
Sponsored By: AE Studio
This essay is brought to you by AE Studio, your custom software development, and AI Partner. Built for founders, AE helps you achieve rapid success with custom MVPs, drive innovation, and maximize ROI.
Editor’s note: Today we’re publishing our first piece of science fiction. We love sci-fi because it inspires possibilities for the future—and we believe that the stories we tell today become the businesses we build tomorrow. “Hundreds of thousands of engineers are working on projects today because they saw some product in a science-fiction story that they want to make real,” Wired founding editor Kevin Kelly has said.
Today’s story is called “To Whom No Explanation Is Possible,” by Mina Fahmi. In a near-future society, governance has been entrusted to an all-seeing AI system. A young man living with his grandfather discovers that he perceives colors differently than previous generations. He sets off on a journey to find out why—and discovers an unsettling truth. What happens next forces him to grapple with the nature of faith and science in a world where technological progress has surpassed human explanations.
We’d love to know what you think—let us know in the comments.
To Whom No Explanation Is Possible
“The mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of the term of a hundred million years; it cannot add up and perceive the full effects of many slight variations, accumulated during an almost infinite number of generations.”
—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species
My grandfather used to say, “You don’t know a man until you’ve crossed the Sahara with him.” Today, the Sahara is a lush prairie dotted with hypersonic rails and silica arcologies, but I understood what he’d meant. Ancient travelers lacked modern satellites to chart their path—they relied on the sun, stars, and each other. If travelers missed an oasis, they might wander the dunes until succumbing to dehydration. Members of a caravan needed to trust one another completely, and none more so than their leader. At times, the leader had to make inscrutable decisions based on intuition, killing pack animals and abandoning the injured, all for the good of the tribe. But what did it matter, so long as the tribe made it across alive?
My grandfather would talk about the day when the warning blasts fell, when southern Libya was rendered to glass and the surface of the Baltic boiled off into space. Humanity agreed that it was careening towards a precipice and handed the reins of society to a wiser artificial system. Scientists assured the public that this system would follow both the collective goodwill and that of every individual. The system said that things would change quickly for the better, and they did. Every disease has been cured, every menial task automated, every scarcity fulfilled. And meaning has persisted despite fears to the contrary—through the pursuit of creative expression and self-actualization. We have supposedly achieved the middle path, an idyllic world, “utopia.” But as I’ve come to learn, other changes are unfolding much more slowly, nearly beneath the rim of human awareness.
It began when I visited my grandfather for breakfast in the pinewood grove by my childhood home. He pointed to sap glistening on a nearby trunk. “I’ve always loved the turquoise when it catches the sun.” I squinted. I could see brown and yellow, but not turquoise. My grandfather laughed. “Perhaps your eyes are different from mine.” Then, he suddenly grew solemn. My grandfather had a habit of abrupt weightiness, as if his posture had remembered something that his lips refused to speak. “Perhaps your eyes are different,” he repeated, softly yet clearly. I knew better than to ask him about his crypticisms.
Later that morning, I asked the system about the glints. “Some older people see differently due to environmental factors they experienced while growing up.” I became curious—perhaps the change could be detected, and I could print a gene mod to see the turquoise. The arcology’s biochem labs employed quantum computers to model everything from subatomic interactions to the sociological effects of a new compound. Only the system could make sense of information that complex, and humanity relied on the system for all advanced research. But my grandfather kept some pre-war gene prompters in the lead-lined basement of my childhood home, where I’d spent many nights dabbling growing up.
My grandfather obliged a hair with uncharacteristic nonchalance, which I fed along with one of my own into an archaic prompter. I asked, “Are there any differences which affect turquoise vision?” It deliberated for a few minutes, then beeped: “YES. DIFFERENCES IN OPN1SW CAUSE A 2% DECREASE IN THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE TURQUOISE, INCLUDING A 98% DECREASE AT EXACTLY 487.17 NANOMETERS,” followed by a printout of the associated gene sequences. I pocketed the slip and requested a VTOL to the nearest arcology.
The system was critical in dealing with convoluted sciences like biology. Prior generations tried designing medicines using numerical solvers and biofilms grown on polycarbonate disks. These were poor surrogates for an endlessly intricate world. The problem with human-led science was that every incremental step had to fit within the narrow confines of human ingenuity. Even when scientists began developing simple versions of what would become the system, then called “machine learning models,” they were designed to only produce results that were human-interpretable. Scientists reasoned that if machines were transparent, they’d be easier to trust. This imposed an arbitrary ceiling on the usefulness of such models, as they were fundamentally incapable of leaps beyond human comprehension.
When the tritium bombs fell and society transferred governance to the system, this limitation was lifted. Pages of mathematical proofs and carefully controlled tests first assured the public that the system wouldn’t kill everyone. The system said it would make everything better—it just needed to be trusted. It took years to build that trust. When the system began seeding the ocean with iron pellet accelerators, environmentalists feared that ecosystems would be destroyed. And when anarchists who nuked an orbital system node were swiftly relocated to Madagascar, historians warned of incipient authoritarianism. But now, climate change has been averted, most are content with the balance of civil and collective rights, and countless other challenges have been solved. Individuals saw incredible change in the course of a single lifetime, and came to trust the system.
These early changes needed to take place quickly. Climate follows time constants governed by physics, and society can only handle chaos for so long before it breaks. But on a universal time scale, decades are infinitesimally short.
Thirty minutes later, I stepped off the VTOL and onto the landing port of a biochem module. I continued through the entrance into a softly lit room composed of smooth beige stone. Smoky glass walls forked from the lobby, providing visitors with privacy as they conversed with the system. I walked down one hallway to a pillar composed of the same glassy substance. “I have strands of hair from myself and my grandfather,” I announced, wanting to confirm the old prompter’s results. “Are there any differences in our genes that would influence how we see turquoise?”
A ring of light encircled the pillar. “I’m happy to assist,” the system hummed. “Please insert the samples below.” A previously invisible receptacle extended from the pillar, and I deposited the hairs. The receptacle slid back seamlessly; then, after a moment, the light pulsed. “There are no differences to genes which influence the perception of turquoise,” the system replied. “As I mentioned before, any difference may be due to environmental factors from your grandfather’s youth.”
Perhaps the old prompter’s phenotype simulator was outdated. At the very least, I expected its gene sequences to match that of the system’s. High-accuracy sequencing had been solved even before the war—one error in every trillion base pairs became the norm thanks to extensive redundancy. “Could you send the relevant sequences?” I asked. The system hummed once again. “Of course. It has been sent to your journal.”
I withdrew my journal from my jacket and placed the slip I’d received from the gene prompter on top. ATCCATGAGA…AAAATGTCGG… Everything between the prompter and system’s readout matched. I continued to position 722, where the gene prompter showed “A” for my grandfather and “G” for me. Here, the system’s result simply read “A” for both. I frowned. “What was the accuracy of pre-war gene sequencers?” The ring of light shone steadily. “Gene sequencers were once highly reliable. However, radiation damaged the microelectronics of nearly all pre-war machines, and most have since been recycled.” It paused. “I notice you are holding a gene prompter printout. Are you aware of an unreclaimed machine? If so, I can assist with disposal.”
Ideas and Apps to
Thrive in the AI Age
The essential toolkit for those shaping the future
"This might be the best value you
can get from an AI subscription."
- Jay S.
Join 100,000+ leaders, builders, and innovators

Email address
Already have an account? Sign in
What is included in a subscription?
Daily insights from AI pioneers + early access to powerful AI tools
Comments
Don't have an account? Sign up!
The limits of our understanding is an interesting area to explore. I liked the premises of the story and the narration style. I have a couple of feedback items. It’s meant as constructive feedback:
I think the reasons for why the system does not reveal its modus operandi could have been developed further. Humanity seems to have cracked AI safety with mathematical proofs but is content with “have faith”. This is a big gap. I would also have liked to see the effects of this manipulation of the DNA information on a more consequential situation that impacts and changes the characters beyond just realizing they are being lied to. It would add a great dramatic thread to the story, I believe.
It’s great to see developing sci-fi writing on here. I would love more of this!
@Alex Adamov thanks Alex, this is great feedback! shared with mina. it's our first go round at this, so i really appreicate you taking the time to leave a comment!
i do think you're right that there's potentially a bit of a conflict between "pages of mathematical proof" for AI safety and the AI's inability to express its plan except to tell the main character to have faith. i'm not sure what mina had in mind, but my guess is there a few ways to resolve this contradiction:
- it's possible that an AI that was at one time explainable with mathematical proofs became unexaplainable over successive generations
- proofs that an AI won't harm us are different from an AI's explanation of its plan for humanity—it's possible that the latter explanation is just many orders of magnitude more complicated than the proof that its plan is not harmful in the same way that it's much easier to verify a password is correct than it is to guess a password
i deeply appreciate you taking the time to leave constructive feedback, we can always improve the writing on here and that's our goal! but your question stimulated me a bit, so i wanted to think about whether there were ways to resolve the contradiction.
your point re: dramatic consequences for DNA manipulation is a good one, well taken. thanks again for commenting!
@Alex Adamov thanks for your feedback! I largely agree with Dan's thoughts below - particularly, that guaranteeing safety is a subset of being able to explain anything. Another example of this is that we can show that certain equations are mathematically valid, without being able to conceptualize what that function means in the real world. And similarly, would love to think through even more meaningful impacts on our DNA / fundamental nature. Thanks again!
@danshipper Love your analogy with passwords. That's an interesting angle I hadn't thought about. There is perhaps proof that there is an ultimate alignment (playing the same game) but not an ability to explain the proceedings of the game until a final outcome. Perhaps the AI itself does not know the full story but has a probabilistic take on every assessment and just acts based on the belief that this is the best set of actions given what it knows.
It's a very interesting topic!
@minafahmi3 Yes, I see what you mean. This reminds of psychohistory in Foundation. Some of the characters know the mathematical rules and can directionally see how events will evolve at high level but not how it influences the path of individuals.
Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading your future work :)
Lovely piece
Once again, I’m requesting that you change the responses under “what did you think of this post?“ Clearly you’ve designed a zine that inspires as well as educate, so why do you insist on using a shop worn, truly trite , annoying word, like “amazing?“ I don’t comment, because the only word I would respond to would be “Inspiring.”
@agoodwin222 i truly appreciate this feedback, word choice is extremely important to us—so we'll definitely think about whether we should change to something else. i like the idea of "inspiring"
@danshipper So good to have a response! Thanks for taking it in. Every emails are pure pleasure... Ariane
@agoodwin222 and the sci-fi was a delight (and this from someone who really doesn't take the time away from creating to read online!)
@agoodwin222 im so glad to hear that! we weren't sure what the reaction would be, but it's so exciting that readers are into it!
@danshipper NOTE: emailed twice re joining ur Chat bot class, but it's complicated & I'm not hearing back from you. Look for 8/11 email from [email protected] Thanks
@agoodwin222 thanks, looking into this now!
@danshipper that's great...hoping to hear from you soon. I'm also open to a short phone chat, which may be more efficient than email. If that suits, let me know the best way to get a phone no. to you.
@danshipper also, found this article on MIT Review that lays out the energy suck of AI and wondering if you've thought about this w/ ur chat bot program...https://tinyurl.com/3ebvfkvb
@danshipper So, I got a response to my email query about the Chat bot course, but whomever read my request didn't understand it. I wrote back, clarifying, but I'v heard nothing. It's an unusual request and needs someone who can think, ironically, out of the box. And I think the deadline is arriving, yes?
Excellent fiction about a possible future.
This was a very nice short. I loved the opened-ending and how it left me with a feeling of a sort of terror and hopefulness at the same time. Very good!
I enjoyed this piece but would have asked the "AI" what it's definition of non harm to Humans was. It could be construed that keeping Humans "safe" would be easy if they were "dumbed down" to the point of never putting themselves in danger , but is this really keeping them safe? NO Humans, by definition are "created in the image of their creator" and thereby are creators themselves, making them, by nature, dangerous. No creation takes place in a bubble.
It sems they have created what some claim does not exist. God. But a God for only THIS world...not the supernatural. Not an afterlife. "Have faith."