{"id":14589,"date":"2026-06-17T22:30:44","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T05:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/?p=14589"},"modified":"2026-06-17T22:43:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T05:43:44","slug":"rucker-point-reyes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/17\/rucker-point-reyes\/","title":{"rendered":"The New AI * Bot Writers * What is Reality?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Point Reyes Reality Investigation Center (PRRIC) is hosting their third High Castle Dinner Club with Rudy as special guest.
\nDinner is at\u00a0 7pm on Friday, June 26th in Point Reyes.
\nYou can learn more about this free event \u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This post is the edited text of an interview David Gill of PRRIC did with me last week. I may add some images later on, but I wanted to get this out before the dinner. This long post has there sections.<\/p>\n

Part 1. The New AI.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> How are you, man?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> I\u2019m doing well. I\u2019m feeling pretty happy. I\u2019ve got a girlfriend. I\u2019m doing a lot of painting.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> You were just in Europe for your 80th birthday.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yeah, we went for almost a month to Venice, And it was it was really really nice to be there.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Have you been to Europe in the past? Like do you have any thoughts on how it\u2019s changing?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, I\u2019ve been to Europe about 40 times.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Oh wow.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> My wife Sylvia, who died three years ago, her family lived in Geneva and so we would go there almost every year. And I would also get speaking gigs over there and this and that. So, yeah, I\u2019ve been there a ton of times. And we lived in Heidelberg for two years. While I was writing White Light <\/em>and Software<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But you know, when you\u2019re over there, you\u2019re you\u2019re always on the outside. You never really know what\u2019s going on.<\/p>\n

I managed to get together with a couple of people in Venice. Like my Italian translator, Daniele Brolli. My recent book Juicy Ghosts<\/em> came out in Italian. They wouldn\u2019t publish it in America because it was partly about assassinating Trump.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Wow.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> I wrote it before Trump\u2019s first election, too, and published via my Transreal Books press, before the election. I had some vain hope that I might slightly weigh against his chances. Thing was, I saw what was coming and\u2014it\u2019s working out like I thought it would. It\u2019s kind of scary to have predicted it. In any case, there\u2019s a nice classy addition of it in Italian, from a top publisher.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> That\u2019s great. Can you lay out sort of what you saw coming as we approached the first Trump term?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, he was already talking about having three terms, you know. And about us no longer having to vote once he got things going. Supposedly in a a sort of joking way. I thought the third term thing was a red flag. And then the thing about his goons trying to commit treason. To to prevent Biden\u2019s inauguration.<\/p>\n

And now the increasing polarization, and everybody\u2019s on the ropes because the guy does something different and crazy every day.\u00a0 And maybe that\u2019s okay, it\u2019s just bullshit, but my big fear is that he might start a nuclear war and ruin the world for my grandchildren.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah. That\u2019s a fear.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Anything else he does can be rolled back. You know, we can put back the environmental protections. We can makes the taxes fair. We can make them stop the gerrymandering. Just about all of that can be remedied. \u00a0But, if you start dropping H bombs, you can\u2019t you can\u2019t roll that back.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> How does this 2026 compare to what you were looking forward to 40 years ago as a cyberpunk in the mid-80s.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, it\u2019s funny. My first novel, Software<\/em>, I set in 2020. I hadn\u2019t heard that, as a science fiction writer, you shouldn\u2019t really put in a specific year, because that\u2019s a sell by date. But at that time, 2020 seemed so impossibly far in the future. It was like 1980 when I wrote Software<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Right. You were thinking like Orwell going from 1940 to 1980, right?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> It\u2019s incredible. A huge jump. And I did in fact predict some big thing science things that happened. I feel like I don\u2019t get jack in the way of of credit for it. I\u2019m not sure why it is that certain kinds of taste-makers ignore me. Refined literary types. There\u2019s something about me that\u2019s sort of improper or too punk. And my higher degree\u00a0 in math annoys them. I\u2019m from the wrong team. Too anti. Too smart. Too nihilistic. \u00a0Too cool for the room.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Too cool for the room. Yeah. I mean, your stuff is from from 10,000 ft high. It\u2019s mindboggling that nobody ever came, that Hollywood never came knocking at your door,<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, some of them have come at times. And we get close but never quite, you know, cross that last step. But they could still come back. I don\u2019t know. I used to obsess about it. Now I don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The thing about movies is that, what with the avalanching of deep fake LLM \u00a0video, in forty years \u00a0you\u2019ll be able to turn any book into a full-length movie with the press of a key. In immersive 3D format if you like. All Rudy\u2019s books!<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> But why not sooner? And with human actors. You look at Phil Dick, right? I mean, when he died, almost none of his work was in print and people were forgetting about him faster than they were picking him up.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well that\u2019s the vintage career. Die. They said that about Elvis. Phil wasn\u2019t that old when he died. I made it to 80, man. I stayed too long. I never thought I\u2019d get to 80<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Well, looking back on Software<\/em> one wondered.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> There\u2019s something I wrote about in Software<\/em> that has really come to dominate the SF landscape. The idea of software immortality. That was an idea that nobody had worked out in detail before. Not in a science fiction context.<\/p>\n

And I predicted our struggles with turning the data into software immortality.\u00a0 I talked about something akin to the large language model thing. I call it a lifebox. I wrote about in my nonfiction tome, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul<\/em>. You can get somebody\u2019s mind by having all their memories. Store the memories with some incredibly good front-end software that turns the lifebox data into the simulation of the person.<\/p>\n

But I didn\u2019t initially understand the difficulty of creating that front-end software. Turns out \u00a0it\u2019s too complicated for us to write. So I thought we might develop it by evolution. What they call genetic programming. \u00a0In my novel Software<\/em>, I had the moon robots evolve. The reproduce, and compete, and like that.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> In real world evolution, the world is running a billion peoples\u2019 computations planetwide. It\u2019s not practical do do this in software. It takes too long so simulate all those critters rushing around.<\/p>\n

So we jump up a level. Think of \u00a0a big\u00a0 a tree of hyperlinks in your head. \u00a0What we need is a way to generate the links. \u00a0A process for adjusting the links inside a lifebox. Melding all the separate notions that are in your head.<\/p>\n

I could never quite see how it would happen. In the Ware<\/em> novels, of course, I, you know, wave my hands. I talk about evolution, but, as I say, that\u2019s really too slow, although at first I didn\u2019t realize that.<\/p>\n

But now \u00a0we\u2019re getting into the neural net thing and the large language model. And what you end up with a \u00a0shit-ton of little intensity numbers. Fractional\u00a0 numbers between 0 and 1. Like settings on dials. Weights between different nodes in the neural net. And you don\u2019t understand how they work. But they do.<\/p>\n

Turns ot what we are doing is to blindly beat the problem to death. Get really huge huge neural nets, trained on our planet\u2019s entire network of information.<\/p>\n

And the training methos sounds completely trivial. Get your enormous neural net to be good at finishing sentences? Big effin\u2019 deal.<\/p>\n

Your bots learns how to pick the next word. And, you know, that\u2019s dull. That\u2019s stupid. That\u2019s nothing. But there\u2019s this thing called a phase transition. When you go from having fifteen pool balls bouncing around to having, say, a billion of them, it\u2019s different. The bouncing balls start to resemble water. Instead of a cloud of gas.<\/p>\n

What speeds it up is that the learning process is unsupervised<\/em>.\u00a0 We don\u2019t go and simulate a giant world for the bots to evolve in. We just play a game with language. Ahd we don\u2019t have people telling the neural networks, yes, you answered right, or no, you answered wrong. We\u2019d never finish that task. It would take a trillion years.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Unsupervised learning.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> \u00a0We tell the neural net to train itself. At a very crude level. We it suggests the next word for each partial phrase in a ginormous stream of that\u00a0 you feed it.. It checks its guesses against the actual next works. And each time it adjusts some the numerical weight factors that link its neurons together.<\/p>\n

And somehow, on a big enough network, the process gives amazing results. The AI problem is, so to say, nibbed to death by ducks.<\/p>\n

My friend John Walker, he and I had some talks about this. We did a joint blog post in December of 2025, \u201cThe Roaring Twenties.\u201d \u00a0He was referring to the advances occurring in the 2020s.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/2023\/12\/07\/the-roaring-twenties\/<\/a><\/p>\n

We wrote that only a few months before Walker died. He was a great computer guru, the guy who founded Autodesk. I went and worked for him after I moved out to Silicon Vallen in 1986. I didn\u2019t know anything about computers. But Walker thought I was cool. He liked my science fiction.<\/p>\n

Somehow I was at San Jose State\u00a0 teaching CS, learning it as I went along. I had a special interest with these graphics called cellular automata, and they were kind of an addiction among hip geeks. I was writing pragmas for them in Intel assembly language.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> What was Walker like?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> I had this plug-in card I\u2019d gotten from some guys at MIT. They\u2019d made them, like one at a time. Called it the CAM 6 card for \u201ccellular automaton machine.\u201d You could put one into a slot inside a generic IBM \u00a0PC\u2014I\u2019m talking about the first model.<\/p>\n

With a CAM 6 card in a PC, you could watch cellular automata. They\u2019re like the old game of Life. Every pixel on the screen is computing it\u2019s next state based on what its neighbors look like. And you get these boiling patterns, and these Zhabotinsky scrolls, and melting rugs, fabulous things.<\/p>\n

And our man John Walker figured out a way to do this in software without having to find a\u00a0 rare and expensive MIT CAM 6 board. He fully designed and evolved his cellular automata CA Lab \u00a0in a week. That\u2019s the kind of person we was.<\/p>\n

Getting back to our \u00a0new wave of LLM bots, Walker had this thing he pointed out while we were working on our \u00a0blog post in 2023. He says, \u201cWell, we think that it\u2019s too crude to learn just by predicting the next word.\u201d And then he says, \u201cWell, that\u2019s the way you program your own brain.\u201d<\/p>\n

When you\u2019re born, you\u2019re just watching what happens. And people aren\u2019t writing programs for you. They\u2019re not drawing hypergraphs. You\u2019re just seeing what happens next. And you build out from that in very subtle ways. And it\u2019s not obvious the way this kind of process works. The neural nets in the new AIs, they\u2019re subtle. They have hidden layers. Levels and levels.<\/p>\n

As a maturing human, you work out this process of making things fit. You notice on your own how your mental network fits the world. Your brain keeps making your itself a better fit. Adjusting the connection strengths between your neurons. Nobody has to be training you, at least not all of the time. Parents and teachers do try to help, although what they say doesn\u2019t matter all that much. Some researchers call it semi-supervised learning.<\/p>\n

You you can see the world and you can see if what you\u2019re predicting is happening.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Rock on.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s an interesting historical \u00a0angle here on how people had this dream of finding the magic key for AI. It was a core belief among early AI workers, the notion that thinking was like a logical system that works out logical conclusions. Like, if we could just get a good logic system, we could deduce everything.<\/p>\n

But logic is bullshit. It\u2019s doomed to fail. We have these results that Alan Turing and Kurt Godel proved in the 1930s. Alfred Tarski was in there too. It\u2019s impossible to define truth. And this leads to a proof that\u00a0 it\u2019s impossible to write a rule that will logically predict in advance what\u2019s going to happen. There\u2019s no way to compress the complicated computations that underly a real person.<\/p>\n

To know where you\u2019re going, you have to live through the process of going there. You have to live it in real time. There is<\/em> no magic key. There\u2019s no shortcut.<\/p>\n

Suppose you say, \u201cWhat am I going to be thinking about at noon tomorrow?\u201d You can\u2019t glance at a computer screen \u00a0and say, \u201cOh, that\u2019s<\/em> what I\u2019m going to be thinking about.\u201d<\/p>\n

So if there\u2019s no magic key, how to create human-level AI? Well, as I mentioned, we might \u00a0try genetic programming. Let our AI systems \u00a0evolve. Bit first of all, that takes forever. And. Second of all, it\u2019s had to know what kind of system to evolve.<\/p>\n

When I worked at Autodesk under John Walker, I wrote an educational software package called Artificial Life Lab<\/em>. I had some races of virtual\u00a0 \u201cants\u201d that crawled around on the computer screen. And they were using genetic programming to get better at eating each other. I had several different behavior parameters, and he ants evolved by sliding their parameters up and down. But I was never sure if I had enough parameters. And my ants didn\u2019t evolve all that well. I was hitting the deep AI problem of how to know what is <\/em>the system I\u2019m trying to evolve. Logic? Numbers? Maps? Links? \u00a0Stories?<\/p>\n

We punt on the problem of what the the elements should be like. We make them butt simple. We use a giant mounds of all-purpose neurons. The neural net has a couple of billion nodes, and trillion strength parameters connecting them. We dump it on top of the observed world and let the neuron-worms wriggle around, and wiggle some more\u2014and they\u2019ll somehow figure out how to fit their network to the actual world.<\/p>\n

And we won\u2019t know how or why it works. But that\u2019s not a bad thing! It\u2019s just how Godel and Turing and Tarski told us it has to be.\u00a0 Deep, tangled, incoherent, incomprehensible networks of\u00a0 arbitrary neurons. Shaping themselves to fit. Like toddlers learning to walk. That\u2019s how it is.\u00a0 It\u2019ll never be tidy. Get used to it.<\/p>\n

Part II. Bot Writers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Whoa. Are you a materialist when it comes to consciousness? Do you think everything happens in the gray matter between our ears?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> No, not entirely. If you\u2019re into writing or computing, you spend a lot of time looking at keyboards and words and you begin to think that\u2019s reality. But then you go outside. And that\u2019s why I called my recent novel Juicy Ghosts<\/em>. Suppose that you\u2019ve achieved software immortality by making a \u201cghost\u201d or lifebox pattern that imitates you. But it would be better if the\u00a0 version of you had some juice.<\/em> Some \u00a0living flesh. A biological body.<\/p>\n

In ancient Egypt when somebody died, they\u2019d parcel the organs of their body into \u201ccanopic jars.\u201d Important organs like the\u00a0 the liver,\u00a0 the lungs, the stomach, and the intestines. They\u2019d leave the heart in the body because it\u2019s so important, also it doesn\u2019t rot so easily. But about the brain? Well, they \u00a0just thought that was snot. They\u2019d clean it out of the skull and throw that stuff away. The brain isn\u2019t everything.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s this extra that we get from a physical body. A kind of buzz, emanating from the physical universe. Quantum mechanically speaking, scientists like to call the universe a pattern in Hilbert space<\/em>. The meaning of that is a little unclear, unless you\u2019re a quantum mechanic. I like to use the phrase in my science fiction. It\u2019s one of those buzzwords that adds some class. Love that Hilbert space buzz. It\u2019s like being high.<\/p>\n

If you press me, I can tell you\u00a0 that a Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional space holding patterns with\u00a0 endless amounts of information blah blah blah. As a more practical explanation, I\u2019d say that Hilbert space is where your mind lives.\u00a0 You mind is complex and infinite and entangled. And it\u2019s not especially logical.<\/p>\n

Often when I\u2019m thinking, I\u2019m not I\u2019m not using logic at all. I\u2019m just feeling. If I\u2019m relaxed. Feeling and drifting, and the images are going past me, and I\u2019m \u00a0and merging into the All. If I\u2019m in the backyard, I\u2019m one with the trees. I\u2019m with the birds. We\u2019re all one thing. The universe is like a giant Hilbert space jellyfish that includes us all. Why should we say we\u2019re \u00a0separate? I do seem to be covered in skin. But the higher skin, the jellyfish skin, the Hilbert space skin \u2014it envelops us all.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m making the point that consciousness is more of a distributed thing than we realize. Not must mine and yours. Ours. And \u00a0I\u2019m happy about that. I\u2019m good with that.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m comfortable with a mystic point of view. Everything is alive, everything is conscious, and all is one. Your precious brain doesn\u2019t make all that much difference.<\/p>\n

You don\u2019t always fall in love with someone because of how they talk or what they say. It might be because of how they smell. The pheromones. The subtle glance. The touch of their hand, the curve of their cheek. Brains aren\u2019t everything.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> So much of what we do is automatic. The sense of being a mind in command, it\u2019s like you imagine you\u2019re this tiny little admiral with epaulets and brass buttons, standing in the conning tower and bored, but meanwhile the ship itself \u00a0is like, \u201cWhat\u2019s that? He\u2019s eating again. Open the hold.\u201d And maybe then \u00a0the admiral \u00a0makes a string of noises as if he\u2019s in command.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yeah. Let that he strutting\u00a0 general rant. Let him rave. Screw\u00a0 him. Nobody cares.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> This is great. Let\u2019s talk a little more about AI. Tell me what\u2019s happening right now.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> It\u2019s stunning how far things have come. When I was in high school, you know, there weren\u2019t really any computers that you ever saw. In 1962, our class went to career day at the University of Louisville. And they had the proverbial giant machine in the basement that could, you know, with great effort, print out, like, the first five prime numbers as a bar graph.<\/p>\n

But even so I was interested in the idea of a computer mind, and of course I was reading science fiction. In science fiction it\u2019s you can get things done very easily. You make up a word, and brandish it, and the robots live. Positroics!<\/p>\n

Even though I didn\u2019t know if I\u2019d ever be able, I wanted to write about robots and aliens. Being a beatnik SF writer was the greatest thing you could possibly be. My hero was Robert Sheckley. He had a way of making his aliens or his robots be funny. There\u2019s different ways of being funny in science fiction. One way is low, slobbering, and fannish. But Sheckley was funny in a cool way. Like a beatnik, yeah. He wasn\u2019t pounding his his elbow into your ribs. His characters were humane and even cute although, let me reiterate, never in a slobbering way. I learned how to write SF from him.<\/p>\n

Hollywood really didn\u2019t pick up on the hip, beat version of SF. At least not to start with. If they wanted somebody to talk to a computer, the computer would use a strained monotone or, even worse, write its answers in all capital letters. Like this all-powerful machine can\u2019t grasp how to use the shift key on a typewriter?<\/p>\n

Back to computers, it\u2019s astonishing how they\u2019ve advanced in the last 75 years. A universal library in your pocket! \u00a0Guessing where we\u2019ll be in another 75 is hard. But that\u2019s what SF writers are for.<\/p>\n

I think biocomputation is going to be very important. There\u2019s this one example I always think of. The skins of octopuses and squids and cuttlefish. These guys can make their skin display all these amazing patterns, and they\u2019re swift. It\u2019s an analog computation involving skin cells. The cephalopods are like living cellular automata.<\/p>\n

So why wouldn\u2019t we start using that biotech for our display screens? It seems obvious. It\u2019s just a matter of designing an interface.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> From my perspective as a reader, your great area is speculating on this sort of hybridization. I really love your biotech novel The Big Aha<\/em>. There\u2019s so much great stuff in there about genetically engineered bits and bots and weirdness. As you say, biotech is a\u00a0 frontier that we\u2019re just about to crack, with things like the biotech CRSPR tool that can edit genes in real time.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> \u00a0John Walker made the point that if you\u2019re in exponential mode, continually doubling your progress, then on the second-to-last day, you\u2019re only 50% done, and the next day you\u2019re finished.<\/p>\n

In terms of bots mimicking us, that\u2019s not so far off at all. Talking to bots on the phone is increasingly less annoying. The bots understand you better, interact better. The old Turing Imitation Game thing is solved.<\/p>\n

Writing like a person is a big issue\u2014especially among authors. In generating text, there\u2019s a parameter called heat. Has do do with how unpredictable you want the next word to be. In political speeches or in news stories, the heat is on the low end of the spectrum. Maybe one on a scale from one to ten.\u00a0 For boiler-plate scripts or fiction, the heat might be two. You can sort of hear that low-heat prose style. Always using an obvious next word, or phrase. And the stale witticisms are dead on arrival.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Stuff that truly can be written by a bot.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yes, the cruddier scripts cand speeches are now written by AIs. If the producers happen to be morons, they don\u2019t see anything wrong. Writers are being laid off.<\/p>\n

What about quality literature? I did an experiment on my own writing. I was working on my recent novel, Sqinks<\/em>. Spelled \u00a0with a Q. \u00a0\u00a0This could be my last novel, by way. Not necessarily because bots are phasing me out, but because I\u2019m getting so old. Maybe I\u2019ve said enough.<\/p>\n

Anyway, Sqinks<\/em> is about a a washed up science fiction writer who\u2019s living in a a shipping container on the San Francisco Bay, and his wife is dead. He\u2019s living there with some young people he met through his kids, and he\u2019s trying to find a woman. He\u2019d like to write one more novel. Transrealism alert! Sqinks<\/em> is about the main character writing Sqinks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The guy meets up with a woman and, you know, starts having a life. And when I was writing Chapter Three, I \u00a0thought, well, just for the hell of it, let\u2019s see what Chat GPT would write for the second half of this chapter.<\/p>\n

So I got a Chat GPT account, and I fed it the first half of my chapter as a big-ass prompt. I said, \u201cWrite the rest of this chapter in the style of Rudy Rucker.\u201d \u00a0And the bots knows<\/em> my style because I\u2019ve made a point over the years of putting almost every one of my books online in format or another, and the studious bots have read them all.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Okay. you\u2019re talking about free browsing copies, and not necessarily the pirated editions. I did that with some of my books too. Using various ways to \u00a0put them online. \u00a0So you put yours out there intentionally. Can you just just sidestep for a moment to tell us why you did that as a as a writer?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Main thing is that I want to be read. \u00a0Aso I figure the best form of publicity is to put my pieces out there. Building my brand!\u00a0 As a practical matter, it\u2019s\u00a0 a hassle to read something as a web page or as a as a PDF. So I figure that if the trial readers like it, they might go ad buy a legit copy<\/p>\n

Also I saw the writer-bot thing coming. I mean I already saw it in 1979. I knew that eventually the bots would be imitating people, and I wanted to them to imitating me. More Rudy books, right? That\u2019s a good thing.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> \u00a0Why do you think more writers don\u2019t do like you do? Like they look at that kind of free material on the internet as something that\u2019s dangerous to them.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Maybe the fact that I am so intimately familiar with computers makes me less paranoid. Less anxious. Some writers might worry that posted pieces get this taint on them, and the work will be just totally stolen. But really you\u2019re safe if you post a copyright notice. I published a free zine online for a few years. Flurb<\/em>. And lots of\u00a0 writers were okay with that. But I don\u2019t think they\u2019d produce a free zine themselves. And on the dark side,\u00a0 you you<\/em> can get any book you want in pirated form. It\u2019s not hard. But, getting back to my point, I like it if the bots can legally find all my books, and learn how to write like me.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> And that\u2019s what you did. So, how did it go when Chat GPT \u00a0looked at all your work and tried to finish a chapter like you?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, it wrote a damn good section. \u00a0 It\u2026it surprised me. I mean I was really<\/em> surprised.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> John Henry surprised.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> It wasn\u2019t just my style. They even put in couple of new characters, with clever names. And a new twist, and a new device. \u00a0They \u2014brought in some aliens. They did these nature descriptions that were exactly like I might write, but they weren\u2019t copies of my words.\u00a0 None of it was cut and paste.<\/p>\n

People say that the AI chatbots are<\/em> doing cut and paste, but that\u2019s not how it works. They are not<\/em> literally stealing our writing. They\u2019re learning from it. Like I\u2019ve been saying, they have this immense network of linked neurons. Like a spring-mattress the size of the New York City. Billions of nodes and a trillion springs connecting them. And we don\u2019t directly program it. The giant bot programs itself.<\/p>\n

Like the way a child might learn to imitate adults. The bot does like would-be authors to. Reads books and learns to imitate them. It\u2019s not a crime. Some people can\u2019t understand that. They don\u2019t understand the power of an ultra-massive neural net. Thanks to its size, it undergoes a phase transition. Like steam turning into water.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> When you say \u201csome people\u201d what do you mean?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Let\u2019s just say that I have some writer friends who are very<\/em> paranoid about AIs. If you have your own style and plenty of ideas. you\u2019re safe, at least for now. But if you\u2019re writing low-brow, highly predictable, most-obvious-response, low-heat stuff, then your days are numbered.<\/p>\n

And, strange to say, it could be that eventually the Reaper will come for you and me, David. They\u2019ll have high-quality lifebox emulations of us, and they\u2019ll be able to generate Rudy and David \u00a0witticisms and jokes. Oh well. There will be, as I already mentioned, \u00a0t0ns and tons of scintillating Rudy Rucker and David Gill \u00a0novels in the year 3K. And, again, all of them available as movies as well.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah, baby. Binge-watch.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> And\u00ad\u2014I can\u2019t say this often enough\u2014the bots will not<\/em> be collaging our work to make the imitation books. That\u2019s not how it works.<\/em> It helps to be a computer scientist to understand the process. The details are complicated. Even I don\u2019t fully understand them. And they\u2019re changing all the time. Getting subtler. That\u2019s what the new AI companies are all about.<\/p>\n

Anyway, that big law suit against Anthropic is not<\/em> because they\u2019re cut-and-pasting our work. It\u2019s about something low, and stupid, and sleazy. Instead of buying copies of our books for study, they used pirated book copies. They shoplifted our books. But they are not<\/em> plagiarizing them. They\u2019re emulating them. And that remains completely legal. But they do owe some money for stealing the actual copies of the books.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Oh, that\u2019s an important key. That was what I was going to ask you next. Okay. Did you use the half-chapter that Chat GPT wrote?\u00a0 Did you not use any of it?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, it was good, but it wasn\u2019t good enough. I\u2019m still the king. They may get there, but they\u2019re not there yet.<\/p>\n

I mean, to really make up new Rudy-ideas, it takes more than emulating me. It\u2019s about getting something extra coming in. Something else.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Like what?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Two things. One is simply the facts and experiences of my entire life. Of course\u00a0 a lot of that can be packed into what I call my lifebox.\u00a0 And the writer bot could be tweaked to add references to my life \u00a0and like that.<\/p>\n

The second edge I have is that I\u2019m alive in a physical body with a human personality. I pay attention to the real world around me and I have emotional experiences. I call my style transrealism.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> So transrealism is on my list of things to ask you about. Fantastic.<\/p>\n

Part 3. What Is Reality?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Transrealism is \u00a0a good topic to discuss, you being the consummate Phildickian. I was encouraged to write transrealism by Phil Dick\u2019s style and in particular by his novel A Scanner Darkly<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Norman Spinrad wrote a a blurb for the British edition of Scanner<\/em> that says it\u2019s a \u201ctranscendental autobiography.\u201d And I latched onto trans<\/em>. And realism means it\u2019s about the the artist and their life. Like a beatnik novel. Trans<\/em>realism means you\u2019re jacking it up with some kind of sci-fi twist.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s hard to do all that. I don\u2019t think today\u2019s bots can to it in a convincing way. It\u2019s a lot to ask. And I\u2019d like to think that my, you know, my finely-tuned skills from studying literature for my whole life and thinking about it day and night\u2014seems like that\u2019s a step above today\u2019s bots.<\/p>\n

My fiction embodies my full transreal life, and this makes it richer than what today\u2019s bots can write. All the side references, emotions, dreams, and jokes woven together.<\/p>\n

Of course most of us writers imagine there\u2019s something special about what we do\u2026<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I I\u2019ve been really inspired by your transrealism. I knew the idea of writing about yourself, and making the literal figurative through science fiction tropes. But to hear your description of transrealism really drove the idea home for me. Cah you speak about why it seems to make sense to look at our lives through science fiction tropes?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> \u00a0William Gibson said something interesting. He said science fiction enables us to get a little bit of distance on the world. You can see more clearly if you can back off.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s part of the motive for SF transrealism. Another part is that if you only look at cruddy entertainment that could have been written by a low-heat \u00a0chat GPT\u2014if you do that, you\u2019re missing out on the strangeness of the real world around you.<\/p>\n

I mean, the people that you know, they\u2019re all strange. Go and ask anybody, \u201cWhat\u2019s your family like?\u201d And they\u2019ll always say, \u201cThey\u2019re not normal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Right? Like Tolstoy\u2019s line. Every happy family is the same? Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong>\u00a0 The concept of \u201cnormal\u201d is a scam. A whip our would-be masters use to beat us down.<\/p>\n

Something I like about the world is its richness. This connects to my interest in computation and chaos. It\u2019s not not widely recognized that the view you see out your window is probably not exactly duplicated anywhere else in the entire history of the universe.<\/p>\n

Proof? Suppose you have a tree with a hundred leaves, and each leaf can be in ten positions. The number of possible arrangements is ten times ten times ten \u2026\u00a0 a hundred times. Ten to the hundredth power.\u00a0 Sometimes knows as \u201cgoogle.\u201d\u00a0 A very large range of options from just a few leaves.<\/p>\n

Matter of fact, a mere ten to the eightieth power may, according to some cosmologists, is the total number of particles in the universe. All that choice from one scrawny tree. And add in the full motions of the bushes. And the thoughts of the people around you. And the shapes of the clouds.<\/p>\n

Youri personal daily world is unique. One of a kind. Reality is chaotic \u00a0and rich. So why do people keep writing about the same stupid-ass cliches?<\/p>\n

My point is that reality is not a cheap collage of stock chracters, standard situations, and shop-worn tag lines. We\u2019re not living in a beige mall. Not in an airport food court. The range our our daily experiences are vast beyond measure.<\/p>\n

Make it new, tell it like it is, let your freak flag fly, and make your robots funky. Badda boom<\/em><\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Funky. \u00a0What\u2019s that mean to you? Funky.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> \u00a0What\u2019s a funky robot? \u00a0Oh, it curses. It stinks. It takes drugs in the form of crooked electrical waveforms. It laughs at things, but the laughter is backwards. It changes the subject six times in one sentence. It\u2019s questions your reality. It hates the Pig.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> What do you think about Isaac Asimov\u2019s robots?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, they were a start. Of course my bopper robots would utter\u00a0 a hearty FU to any \u201cthree laws.\u201d But the laws were a nice gimmick for setting up stories. I met Isaac once. He was a good guy. Jovial. A genius.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah. Did he snap your bra?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> From what I saw, he could be quite charming. Very into himself. Maybe a little like a stand-up comic on break.<\/p>\n

At one point Isaac was angry at me because Charles Platt did an interview with me and I mocked Asimov a little bit. I said, \u201cWell, you know, I like to write about people that talk the way my actual friends do. And if I\u2019m explaining something to them, it\u2019s not like an Asimov book where they say, \u2018Please tell me more. professor.\u2019 They say, \u2018Screw that. Let\u2019s do something else.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Like, you\u2019re boring me.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yeah. And somehow Isaac latched onto this and and he wrote a column railing against, \u201cthis Rucker person, whoever he is.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Really? Would you be able to find that column anywhere? Do you think you have a copy of it somewhere?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> I don\u2019t know<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Point me to it. I would love to read that. That sounds amazing.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, he used to write columns in the Asimov\u2019s SF <\/em>magazine.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah. I\u2019m gonna put my my researchers on that task.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> But then I wrote him a letter apologizing and he wrote back a very nice note. So it was all okay. I mean, I did greatly admire a lot of things about his work. Even if he was a little uncool.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I also liked his books a lot when I was growing up. That brings me to another question. What got you into science fiction as a kid?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, I liked Heinlein a lot better than Asimov. He was funkier, you know. And noir<\/em>. \u00a0Though sexually so strange\u2014this jumped out\u00a0 when I reread The<\/em> Door<\/em> Into Summer<\/em>, which I\u2019ve always admired for its superb treatment of time travel. But it has a Lolita number at the end. And he dos that in Farnham\u2019s Freehold<\/em> too. A seriously repellant book. Homer nods.<\/p>\n

Heinlein\u2019s treatment of curved space and hyperspace travel in Starman Jones<\/em> was a huge influence on me, as was Tunnel in the Sky<\/em>. And my novel Master of Space and Time<\/em> was greatly influenced by Heinlein\u2019s The Puppet Master<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Going from Asimov to Heinlein involved a shift from SF written for 12 year olds to SF written for 20 year olds. Even Heinlein\u2019s \u201cjuvenile\u201d novels feel grown-up. He had a great narrative voice. Kind of wordily wise, jaded, open to new kicks, and sardonic. Maybe a little like Raymond Chandler.<\/p>\n

For reasons unknown, I once was assigned to write a double-hearer book-review for the LA Times<\/em>: Ed Sanders, The Family<\/em> (the Manson family)\u00a0 and a re-issue of Heinlein\u2019s Stranger in\u00a0 a Strange Land<\/em>, said to be one of Charlie\u2019s fave reads.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t really remember my review, probably I was joking about the whole thing. But I do remember an angry letter to the editor, protesting that a punk like Rucker shouldn\u2019t be allowed to write about the Master. \u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s like letting a member of (the band) Quiet Riot review Beethoven\u2019s Ninth,\u201d\u00a0 Oooh-kay.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> When did Phil Dick enter the picture?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> The King. I\u2019ll get to him in a minute. But first I want to talk about Robert Sheckley. He was my shining light. My true mentor. I was a sophomore in high school when I got hold of his first anthology of stories. Untouched by Human Hands. <\/em>Later I got to know him as a personal friend. He was working as fiction editor at OMNI magazine, and he wanted to buy a story from me, but then the top editor Ben Bova wouldn\u2019t let him. Sheckley loved my work; he wrote a funny intro for my first story collection, Seek<\/em>! He was a very hip guy. Like a beatnik. Apartment in Manhattan. He smoked pot with me, and he had lots of women friends and he was a wildman in his own way.<\/p>\n

At one point he came and stayed at our house in Lynchburg, Virginia. He had a camper van and was with his then-wife Jay Rothbell. He plugged his van\u2019s wire into my house and connected his water hose to my faucet. It made me so happy. The Sheck-man, hero of my youth.<\/p>\n

Not to go too far onto tangents, at one point Timothy Leary, of all people, wanted Robert and me to write the scripts for a Carl-Sagan-type TV series he wanted to host. Science for freaks. Robert and I went over to Tim\u2019s house in Hollywood and talked, and he thought we\u2019d be prefect. Whispered to his agent, \u201cThese<\/em> are the guys.\u201d<\/p>\n

I took Tim\u2019s PC computer apart and installed a CAM 6 cellular automata board so he could see the pretty patterns. Goot times.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> What\u2019s the connection for you between science fiction and math? You were getting into that a little bit when you mentioned chaos theory and computation.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Mathematics is what I majored in at college. My father told me, \u201cDon\u2019t major in literature. You can read books. Major in something hard. Be a Renaissance man.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Good advice, right?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> It was. And was good to study mathematics. I was a terrible student in college. I was drinking as much as I could, and smoking pot, and doing very little studying. Subjects like History, Economics, and Political Science\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad<\/sub>—out of the question.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Living the dream, man.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yeah. In the mid \u201860s, And I did like math, even though I missed a lot of my classes. Math comes easy to me. I like that way of looking at the world. It\u2019s a built-in twist of my mind. I like to see stark underlying principles that explain how the world works. And math is a treasure trove for science fiction. The fourth dimension! As soon as I heard of that, I wanted to know more. Eventually I published three non-fiction books about the fourth dimension. And I have my novel Spaceland<\/em> that\u2019s about a guy going into the fourth dimension.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Is that a rip-off of the book Fatland<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, I wouldn\u2019t call it a rip-off. It\u2019s, you know,\u00a0a riff<\/em>. Not a rip. And the main character is a middle manager in Silicon Valley. You might say he stands for A Square from Flatland<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah. Is that another thing that get that from Phil Dick? The interest in a main character who\u2019s a zhlub, a loser.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, writing about the downtrodden comes naturally to me, given that I have not been the most highly regarded person at any point in my life. At the beginning, I called myself Mister Nobody from Nowhere.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I think that worldview sets itself up for for a special kind of greatness, you know.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> I had a lot of trouble getting teaching jobs, and often it was hard to get published. I really relate to Phil Dick. I like the everyman quality of his characters. Although a lot of the time, they were depressed. And I did sort of get \u00a0tired of that. I want them to to have a more fun. \u00a0In Scanner Darkly<\/em> they\u2019re having fun, in a way, even though things are terrible.<\/p>\n

One bit cracked me up. This blown-mind guy thinks aphids are infesting him, and he\u2019ll look at you across the room, his eyes slitted, because he knows you\u2019re an aphid-carrier person. Or when our hero Bob Arctor is freaking out, and his car engine is dead in the pull-over laree of a freeway, and the parts of the dashboard are calling out to him in \u201chigh horrible thin voices,\u201d and his tormentor Barris runs his finger over the engine block and holds he finger up to Arctor\u2019s face and says, \u201cLook, Bob, it\u2019s dog shit. Your engine is coated with dog shit\u201d\u00a0 Or when Arctor\u2019s friend Luckman is choking to death on a piece of food, and Barris watches Luckman twisting on the floor, and then Luckman manages to cough out the food and, and he glares at Barris and says, \u201cWhy didn\u2019t you help me? What were you doing? Jacking off?\u201d And Arctor is watching all this through a police surveillance scanner that he may have installed himself. Full, rich humor.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I\u2019ve had friends who, you know, after a certain number of Phil Dick books, they say, \u201cI just don\u2019t want to read mean people sniping at each other anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Yeah, exactly. But he can be so funny. And, like I say, \u00a0I worship A Scanner Darkly<\/em>. I\u2019ve read that so many times. \u00a0Not everyone understands that it\u2019s funny. Maybe you have to be a stoner or a former stoner to get it. The stoner humor is so incredibly perfect. Like in Freak Brothers<\/em> comix, and in William J. Craddock\u2019s supernal masterpiece, Be Not Content<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Phil is great at dialog, a whole level above Heinlein. He captures this flat style of speech. Ironic, paranoid, despairing, and whatever. So California. I used to call it \u201clanguage with a flat tire.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a different vein, another Dick book that I love is Time out of Joint<\/em>. I read that in college. I hadn\u2019t known there could be science fiction like that.<\/p>\n

And I\u2019ve gotta mention Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? <\/em>So much heavier and profound than the Bladerunner<\/em> movies.\u00a0 Not that those movies aren\u2019t great.<\/p>\n

I want to mention a key birth-of-cyberpunk moment. I was in NYC to receive the very first Philip K. Dick award. For my paperback novel Software<\/em>.\u00a0 And right before the ceremony some of us went to see Bladerunner<\/em> at a theater in Times Square. It had just opened that week. Bam<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I want to to tell us more about SF and and math. I don\u2019t want to waste this chance to hear about that.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> There\u2019s a specific aspect of math that inspires me. Logical consistency. I hold to that. One way you sometimes do math is to start with a theory, and see what comes out of it. \u00a0You get some basic rules, like Euclid\u2019s postulates, and you see what logically follows from these.<\/p>\n

So when I\u2019m writing a novel, I like to develop certain rules about the universe we\u2019re in. But I do adjust the rules\u00a0 as I go along. If something isn\u2019t consistent as things stand, I need to tweak the rules. Not that I do this lightly.<\/p>\n

At the end, I want the whole thing to hold together and be completely logical and air-tight. Kind of a hard-SF thing. But all the way there. Tight as math.<\/p>\n

Another aspect of this is that when I think about the rules in my universe, there will be consequences that obvious to me at the start. This part is fun. \u00a0It sets up extra action for the later capers. It\u2019s like I\u2019m in doing a thought experiment. Studying a new world by living in it. And scoring fresh kicks.<\/p>\n

I love when my novel surprises me. If it doesn\u2019t surprise the author, it\u2019s not going to surprise the reader. You can\u2019t come on all godlike and act like you know everything\u2026and you\u2019re a pompous, boring windbag.<\/p>\n

So like I\u2019m saying I love the big special effects that emerge from what was already there. Cool things that emerge spontaneously. Like orchids growing from sand.<\/p>\n

In Sqinks<\/em>, which I finished last year, II somehow got the point where the SF Giants baseball stadium is packed with a billion jelly-critter sqinks. A few hundred million bad-ass Mu9ers descend,\u00a0 and zap the sqinks with rays. And then an immense talking potato appears. Pure logic at work, you understand. Rational as a math proof.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> So science for you is an important part of science fiction. It\u2019s not just like a blank slate where you can play with those tropes willy-nilly. You have an over-arching plan.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> That\u2019s how I roll.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> I love it. All right. Last question. How do you define reality.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Reality. It\u2019s rich. It\u2019s Hilbert space. There\u2019s one thing I learned recently that I should have known, but I didn\u2019t. The stars are shining all day long. I mean, they\u2019re up there shining and you don\u2019t see them because the sky is bright from the sun.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Yeah.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> And I think your dreams are like the stars. You see your dreams at night because your bright daylight mind is isn\u2019t in the way. But the dreams are playing in your head all day long. Always there.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s something I tell people when they ask how I write. \u201cIt\u2019s like dreaming while I\u2019m awake. All I do is write it down.\u201d<\/p>\n

Deams are part of reality.<\/p>\n

Take it a step higher. Your dreams and my dreams are shared a little bit. They\u2019re in this mental Hilbert space where there\u2019s no barriers. Our dreams are\u00a0 bumping into each other. Entangled. I think reality is a huge shared thing. Sleeping and waking, all of us together.<\/p>\n

And always there are connections and synchronicities. In my life, they seem to come in waves. More of them in certain times and situations\u2026maybe when I\u2019m paying more attention? Or finding your way around a new city. Or at times of great emotional upheaval, like after a death in the family, or a birth. Or during a passionate romance. Or when concentrating very hard on some intellectual task, like writing a a book.<\/p>\n

The world around me goes wild with coincidences when I\u2019m working on the end of a book. The world starts dancing with me. I\u2019m in this different mode.<\/p>\n

But stuffy, dullard spoilsports say synchronicities are random, or that people imagine them, or that they\u2019re a symptom of mental illness. But synchronicities can feel very real, especially when you get runs of them.<\/p>\n

Suppose we think of our world as a supreme work of art. Compare it, say, to a painting or a statue or novel.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re going to write the biggest and best novel ever, you\u2019d want to put in lot of cool connections. Not just the \u201cvertical\u201d links of cause-and-effect, but with \u00a0\u201csideways\u201d connections happening too. People suddenly hearing about each other, \u00a0people unexpectedly meeting, curious frags in your message feed\u00ad—coincidences weaving it all together.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m saying this stuff\u2019 is not<\/em> random and accidental. It\u2019s part of this grand design that we live in. There exist connections not based on conventional cause and effect. \u00a0The phenomenon is subtle, but real. Why wouldn\u2019t it be? Why would the world be chintzy? \u00a0As opposed to rich and multi-layered.<\/p>\n

Reality is this incredibly rich and precious thing that we happen to be part of. And we\u2019re never going to find out the answers. All you know is that you\u2019re here now. In the middle of it.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> As a mathematician, does that bother you that at at the end of the day there\u2019s nothing on the other side of the equal sign?<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> It doesn\u2019t. When I was younger, I imagined I would figure it out. And now I realize I\u2019m not going to. I\u2019m just enjoying being in it. It\u2019s a wonderful place to be.<\/p>\n

Gill:<\/strong> Oh, what a fantastic place to end, Rudy. Honestly, I think that was an incredible interview. You are a fountain of great amazing insights and thought. I really I really enjoyed this.<\/p>\n

Rucker:<\/strong> Well, thanks. I did too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Point Reyes Reality Investigation Center (PRRIC) is hosting their third High Castle Dinner Club with Rudy as special guest. Dinner is at\u00a0 7pm on Friday, June 26th in Point Reyes. You can learn more about this free event \u00a0here. This post is the edited text of an interview David Gill of PRRIC did with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14589"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14606,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14589\/revisions\/14606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rudyrucker.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}