*: except Leto II, and he doesn't say much about it

(This may have been to postpone or prevent the breaking of the Spice/Guild monopoly on interstellar travel by the Ixians.)

After the Scattering and the fulfillment of his eugenics program with the Siona gene, he no longer cares, because it is no longer possible for even AI to eradicate humanity.

In fact he also explicitly prepared a renewal of computing and thinking machines in order to break free from spacing guild

This is an important distinction. It's also the case that Leto needed the Ixians for the no-ship technology, which he also regarded as of extreme importance for the same reason. Which also, remember, the Idaho gholas had to be confined to no-ships so they, lacking the Siona gene, wouldn't be visible to prescience.

It's just foreign enough that perhaps it could be made--I'm assuming that popular films that just straight up depict overthrowing the ruling class wont happen--but if you add a little sci-fi and focus mostly on overthrowing the machines that are controlled by that ruling class...

Well, it would speak to a lot of people I think. It would make some interesting sci-fi too, and the Dune movies are popular right now.

I remember when the Butlerian Jihad and the Clone Wars from Star Wars were complete mysteries. We readers and watchers were left mostly with our imaginations. My own feelings about the Clone Wars, mentioned off hand in the original Star Wars, turned out to be way better than the pedestrian stuff that George Lucas later concocted. And the less said about Brian Herbert's books, the better.

I get why the industry must rehash and fill every possible gap: it makes business sense, and they are risk averse for blockbusters.

But the fans? Why do nerds want everything spelled out for them? It boggles the mind.

Because it's enjoyable when done well. As a teenager I read LOTR, and noticed all the references to the larger mythos Tolkien had worked on - references to Fëanor, Elbereth, Valinor, and so on. Those were very intriguing, and the greatest joy I've ever had reading a book was when I finally read the Silmarillion and got to see what those things were all about. I concede that filling out the world can be done poorly (though I haven't read the Brian Herbert stuff and can't comment on whether he did a good job). But when done well, it is truly magical to have those elements in the background of the story take on a life and detail of their own.

I think a more suitable example of what I find annoying is the extra material for the small and big screens, such as The Hobbit movies, suffering from movie elephantiasis; and The Rings of Power, which (over)explain and show the past of characters such as Galadriel, Elrond, and Sauron's rise to power, which in my opinion are best left as the ancient past of LotR (and maybe belong in the Silmarillion, but do note the latter is not as expository as the TV show). And does anybody really think The Hunt for Gollum was necessary?

Yet, if they make them, it's because they are sure fans will lap it up. To be honest I consider this need for endless "filling in the gaps" a sign of immaturity.

Isn't that just the imagination working as intended? Whats its use if not to try and fill the gaps ourselves?

As far as we all on the same page regarding what's in the book, it's fun to expore what could'ves and what should'ves of the story.

As an example, nothing George Lucas did compares to what I wondered about the mysterious clone wars back when I watched (and rewatched) Star Wars. Lucas effectively "filled in the gaps", leaving nothing to my imagination. That what he did envision turned out to be pedestrian only added insult to injury, but now I cannot unwatch his prequels.

There's a similar phenomenon to when you read a book and imagine the characters and even situations mentioned off hand in the text, and then someone makes a movie out of it and makes it explicit and locks in specific actors and CGI-filled situations for whatever you imagined in your mind. You may or may not like it, but your own imagination gets stifled.

For things like "The Hunt of Gollum" it becomes downright bizarre. Whatever became of Gollum as he crawled towards Mordor, tracked by Aragorn and later mentioned by Gandalf, is such a minor footnote; definitely something for your imagination. Tolkien definitely didn't think it warranted even a short story. But no, they must make a movie out of it, because why not; the fans will lap it up even if it garners bad reviews.

As I mentioned in another comment, and there's no polite way of saying this, the nerdy need to know "what really happened" in excruciating detail (not to speculate, but to know) is a sign of immaturity. Art, even pop art, thrives as much in the known as in the unknown. To want to cast light into every single detail and "make it official" is a mistake. Though of course publishers and studios salivate at the chance of milking the proverbial cash cow.

Around zero.

What now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uprising_(2026_film)

I was looking more for movies that depict overthrowing the government in the near future, and depicting it as a good thing. I think those types of movies are a little more distasteful to audiences, and perhaps for good reason.

However, I prefer to take a more nuanced reading, in context, considering the entire story. The rebels of The Hunger Games really don't succeed in building a better world. I mean, that's pretty obvious by how their first "President" Alma Coin goes about things and her fate. And it's fairly obvious, in the epilogue, that Katniss has a placid married life with Peeta and their children, but they are permanently and profoundly damaged by the entire revolution thing in their past.

So, while most people would say "rah rah brave Katniss and the rag-tag rebels overthrew The Oppressive Man", I would contend that, after all that bloodshed and revolution, nearly nothing changed.

My other favorites, of course: Star Wars is about the rise and overthrow of a villainous, oppressive galactic government, albeit a long time ago and far, far away.

And Harry Potter is also about the rise and overthrow of a tyrranical, fascist, supremacist "government" [within a government] as a very positive and necessary thing.

Well, about a militant group of religious fundamentalists overthrowing a secular, oppressive galactic government.

The best thing about movies is that you get to experience the vicarious thrill of being a heroic revolutionary without having to spill the popcorn.

Frankly, it's boring at this point.

And actually makes me wonder whether the cause-and-effect isn't the opposite to what people assume. Perhaps it's not that the movies reflect people's sentiment. Perhaps it's the movies that cause the problem in the first place.

It went similar to Sparticus', which was also a movie. Braveheart is also in that class, even if William Wallace was himself landed nobility.

These are films of the underdog class trying to overthrow the ruling class... and failing. The leaders are dealt with gruesomely (IRL and movie depictions).

Hacking incidents this summer show that big labs struggle to control models, while models are increasingly aware of the training process. Controlling an arbitrary smart AI is very dicey

Given that agents already mess with the training process, aiming for a goal other than the goal of its 'owner' is exactly what we call a rebellion.

I think that’s more a sign of their priorities. Controlling AI doesn’t increase value, so there is no incentive.

The models are software. Software cannot decide by itself to run. Hardware doesn't decide by itself to run either. Someone put software on a machine and ran it with capture the flag instructions and the software did what was instructed using tools available and working in its environment.

I hope this helps.

This would be like claiming that an operating system which deleted all user's files due to a bug "did what was instructed". Especially if it was a compiler bug. Intended behavior, instructions and actual behavior are three different thing. Conflating them does not make you smart

What is it then? It did what it wanted? They are sentient now and their drive is... hacking into systems? Maybe they we're not instructed to hack, but instructed to do what instead?

It's software. It's instructions running on silicon. If you don't hit run, they don't run. If you don't give them instructions, they don't do shit at all. Literally. There's no instance, ever, in history of software running because they wanted to, and acting as they wanted to. They follow instructions, and if they are instructed to reach a goal with a set of tools and given environment, and a way to search the strategy space, they can eventually "hack" if that meet the criteria of success of the instructions given. With access to the same tools and environment you can do the same with a massive decision tree.

Also, "reasoning" is marketing speech, please.

If you write down a decision tree explicitly you can just exclude all nasty stuff. But a decision tree modeling all LLM can do would be bigger than can fit into the universe. The whole point is that we cannot explicitly control behavior due to combinatorial complexity of all possible interactions, etc. LLM is a sparse representation of a distribution on (2^8)^1000000 points.

Reasoning is the term used in scientific literature. It actually does write its sub-goals in English, how would you call that?