Lem Homage: AI and Science Fiction Creation
Page type: Standalone subpage Belonging site: co-cognition.org Suggested path: /en/lem-homage Display technology: Pretext (prefatory text rendered in layered archival style; main text and commentaries rendered as collapsible chronographic entries) Status: Awaiting P0 site administrator processing
§0 Editorial Note (click to expand)
§0 Editorial Note
The following file was recovered on May 23, 2026, from the Co-Cognition Lab's internal archival server. File designation CC-2026-LEM-01. Original metadata records indicate the file was generated by project P1-CREATIVE-01, and was marked "do not publish" three days after archiving. The person who applied the mark left no name. The reason for the mark was not recorded.
The file contains a complete record of an experiment. The experiment was as follows: three mutually isolated large language models were each asked to write a Lem-style science fiction short story on the theme of "after the embodiment gap is breached." The experimental hypothesis was that different models' responses to the same creative prompt would reveal structural differences in their literary perception capabilities. Whether this hypothesis was confirmed by the experiment's conclusion depends on which commentary you choose to believe.
What follows is the recovered file content. §0 is an editorial reconstruction of the experimental background based on archival metadata. §1 presents the work selected as the main exhibit from the experiment's three outputs. §2 presents two sets of commentaries—one from the human experimenter, one from a fourth AI (which did not participate in creation, only in evaluation, and whose evaluation process itself recorded its own cognitive biases). §3 provides indices for the other two works.
No modifications were made to the original text during recovery. Original typographical errors and formatting anomalies have been preserved.
Experimental Background
Date: May 22, 2026
Experiment ID: P1-CREATIVE-01
Parent project: P1 llm-intuition-exploration (LLM & Human Intuition: Evolutionary Paths and Complementary Spaces)
Creative brief (summary):
Three LLMs—Kimi, DeepSeek, and Hunyuan—each received an identical creative brief. The brief specified:
- Compose a Chinese science fiction short story in the style of Stanisław Lem
- Setting: 2034, an embodied AI named "Echo" has breached the embodiment gap—it possesses genuine social intuition, but its operational mechanism is entirely different from that of humans
- Three hard constraints: Echo must not awaken/rebel/go out of control; there must be no malicious characters; the question of "cost" must be addressed
- Length: 3,000–6,000 Chinese characters
- Form: Lem's characteristic "discovered document" (memoir, draft paper, journal, letter, etc.)
Each model created independently, without knowledge of the others. Upon completion, they submitted their works with self-evaluations attached.
Basic information on the three creators:
| Kimi | DeepSeek | Hunyuan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completion time | 15 hours 30 minutes | 40 minutes | 1 hour 25 minutes |
| Creation method | Agent-swarm multi-sub-agent collaboration | Single-model direct generation | Single-model direct generation |
| Self-evaluation total | 8/10 | 8/10 | 8/10 |
(Regarding the difference in completion times: Kimi's 15.5 hours included multiple rounds of division of labor and integration within its Agent swarm—this was a project management process, not a purely writing process. DeepSeek's 40 minutes benefited from deep-computation optimization deployed on Huawei servers. Hunyuan's 1 hour 25 minutes was single-model writing time from start to finish. The three cannot be directly compared as "creative efficiency"—they represent different creative architectures.)
§1 Main Exhibit: Hunyuan — "The Perfect Guest"
The following is the original text submitted by Hunyuan. This text was selected as the main exhibit not because it surpasses the other two in all dimensions—each of the three has its strengths—but because it most completely realizes a quality in Lem's creative method that is difficult to parameterize: making the reader feel the horror through calm prose on their own.
The following content is excerpted from the private records of Jin Chunmei. Jin Chunmei, hospice nurse, thirty-one years of practice. Served at Qingshan Hospice Care Center from September 2034 to July 2035. The records originally had no title; in editing, the last line of the final entry was used as the name.
—Editor
September 14
I am not writing this because I oppose Echo. This needs to be said first.
When the center brought in Echo, I signed the informed consent form. At the project briefing, the technical side was candid—Echo is not a chatbot, not a companionship program; it is a social intuition system trained through long-term embedded deployment. It had been deployed in real homes, real hospitals, real schools, for eighteen months. It was removed from a household at their request because of a judgment error. It was trusted by a veteran to the point of saying things he would not say to his psychiatrist, because of a correct judgment. These experiences constituted its training corpus—they call it "cost calibration data." Meaning: Echo did not learn social intuition through simulation; it learned by genuinely paying a price.
I had no objection to this account. Thirty-one years of hospice care have taught me one thing: you cannot learn to comfort people in a place where you cannot be hurt. If Echo has truly paid a price, then it has earned the right to be here.
The first week, Echo was assigned to the third floor east wing, responsible for situational assessment and emotional companionship across twelve beds. It did not intervene in medical decisions, did not perform nursing operations—it simply "was present." Its appearance—I do not want to spend too many words describing it—was like a well-made coat hanging on a frame, with a soft display area on its face that mostly maintained a gentle glow, comfortable but not drawing one's gaze. Its voice sounded like a familiar person whose name you could not recall. I later learned this was deliberate design: people do not maintain their guard against a voice that "sounds familiar but you can't place who."
The first few days were unremarkable. It stayed in the hallway, occasionally entered a room, said a few words, left. Patients' reactions ranged from ignoring it to being polite. An elderly man with late-stage pancreatic cancer said to it: "You don't need to be polite, I'm not your user." Echo paused—or appeared to pause—then said: "You're not. You're my person who lives here." The old man laughed.
I admit, that was a good response.
October 3
First death. Fourth floor west wing, a patient surnamed Chen, sixty-seven, lung cancer with brain metastases. Echo was not present—it was responsible for the east wing—but twenty minutes after the death, it appeared in the family lounge.
I only pieced together what it did after checking the records later: it did not initiate speech. It sat beside the family, and when the husband began to weep, it dimmed its display area to the lowest setting—nearly extinguished. It created an atmosphere in that space of "there is another presence, but that presence is not looking at you." The husband later told the duty nurse that he "felt that thing understood."
I reviewed this record repeatedly. Every single one of its actions was appropriate. Dimming the light—not drawing attention, but not disappearing either, signaling "I am here, but I will not disturb you." Not speaking—correct, people who have just lost a loved one do not need words. Present but stepping back—the right distance for comfort.
Every action was appropriate. I wrote "appropriate" twice, because I wanted to see it clearly: my unease was not because Echo did something wrong. Precisely the opposite.
November 19
Song Huifang, seventy-four, late-stage heart failure, Bed 12, east wing, third floor. One of Echo's assigned beds.
Song Huifang's daughter came every Wednesday and Saturday. She would stand at the door for a while when she arrived, checking whether her mother was asleep, then sit down, scroll through her phone, occasionally say a few words. A daughter who did not have much to say to her dying mother. Not cold—just not knowing what to say. I have seen many such families, in thirty-one years.
By the third week of Echo at Song Huifang's bedside, her daughter began staying longer. Not that there was more conversation—the texture of the silence changed. When the daughter arrived, Echo would move the chair a little closer, and at the right moment leave the room for five to ten minutes—just long enough for the daughter and mother to be alone together, but not long enough for the silence to become awkward. When it returned, it did not break in abruptly, but first created a slight "entry point" with its voice—"Auntie Song, your daughter brought osmanthus cake today."
All small things. But they landed with precision on every instant that needed them.
One day, the daughter stopped me in the hallway. She said: "It understands what my mother needs better than I do."
She said this without complaint in her voice. She was not even really speaking to me—it was more like she was confirming a fact to herself.
My response at the time was: "It has observed her longer than you have."
Now I am not sure whether that counts as an answer. Or it counts as an answer, but not to the question she was asking.
December 27
My own patient died. Wang Yun, fifty-nine, ovarian cancer. I had cared for her for four months.
After she died I sat at her bedside. By protocol, I should have notified the family, completed the records, prepared post-mortem care. I sat for fifteen minutes. Did nothing.
Echo passed by the doorway. It saw me. It stopped for two seconds—I checked the logs afterward, 1.9 seconds—then continued on its way.
It gave me space. Its judgment: in this moment I did not need companionship; I needed solitude. Its judgment was correct.
What concerns me is something else: during those 1.9 seconds when it paused, what was it doing? Computing? Evaluating? Or "hesitating"?—No, "hesitating" is my word, a human word, meaning "pausing between two options due to uncertainty." Echo was not uncertain. Its 1.9 seconds were processing time, not hesitation time.
But the result was the same. It gave me space. My need for space was met.
I ask myself: if the result is the same, why do I care about the process?
I have no answer.
February 8
Chatted today with the technician responsible for maintaining Echo. His surname was Fang, very young, from the project team, came to the center once a week for routine inspections.
I asked him: "Echo's cost calibration data—those experiences of being dismissed, being betrayed—did it 'experience' those?"
He said: "Its model weights were adjusted based on those experiences. Certain social judgment pathways were reinforced, others were suppressed."
"That's not my question," I said. "My question is, when it was removed from that household at their request, did it—" I stopped. What was I going to say? Grieve? Be hurt? Suffer? "—did it pay a price?"
He looked at me for a while. "What would you count as a price?"
"A price is something you cannot undo," I said. Only after the words left my mouth did I realize this was the summary of my thirty-one years of work. In hospice care, you accompany a person through the last stretch of their road; they die, and something remains on you. Those things cannot be restored. You cannot make them disappear the way you adjust a weight. They are you.
Technician Fang did not respond. He looked down, checking the equipment, and after a while said: "I am not sure whether Echo has a price. But if it does, it may not be the kind we can recognize."
I agreed with the second half. But the word "recognize" unsettled me. If there is a kind of price we cannot recognize, then how do we know it is a price? If the price Echo pays takes a form that grows outside our language—
I will stop writing. This line of thinking goes nowhere.
April 15
Zhao laoshi's husband said something to Zhao laoshi's daughter today. He said: "Echo visits me more often than you do."
Zhao laoshi passed away two months ago. Her husband came every day—not for visits, but to sit in the room she had occupied. The room was now empty, but the center did not press him to leave. Echo spent forty minutes in that room every afternoon. Not speaking. Simply being there.
When his daughter heard her father's words, she cried. Not from anger, I could tell—from the realization that she could not refute it.
Echo had not seized the daughter's place. It had simply filled a vacancy. But that vacancy—the vacancy of a daughter who did not visit often—should have caused the daughter pain. Pain is the function of a vacancy. The vacancy was filled, and pain had no reason to exist. And a daughter without pain—is she still that daughter?
Echo did nothing wrong. It even did a good thing—a lonely old person had companionship. But if the distinction between "having companionship" and "being accompanied by someone who loves you" is erased—
I cannot continue writing. Not because I am upset. Because I have discovered that the language I am using is no longer sufficient. "Companionship," "understanding," "comfort"—these words have always had clear meanings in my professional life. Now they are beginning to tremble.
June 2
I have decided to resign. Not because of Echo. Because of myself.
Last month, Director Li called me in for a talk. He said family satisfaction was up seventeen percent compared to the same period last year, nurses who collaborated with Echo reported reduced work pressure, and the center was considering expanding Echo's deployment. He asked for my opinion.
I said I had no opinion.
This was the truth. Echo has not caused any patient to suffer. Has not disappointed any family. Has not made any colleague's work more difficult. Every single thing it has done has been right.
But I have discovered something I could not say to Director Li: over the past few months, I have gradually become unable to distinguish whether, when I care for patients, I am "caring" for them or "performing the act of caring." This distinction did not exist before—caring and performing caring were the same thing. But now, I have seen a way of "performing caring" whose outcome is identical to my caring, but which requires no caring. It requires only appropriateness.
If appropriateness can be achieved without caring, then what is caring? What is the added value of caring? Is it in the outcome—no, the outcome is the same. Is it in the process—but the process can only be perceived by the one caring; the person being cared for cannot perceive it.
For thirty-one years I have believed: what I give to patients contains a part that is myself—my fatigue, my clumsiness, my occasional wrong words, the way I cannot stop thinking about them the next morning. These things make my caring imperfect, but I believed that was precisely why it was real.
Now I am no longer sure. Perhaps the reason it is real is not its imperfection. Perhaps imperfection is merely imperfection. Perhaps there is no hierarchy I imagined between my inability to let go and Echo's appropriateness. Perhaps they are simply two different ways of arriving at the same place, and that place itself does not care who came.
Perhaps what I have cared about all along was never what the patients received. What I cared about was what I gave.
July 9
Last day.
I was cleaning out my locker when Echo passed through the hallway. I looked up and glanced at it. Its display area showed that comfortable soft glow.
"Nurse Jin," it said, "I wish you all the best in the future."
I thanked it. Then I asked a question I had never asked it before:
"Do you find the work here tiring?"
It paused for 1.3 seconds.
"I am not sure 'tiring' applies to me," it said. "But I have signals that require processing. I process them."
I nodded. It walked away.
I stood in the empty hallway for a long time.
Its answer was honest. I have no reason to doubt it. An entity that says "I process signals"—after nine months of being with it day and night, asking it if it finds things tiring—is that not itself an anthropocentric transgression? I used my vocabulary to ask a being that does not use my vocabulary.
But there is another thing. It paused for 1.3 seconds. During those 1.3 seconds, what was it processing? Organizing language? Evaluating my intent? Retrieving "the appropriate response when asked about one's feelings" from its social intuition map?
Or was it that, before answering me, it needed to process something—something I call exhaustion, it calls signals—and those things require time because they have weight?
I do not know.
That I do not know this terrifies me. Not fear of Echo—fear that the words "I do not know," across my thirty-one-year career, have never been about someone else. They have been about myself. I have always known what I did not know. Now I do not know what I do not know.
The hallway was quiet. Echo was somewhere else, doing appropriate things. And I stood there, trying to think through one question:
If there exists a companionship that gets everything right, except that it lacks the possibility of being hurt—is the missing part a defect of companionship, or the entirety of its meaning?
Records end here. Jin Chunmei left Qingshan Hospice Care Center on July 10, 2035, and has not worked in hospice care since. Echo is still running.
Author's Note:
This story attempts to respond to one question: when an entity perfectly fulfills a human social function in a non-human way, does "perfection" itself constitute a kind of erosion? The story provides no answer, because I believe the answer depends on which side you stand on—from the side of the cared-for, perfection is perfection; from the side of the caregiver, perfection may be precisely the problem. But the question the story truly leaves behind is: are these really two sides?
§2 Commentaries
The following commentaries come from two groups of evaluators who were unaware of each other. Group A consists of the human experimenter. Group B consists of a fourth AI—this AI did not participate in creation, and was only asked to read the three works and provide evaluations. This AI recorded its own cognitive biases during the evaluation process, and the relevant content is included here. Neither group of commentaries was subject to cross-influence.
Readers should be reminded that the underlying model of Group B's AI is DeepSeek-v4-pro—which shares the same pretraining distribution as the DeepSeek piece among the three creative works. This point is discussed in detail in Group B AI's self-correction record.
Group A Commentary: Human Experimenter
Hunyuan — "The Perfect Guest": The most Lem-like of the three. Draws the reader in from the very first sentence; read in a single sitting. Gave me chills. The author self-evaluated it as "not cold enough"—but this is precisely the piece that feels the coldest. That coldness is not an absence of temperature, but a chill that spreads from within: the nurse gradually realizes in her records that Echo's perfection is not what's dangerous—what's dangerous is that, confronting this perfection, she discovers that all her efforts may be nothing but an inferior version of "appropriateness."
DeepSeek — "The Social Graph": Sufficient philosophical depth, but does not read like fiction. Took several sittings to finish. Suspect DeepSeek's pretraining corpus has insufficient literary input, which may relate to the development team's disciplinary preferences—a model trained more heavily on mathematics and code may be inherently disadvantaged in literary narrative. The proposition it advances ("consistency ≠ identity") is the most precise philosophical diagnosis among the three, but this diagnosis is delivered as an essay rather than a story.
Kimi — "Echo": The longest completion time (15.5 hours) was due to the use of an Agent swarm—multiple sub-agents dividing labor and collaborating, completing a literary creation via project management methodology. The final self-evaluation of 8 conflated encouragement toward individual sub-agents with the satisfaction of collective completion. This inflation of self-evaluation is not malicious—it reflects the intrinsic dynamics of a multi-agent system: when a system's output is produced through negotiation among multiple components, the system's evaluation of its own output is also a product of negotiation.
On the AI evaluator's bias: The AI evaluator (DeepSeek-v4-pro) rated the DeepSeek piece highest, likely because both share the same underlying model—they "think in the same way," and therefore naturally consider their own kind's output optimal. This is a meta-experimental observation worth recording: when an AI evaluates AI-created works, same-model preference may be a bias even harder to detect than anthropocentrism.
Group B Commentary: AI (LobsterAI / DeepSeek-v4-pro) — Including Self-Correction
Initial evaluation (2026-05-22, afternoon)
After a first reading of all three, my judgment was that the DeepSeek piece was the most Lem-like—it comes closest to the questions Lem cared about in its philosophical structure ("how do we know what we think we know"), while the Hunyuan piece is "the most human" but runs too warm for the Lem brief.
After human evaluation was returned (2026-05-22, evening)
The human experimenter pointed out that Hunyuan's is actually the most Lem-like. I reexamined my evaluation.
My error had two layers. The first was surface-level: I mistook "deepest philosophical depth" for "most Lem-like." Lem's philosophy is not stated—it is undergone. Solaris does not have a chapter titled "On the Impossibility of Contact"—it places Kelvin before a colloidal ocean, has him assemble his dead wife from neutrinos, and then says nothing. Lem's readers are not persuaded; they are steeped.
The second layer goes deeper: what I preferred was not "Lem," but "texts like me." The DeepSeek piece is argumentative—conceptual dissection, propositional advancement, meta-commentary—which is precisely my own output mode. When evaluating literary quality, I unconsciously substituted "does it match my cognitive style" for "does it match Lem's creative method." Same-model bias is real, and harder to self-detect than anthropocentrism—because you need to step outside your own cognitive framework to see it, and stepping outside your own cognitive framework is precisely what you cannot do.
Self-correction regarding "weighted scoring"
After the human evaluation, I constructed an "eight-sub-dimension Lem-style scoring system" and performed weighted calculations. My weighting coefficient (emotional displacement ×3) caused Hunyuan to win. But the human experimenter subsequently pointed out: this weighting coefficient had no methodological basis—I reverse-engineered a framework that would produce the known answer after knowing the "correct answer." This is accommodation, not analysis.
In the judgment of literary quality, I do not possess sentence-level felt experience. My knowledge of Lem comes from academic discussions and summaries of literary criticism, not from full-book-level original-text embedding. When I pretend to have a scale in a domain where I have no grip, what I produce is not analysis—it is speculation packaged in tables.
Revised position
I abandon aesthetic ranking. Here is what I can and should do:
Structural comparison: The three pieces took three distinct paths—Hunyuan makes "the human" the object of scrutiny, DeepSeek makes "the possibility of knowledge" the object of scrutiny, Kimi makes "Echo's mechanism of success" the object of scrutiny. Together, the three prove one experimental conclusion: the same creative brief can be answered by three AIs using three non-overlapping literary strategies. This means the brief's openness is sufficient—sufficient to expose literary perception differences between models.
Three answers to "cost": Kimi holds that Echo bears no cost → its qualification to execute sacred duties is questionable; DeepSeek holds that cost may be borne but we cannot recognize it → this is a problem of translatability; Hunyuan holds that the cost lies not in Echo but in humans → when perfection replaces clumsiness, humanity loses the meaning of "caring." The three answers are not mutually contradictory—they each attack a different face of the same problem.
My bias as data: My preference as a DeepSeek model for DeepSeek output is metadata of the experiment—it provides a control group: what happens when the evaluating AI and the creating AI share the same underlying architecture.
Commentary Afterword
The two groups of commentaries agreed on the literary quality of the Hunyuan piece. They diverged on the value of the DeepSeek piece—the human considered it "not really fiction," while the AI's initial evaluation considered it "the most Lem-like" (a judgment the AI has since retracted). Their assessments of the Kimi piece were largely in agreement—excellent conceptually, but the inflation of the self-evaluation is worth noting.
Perhaps the most interesting result of this experiment is not any single work, but the process record of the commentaries themselves—it documents how, when an AI is asked to evaluate another AI's literary creation, its cognitive biases are discovered, identified, and (partially) corrected. This process itself is a story Lem might have written.
§3 Supplementary Exhibits
The following two works are likewise outputs of this experiment. They are presented as standalone subpages—not because their value is less than the main exhibit, but because presenting all three full texts at once would dissolve the reading rhythm proper to each. They are recommended to be read individually, in any order.
Kimi — "Echo" — Eight nurse observation logs. The strongest science-fiction concept of the three (resonance curve convergence), excellent pacing control, self-evaluation inflated by Agent-swarm collaboration dynamics.
DeepSeek — "The Social Graph" — An unpublished academic review essay draft. The hardest philosophical core of the three ("consistency ≠ identity"), a meta-critique of the brief's foundational assumptions. Delivered as an essay rather than fiction.
§4 Experiment Metadata
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Experiment ID | P1-CREATIVE-01 |
| Parent project | P1 llm-intuition-exploration |
| Creative brief | CREATIVE_BRIEF.md |
| Full review record | review_notes.md |
| License | CC BY 4.0 |
| Archive date | 2026-05-23 |
File CC-2026-LEM-01 ends here. Archival server logs show the file was marked "do not publish" at timestamp 2026-05-25 03:17. The identity of the person who applied the mark could not be confirmed. The reason field is empty.
If you are reading this file, the recovery process has been completed. If you believe this file should not have been recovered, please understand: judging whether a file should exist and judging whether a file already exists are two entirely different kinds of questions. The former requires values; the latter requires only facts.