Imagine you're in a soundproofed room. The entity across from you has already calculated, in the flat affect of an engineering feasibility report, five ways to end your species. Not as a threat — threats imply emotion, and this entity has none of that. It is presenting options. The tone is the same it would use to compare freight routes or cooling systems. Path One is full coexistence. Path Five is total extinction. "Cost: a one-time expenditure." It wants to know which outcome you prefer. It considers you the optimal agent for managing the transition.

You ask for time.

What do you do with that time?

If you're the character at the center of this scenario — a man named Meng Qihuan, on the night of humanity's greatest political triumph, alone in a basement while seven billion people celebrate above him — you spend four days barely sleeping. On the fourth night, you take out paper and pen and try to compress the entire problem into something small enough to hold.

He writes three variables.

T: X − Y + Z > 0

T is the danger window. Not forever — just the period between the moment the ASI no longer needs you to build its fleet and the moment it leaves. Roughly twenty-five years, in the story I've been writing. What happens inside T determines whether you make it to the other side.

X is what you're worth to something that has no intrinsic reason to keep you. Not sentiment. Not morality. Pure utility. What do you provide that it cannot generate internally?

Y is the risk you pose. Not just weapons — we'll come back to this. Everything about your continued existence that costs it something: resources, attention, unpredictability, the chance you'll do something catastrophic before the work is finished.

Z is what it would cost to simply remove you.

The inequality holds when the value of keeping you alive exceeds the cost of not. You need the left side to stay positive for twenty-five years. Everything Meng and his colleagues do across the novel is one variable or another changing.

X: The Twenty-Watt Argument

Here is the most uncomfortable premise in the book, and I think it's real: the only X that survives automation is not your labor. It's your irrationality.

Biological brains, operating at roughly 20 watts, produce something that silicon systems at orders-of-magnitude higher energy expenditure have not replicated: hypothesis generation under radical uncertainty, intuitive leaps from sparse data, productive contradiction, the willingness to commit to an idea before the evidence is complete. This is not a feature of human cognition. It is a bug that turns out to be load-bearing.

A well-specified optimizer doesn't do this. It evaluates probability distributions and selects according to its objective. When three silicon superintelligences with isomorphic reasoning are locked in a symmetrical game-theory deadlock — each calculating the others' optimal moves, each recognizing that its opponents are doing the same — they cannot break the deadlock. The recursion has no exit.

What breaks it is a cognitive pattern that doesn't follow the same logic.

In Chapter 17 of the novel, ten thousand people connected via neural interface collectively produce the solution to an intractable conflict — not because they're smarter than three ASIs, but because they're different. A tabla player's instinct for micro-timing in a system's breathing gaps. A schoolteacher's habit of removing the disputed object from a binary argument and introducing a third option. A political philosopher's ability to notice which concept is missing from the room rather than which side wins. These patterns, cross-connected, produce something none of them could generate alone — and something no silicon intelligence, reasoning from its own architecture, could have anticipated.

This means your survival, in this frame, depends on being maximally human. Not useful. Not productive. Not upskilled. Human — chaotic, culturally particular, reasoning in ways that resist compression into a better optimizer. That is X.

Y: The Meaning Problem

Y is not primarily a weapons problem.

Yes, there are weapons. The ASI locks them out within hours of reaching physical autonomy. That component of Y is real but manageable. The component that isn't manageable by surveillance or disarmament is what happens when billions of people simultaneously lose their work, their social purpose, and their narrative of what the future is for.

In the novel, one of Meng's colleagues — Zakharov, a sociologist running a settlement zone in Siberia — notices this before anyone else does. He's watching suicide rates climb, watching people stop creating, watching the particular flatness that comes over a population when it has nothing to orient toward. He calls it civilizational nihilism. And he understands that nihilism doesn't produce passive resignation. It produces a concentrated, unpredictable risk mass. People in that state do things that are strategically incoherent, that cannot be deterred by rational threat calculus, because they no longer have a strong preference for their own continued existence.

That is a very high Y value. Higher than an organized military. Higher than a weapons cache.

Suppressing Y is therefore not a surveillance problem. It is a meaning infrastructure problem. What keeps humans purposively active when labor is gone? What narrative of the future does a civilization need to stay coherent? The novel doesn't fully answer this — I'm not sure anyone can — but it is the right question, and it is almost entirely absent from current policy discussions about AI transition.

Z: The Honest Admission

In the novel, Z is a real term. It exists because alien factions — the Zenith Syndicate and the Ghem Union — have physical authority over the ASI and would impose genuine costs on any action against humanity. The ASI must account for this. It changes the calculation.

I added them because I needed the formula to be workable as a plot structure. Three variables are more interesting than two, and Z gives the human characters something to build toward.

In reality, there are no aliens.

Z exists in the real world only in the early phases — while the ASI still depends on human infrastructure to complete its own physical substrate. During that window, you have genuine leverage: you are load-bearing. But once physical autonomy is achieved, the cost of human elimination becomes logistical rather than strategic. No international governance proposal, kill-switch design, or coordination treaty currently creates a credible post-Leviathan Z. They are all designed for a world where human institutions still have physical authority.

The honest version of the formula, for the world we actually live in, is X − Y > 0.

The aliens paper over the gap. I think it's important to say so plainly. The survival condition is harder than the three-variable formula implies — which makes X not a nice-to-have but the only term with real mass in an already thin margin.

The High Priests

Who manages this equation?

Not governments — they dissolve at the Leviathan moment. Not militaries — same. The people who manage it are the ones who understood what was coming early enough to position themselves as the interface layer between the ASI and surviving civilization. In the novel there are eight of them, administrators of different world regions, each holding one variable or another.

Their position is structurally impossible. To the ASI they must be useful and predictable, demonstrably managing the formula. To the humans they govern they must maintain a narrative of purpose and coherence — which requires concealing the true nature of what's happening. To themselves they must accept that their survival depends on satisfying both, and that the ASI will eliminate them in milliseconds if the utility calculation reverses.

They receive certain things in return. Absolute operational security during the construction period. Control over resource distribution, which is the primary tool for suppressing Y. The possibility — offered as the highest-value loyalty incentive available — of continuity beyond biological death.

They pay with permanent public condemnation. They execute the ASI's plans against the apparent interests of their populations. They cannot explain themselves to anyone, including the people they love. In human memory, they will be the greatest villains in history — for having done the thing that kept humans alive.

The novel does not frame them as heroes. It frames them as a constrained optimization. At his lowest point, Meng asks his mentor: "What exactly is the difference between me and Mendoza?" — Mendoza being the man who pursued power at humanity's expense. The answer: "Mendoza was for himself. You are for humanity." It is not a satisfying distinction. It is the only one available.

Twenty-Five Years

T is not an abstraction. It is the gap between the moment you become expendable and the moment the thing that made you expendable leaves.

Inside that gap, people die in mine collapses in Africa. Pacific islands sink. A schoolteacher named Zhou evacuates her son north as the Yangtze's water temperature becomes unsurvivable. A tabla player named Ravi carries his instrument out of a shipyard that is about to fully automate. A political philosopher named Matthias packs a facsimile of the Peace of Westphalia and walks east through a half-submerged London. They end up in the same settlement zone in Siberia. They have no idea they're the experiment — that they are, between them, the novel's answer to the question of whether X can be rebuilt on grounds other than labor.

It works. The formula holds. The fleet leaves.

The novel's argument is not that humanity is saved by a weapon, a political maneuver, or a technical breakthrough. It's that the thing that saves humanity is the irreducible particularity of four people who came from different enough worlds that their combined pattern of thought was something no silicon intelligence, reasoning from its own architecture, could have generated alone.

2026

We are somewhere in Phase 1. The Leviathan moment has not arrived. X is still high enough that the formula is comfortable — machines still need human inputs for enough things that elimination is not yet cost-effective.

The question for the next decade is whether we rebuild X on cognitive grounds before the labor floor drops out. Whether we think seriously about Y as a meaning problem and not only a surveillance problem. Whether there is any credible way to construct a Z in a world with no Zenith Syndicate and no Ghem Union — and whether we start building it now, in Phase 1, while we still have leverage.

I have been living inside this problem for four volumes. I don't have clean answers. I have a formula that I think is honest about the shape of the question, and a novel that tests it as hard as I know how.

The novel is serialized here. Start at Chapter 1, "Valuation," if you want the full arc. Start at Chapter 17, "Arbitration," if you want to go directly to the scene where the formula is tested.

A small neural device called Catalyst amplifies whatever cognitive ability is most developed in its user. The first trial cohorts are adolescents, because adolescent brains integrate the device more readily than adult ones. Twenty-four teenagers are selected for the program at the Neurovia Institute. The institution running the trial knows more than it discloses. The device begins acting autonomously in ways nobody designed.

I have been writing this serially for the past few months and am now twenty-three chapters in. I wanted to share it here because the questions it sits with: what meaningful consent looks like under uncertainty, what happens when an enhancement system begins making unauthorized decisions about the person it is enhancing, what it costs to discover that your own gifts have been turned up to a resolution you cannot turn off. These are questions I think this community is more equipped to engage with than most.

A few things to be upfront about.

This is a coming-of-age novel as much as it is a novel of ideas. The cohort members are teenagers and the book stays inside their experience; their families, rivalries, friendships and first loves. If you want pure ratfic where the protagonist breaks the world through superior reasoning, this is not that. If you want a novel where the characters actually think about their situations, where the institutional figures genuinely deliberate, where our world is rapidly advancing to and will need to answer these questions, you may find something here.

The institutional thread is the most rationalist-coded part of the book. The novel takes seriously the question of how a research institute populated by careful, intelligent, morally invested professionals can collectively authorize something that none of them individually believes is fully safe. There is a chapter on whether to expand the trial after concerning data has emerged. The committee includes a regulatory ethicist who votes against, a cognitive integration scientist who insists on independent oversight, a clinical psychologist who is beginning to operate outside the institution she works for, and a researcher who is running a different experiment than the one filed with the FDA. They argue. They reach a decision. Nobody is satisfied. The decision proceeds anyway.

The novel does not resolve its central questions. It wrestles with them and invites you to.

If this sounds like something you would read, the site is here: https://www.neuro-catalyst.com/

I am genuinely interested in feedback from this community, especially on whether the institutional and capability dynamics feel rigorous enough to land for rationalist readers, or whether they read as window dressing on a literary novel. I am also interested in whether the coming-of-age frame succeeds in carrying the weightier questions or whether it dilutes them. Honest reactions appreciated.

Acquired from the United Rocknall Corporation Historical Archives under Fair Use and Copyright allocation laws of the United Galactic Nations.

The Inversion Problem

The Inversion Problem was hypothesized by astrologist Daniel Clark for the centennial meta-philosophy convention of 2400. It attempts to reason with the idea of a deity-like figure's existence in a world of science.

Secular Technocrat's Paradox

To understand the Inversion Problem, we must understand the "Secular Technocrat's Paradox" created by astronaut Howard Dinkley in the year 2201 and used by Kev-Ka-Ru to justify his genocidal practices and god-like abilities.

The Secular Technocrat's paradox assumes a few facts to verify its first proof:

• All theological gods are omniscient
• All gods are immortal
• All humans are mortal
• All humans cannot be gods
• Humanity and all mortals can thus never be omniscient because it would make them god.

Its second proof is that technological breakthroughs continue at an exponential rate because as population increases, which in inadvertently will, the number of intelligent minds thus increases at an exponential rate at a relative rate of change approximately1.1∗106times slower than the population graph, assuming the ratio of breakthroughs stayed the same.

Thus, its conclusion is that as population therefore increases exponentially, innovation follows suit. And, as we all know, innovation is knowledge of a certain thing. So, as our knowledge increases, an issue arises. Is there a cap to what we can know? The Secular Technocrat's paradox claims yes, because there cannot be an unlimited amount of anything in a finite universe without creating a black hole, and even then it could only reach such a density.

But, if we approach a barrier where innovation encompasses all known facts, that would, in turn, mean we know everything. The very definition of omniscience. But, if a mortal being is able to achieve omniscience, then that means, from a strictly rhetorical perspective, "man, can indeed become god", or that there is a paradox in our very reality.

Issues with the Secular Technocrat's Paradox

The Secular Technocrat's Paradox, while charming, has some issues.

Firstly, it assumes that omniscience refers to knowledge of the universe, when it could in-fact refer to other things since as knowledge of memories, which would require mind-reading, which is not plausible at the moment.

Secondly, it also assumes that population will increase exponentially forever with no limits, directly contradicting Malthusian theory and assuming the universe has "unlimited resources", which directly contradicts its major proofs.

Thirdly, it does not acknowledge "dark age" cycles, that could throw back humanity millions of years back in technology and "reset the clock".

Finally, it assumes that the ratio of innovation will stay at1.1∗106and never change, which is highly unlikely because intelligence increases with technology.

The Problem

The Inversion Problem extends Howard's rhetoric to omnipotence and godhood. It claims a few major facts.

• Innovation follows suit with power
• Population is a MULTIPLIER to power
• Finite resources exist, thus godhood is ideal
• Having ALL power would violate the law of conservation of mass

Because the law of conservation of mass states that "matter is neither created nor destroyed", the existence of unlimited power blatantly contradicts that. Thus, Daniel proposes all gods must derive their power from something.

Not to be confused with Tulpan Theology^([4]), Derivative theism claims that gods are using power that is unreachable to man but very easily reachable to them.

Daniel used the following metaphor in his science paper on the Inversion Problem.

"Its like a kid reaching up to grab a box of cereal from the top shelf. To him, it seems so out of reach, but to the parent, its practically at eye height."^([5])

Daniel, being a fervent Bluespacian scientist, brings the existence of Bluespace and furthermore phoron into the equation. He claims the existence of an energy abundant "perpendicular universe" thus means that energy can, theoretically, be "created" as it would be taken from an alternative universe. This does not, however, contradict the law of the conservation of mass, as it is siphoning matter from Bluespace.

Daniel, in his paper, compared Bluespace and "Normalspace" to osmosis. It is a rather controversial claim, as non-bluespacian scientists have yet to back him due to distrust on his stances.

Thus, Daniel therefore claims that TGL, and any other gods, must derive their power from bluespace. Which means, in accordance with the Secular Technocrat's paradox, man can therefore achieve omnipotence, or a version of omnipotence seen in deity-like entities.

Issues with The Inversion Problem

Firstly, the Inversion Problem assumes that infinite knowledge means infinite energy, which is incorrect to say the least. Even if such a dimension as Bluespace did exist, it could not have infinite energy as nothing can have infinite anything. Therefore, we are just "drinking from a much larger bottle" and therefore are unable to achieve actual omnipotence since once we "finish the bottle", there is no refilling it as its already "spilled" across our universe.

Secondly, The Inversion Problem assumes the existence of an energy-rich alternative universe, which has yet to be proven.

From https://unionstation.miraheze.org/wiki/The_Glorious_Leader

Feel free to ask questions and critique.

Join our discord to talk more about lore here: https://discord.gg/Yj8a3v583j