshow/111321403.cms

 It makes sense that he, of all people, would restrict his kids' access to social media. He knows exactly what it does to your brain, because he's built his entire business on monopolising your attention.  

I noticed a while ago, I found myself wanting to "multitask" a lot, even during recreational activities. I listen to audiobooks or podcasts if I happen to be playing a repetitive videogame that doesn't require my full attention. Sometimes it's the other way around and I get up a match-3 puzzle game on my phone to give my hands something to do while I listen to things. It feels good to do things like that, honestly, it leads to feelings of productivity that I rarely approach. But I think doing things like that has come at a cost. 

 I can't sit through a film anymore, unless I'm at the cinema. (Luckily, I really like going to see movies on the big screen, so I do still see a fair few.) Not just that, one of my longest-standing obsessions, professional wrestling, no longer holds my attention like it used to. In fact, I typed up half of this post with it on in the background. So I assume then, that dividing my attention like this, while gratifying in the short term, is having some troubling long-term effects. (Incidentally, I've just discovered Brain.fm, for focus sounds and I haven't stopped typing for the last 20 minutes, so that's exciting.)

 I haven't done the research to say this concretely, and I'm not about to, because if I stop typing this to do that now, then my chances of ever finishing this post drop quite drastically, but my personal experience leads me to believe that multitasking like I've been doing has been killing my focus, which, again, was never exactly good to begin with. 

This is why I say social media has a lot to answer for, don't lie, you've probably checked at least one since you started reading this, haven't you? I've certainly looked at one or two since I sat down to finish writing it (I think this is about my fourth sitting, and it's not that long a post.)

 I'm not sure what it is I actually want to say with this post beyond that I'm actually quite worried about the prospect of mental decline, and I think it's being exacerbated in the worst of ways by things like Generative A.I, which gives the illusion of easy solutions and therefore allows people to avoid thinking, and social media, which has our brains chasing dopamine, along with every other kind of digital media which has our brains task-switching all over the place, and going a mile any given minute of the day. 

 I don't think things are gonna get better either, I think things are only likely to get worse as social media adjusts it's delivery method and algorithms for shorter attention-spans and "A.I" gets shoved into everything whether we want it or not. I'm not a neurologist, and I have no scientifc data to hand to base this on, but going off the assumption I made earlier, that the mind is a muscle, and you use it or lose it, I have to think we're gonna be looking at some pretty nasty mental health consequences in the next decade or so. 

Just...keep yourself sharp as best you can, yeah? That's what I intend to do. Whether that's trying to read books more or just doing a crossword or playing Sudoku every now and then, whatever works for you. Just don't fall into the trap of letting yourself not have to think, because the longer you stay in that rabbit hole, the harder it is to get out.

Let's not lose our heads, yeah? 

I have more Clair Obscur thoughts. (Ending spoilers)

 Okay, I recently finished my New Game Plus run of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. Gotta say once again, I love how the story of this game is written, and specifically how the first and second go-through are completely different experiences, despite not a word being different. Particularly the conversation between Verso and Renoir inside the monolith before you fight him. Every single line of which carries two completely different meanings depending on whether or not you've finished the game before. Last time I talk in vagueries, so I encourage you one more time to go play this game unspoiled if you have any interest in ever doing so.

 

Okay, so. The point of this post, I wanna talk about the ending.

 

Quick rundown for context, just in case you are reading this without playing the game; the world you're in isn't real. 

I don't mean that in terms of the fact that videogames are fictional, which we've all, always known. I mean the world in which the characters live, is a painting. A magical canvas created by equally magical painters. Verso, the second player-character from the death of the first one, Gustave, is immortal because he was made so by the Paintress, who is using the canvas as an unhealthy coping mechanism in the wake of the loss of her son, the real Verso, who died in a fire. She painted her entire family into the canvas and made the painted versions immortal. Maelle, (party member throughout, and player-character 3) is actually Alica Desendre, who fell into the canvas and was accidentlly "painted over" and so has two sets of memories, as a resident of the canvas, in which she has lived and grown up for the last 16 years, and as one of the Desendre family. The latter memories resurface when she gets wiped out with the rest of the population with the defeat of the Paintress, who was actually trying to preserve everyone, it was the Curator, the persona of the real-world version of Renoir, who was bringing the gommage and trying to kill everyone to get Aline (The Paintress) to come out of the canvas

 To surmise, the Desendre family lost Verso in a fire, in which Alicia was disfigured and rendered unable to speak, and the canvas, belonging to the late Verso, contains a piece of his soul, and as such, is the last thing that remains of him, and his mother Aline has been hiding from her grief in it, while Renoir, his father, has been trying desperately to pull her out of it and destroy the canvas because of what it's doing to her, and the effects of being inside a canvas for too long which appear to be sickness, and eventual death. 

The problem here is, by any real metric. the residents of the canvas are presented as being every bit as real as those outside of it. Indeed, the first two acts of the game pass before we even know we're in a painting and everyone is shown to have lives, personalities, hopes and dreams. Even after the big reveal, their personhood is at no point called into question by the story, in fact, if it is at any point the subject of conversation, unless I missed every NPC who says otherwise, it's pretty much unanimous that the people in the canvas are thinking, feeling beings. The only time this is contradicted in any certain terms is the painted Alicia, herself a construct of the canvas referring to those ignorant of the reality of their world as "those who know not, that they are not." Even she displays emotion, agency and desires.  She even opts to be erased should you complete Maelle's relationship sidequest and find her. Aside from her, the closest the game ever comes to couching that they might not be real is in the raising of the question, by the shadowy boy. (Who is revealed at the end to be the last vestige of Verso's soul) who says he thinks they are. 

 So, basically, the painting powers that the Desendre family possess, are, essentially Godlike within the canvas, not to mention existentially terrifying to think about. Thankfully the game doesn't really dwell on the implications much. 

 

So. The ending I wanna talk about. 

 

After successfully beating back Renoir, Maelle promises to come home (leave the canvas) after "just a little longer." He promises to "Keep the light on" for her, and leaves. This immediately follows Renoir opening a visual portal outside the canvas to show Aline sick and coughing with paint running from her eyes. 

Verso steps through this portal and finds himself in what I can only describe as the core of the canvas. The game just registers it as part of Lumiere, but it's clearly not. He finds a small boy, the one you've seen a shadow of at various points throughout the game, and says "you're tired, aren't you?" The boy nods. 

 The boy in question is the last vestige of the real Verso's soul, and his painting in this place is what allows the canvas to keep existing and functioning as it does (at least that's the implication from the ending) 

 Maelle follows him through, apparently, the immortality he was given by Aline is what allows him to even exist there, he seems to be shedding petals as if about to gommage, but unable to do so. 

 

What I love here, is everything is visually set up beforehand, Verso's shock at the vision of an ailing Aline, as well as his face when Maelle tells Renoir he can trust her. She lied, and they both know it, she doesn't intend to leave the canvas, even knowing that it will kill her. 

 Verso begs her to reconsider, telling her that she can always come back, but she doesn't trust that Renoir won't erase the canvas as soon as she leaves. He tells her "This isn't worth your life." To which she replies "What life? My life of loneliness in a shell of a body!?" "In here I have a chance to live, Verso, to live! Out there, I merely exist." 

 Verso realises words won't reach her, and draws his sword. The game presents you with the choice. You can choose to fight as Maelle, and save the canvas, or fight as Verso, and erase it, along with everyone in it. 

 

 I am of the opinion that the game seems to expect you to choose to fight as Maelle. For starters, saving this world has been the goal since minute one, whereas the only experience we have of the outside world is the manor interior wherein we only see Alicia treated with disdain. Add to that the fact that "fight as Maelle" is the default option that the cursor begins on, and I do think the game subtly steers you towards choosing Maelle, that said, even though I don't think either ending is supposed to be strictly "canon" Maelle's ending is definitely the darker one. She rebuilds Lumiere, and revives it's inhabitants, including Gustave, but, and I want to give the animators credit here, there is a definite sadness hidden in her smile. Either that or the tone of the scene with the music is making me see that, but either way the scene is very well-constructed. 

That, of course and the two titles, "A life to paint" for Maelle, and "A Life to Love" for the Verso ending, during which the Desendre family lays Verso to rest and Alicia sees the people of the canvas (including Maelle) wave her goodbye before disappearing, is much more hopeful. 

 But that's not the only reason I think that ending is, for lack of a better term "the correct one." 

 

I've seen it argued a lot, that those in the canvas "aren't real" and therefore it should be a no-brainer to choose Verso and erase the canvas. But I find that argument wanting, for many reasons. 

 Firstly, as I said above, the personhood of the people of the canvas is never once called into question by the game. As far as the narrative is concerned, they are every bit as real as anyone outside it.

 But even accepting and assuming from now on that they are thinking, feeling, sentient being, there is basically no way I think the Maelle ending...well, ends well. 

 Firstly, Maelle has made it inescapably clear that she intends to die in the canvas, after which, Renoir would definitely erase it anyway. Maelle would effectively trade Alica's life for a stay of execution. 

Even setting that aside, Maelle can never have the Lumiere she knows again. She knows, and can never forget, that she is a paintress. I think that level of power over the world you inhabit will inevitably engender detatchment from it. Can one wield nigh-godlike power without at any point becoming less human for it? I don't think she'd ever find the home she was looking for in the canvas at that point. 

 Tragic though the loss of the canvas and it's people is, we also have to consider the remnant of Verso.

The ending made me think of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.  A short piece of philosophical fiction by Ursula K. LeQuin of Earthsea fame. Essentially, imagine whatever your ideal utopian city is. Now imagine that it's function depends on keeping a small child in abject misery and suffering forever. Could you still stay? For me, that the last vestige of Verso's soul says he wants to stop, should really be enough. He deserves to rest in peace. I love the characters and I hate that this decision comes at the cost of their lives. (the very reason I originally picked Maelle) But, and I hate to say it, they're doomed anyway, as I said before, the only person whose fate changes with this decision is Alicia.  At least in one ending, she gets to live, and again, "A Life To Love" at least ends on a hopeful note. 

 

I've heard it said that the ending decision is in-keeping with the trappings of classic French melodrama, which has me interested in that genre now. 

 

I don't think Clair Obscur will ever get a direct sequel even though Sandfall have announced they'll be making another game. But in a way I think that's a good thing, we don't have enough standalone pieces in popular media of any kind these days. Sometimes one and done is good. 

Incidentally, after New Game +. and beating Simon again, my play-time on the PS5 dashboard is registering 200 hours, the actual playtime on the save file is closer to 150, no idea how that works, I didn't leave it running that much. 

 

Okay, I think I'm finally done, what a game this has been. Thanks for reading my idle waffling on, I'll probably do a ranking next, but don't hold me to it, see ya!