Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

The Praeses have finally shown their hand

11 (23.9%)

Sedna has 'Powered Up'

2 (4.3%)

Super Gavia has come!!!

12 (26.1%)

Pate has decided to keep Alice alive

5 (10.9%)

Angry Ardent - not to be trifled with

2 (4.3%)

Parentl Intervention

4 (8.7%)

APlot Twist commences

4 (8.7%)

Spathe Ham with Spathe Pizza, Waffles and Spathe Coffee

2 (4.3%)

Purple Monkey Space Mechanic

2 (4.3%)

Spacebutts!!!!

2 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 26

[Tova]

She's cracking wise here too. Positively dropping with irony.  I can't see how you can read this any other way. Honestly.

[sitnspin]

Alice also refers to herself as a witch here too, speaking to Gavia and not her townspeople.  I think she puts more stake in the "witch" thing than just irony.

I interpreted that as her trying to deflect.

[Tova]

Yes, exactly, I agree.

Imagine that you ask me how I know this, and I reply, "Because I'm a genius."

Even if you were taking me seriously, there's no reason to take me at my word (and every reason not to). But it's a deflection, not an answer. In Alice's case, good enough for the townsfolk, but not for Gavia.

[OldGoat]

She's cracking wise here too. Positively dropping with irony.  I can't see how you can read this any other way. Honestly.

"Witch," from the Old English "wicce" meaning a wise woman.  A wicce was also understood to be an elder (probably because age and wisdom usually go hand in hand).  Alice is calling herself a witch in this sense, not the fairy tale Halloween hag version of the Christian Church's Whore of Babylon wanna-be you seem to be assuming.

Immensely old, unfathomably wise (or at least knowledgeable), and preternaturally powerful - describes Alice pretty well, doesn't it?

I picked up on the significance of the surname Grove when Jack's uncle told him to "Go get the witch" in the sixth comic.

[Tova]

Whether you think the term describes Alice well has little bearing on whether Alice self-identifies that way. Just to remind you of the root of this conversation:

I think it's more that humans tend to refer to any woman with abilities they don't understand as a witch. She never called herself a witch, she just accepts that that's what the villagers call her.

I'm not going to enter into the topic of whether the term "witch" really is appropriate. I didn't think so, given its history.

[BenRG]

I think that Alice uses 'witch' as a convenient shorthand for what she is and what she is capable of that avoids her having to tell a long, harsh story which even she would be happier if she could forget.

[blt]

I'm more with BenRG on this one.  To me, the fact that she uses it fairly regularly, and says it to Gavia in private (who would obviously know better), says there's a bit more character depth to it than just "Hey you're a witch" "K whatever"

Maybe she likes the title or the image, or maybe it's just a convenient shorthand.

Anyway, if you can't see anything beyond  "She's deflecting/lol ironic sarcasm", not even to "She's deflecting/and MAYBE there's some character reason she prefers witch based on her repetition of it", I'm not sure what to tell you.

[derech]

The rest is more squishy, and rather depends on if a listener/reader thinks referring to oneself with a name others have used is calling yourself that thing to what extent.   Although using a word as a descriptive shortcut because others have called you that or because  it's as good as any other word that is calling yourself that.   Even if you meant it in another way than others did, especially if it's partially correct in one or more parts of its definitions.    Just because it's sarcastic or ironic or non-serious doesn't mean you're not calling yourself that.   

Obviously not everyone looks at these things in the same way.    It's also not easily a debate that can be concluded definitively one way or another.    See also: White Horse Dialogue, map-territory relationship, sense and reference, use-mention distinction.

What is fairly certain (from what we've seen)  is that Alice has never directly claimed to be an actual witch in the sense of having magic in the sense of being able to cast spells, and as far as anyone here knows, has never cast any.     Spells in the sense of non-technical "powers" and paranormal methods of manipulating otherwise natural forces and without requiring the use of tools to do so.     Just like it's fairly certain she has referred to herself as one, as have others.    Is that her saying she's a witch, perhaps.

[Tova]

Anyway, if you can't see anything beyond  "She's deflecting/lol ironic sarcasm", not even to "She's deflecting/and MAYBE there's some character reason she prefers witch based on her repetition of it", I'm not sure what to tell you.

Let's go with "we agree to disagree."

[OldGoat]

What is fairly certain (from what we've seen)  is that Alice has never directly claimed to be an actual witch in the sense of having magic in the sense of being able to cast spells, and as far as anyone here knows, has never cast any.     Spells in the sense of non-technical "powers" and paranormal methods of manipulating otherwise natural forces and without requiring the use of tools to do so.     Just like it's fairly certain she has referred to herself as one, as have others.    Is that her saying she's a witch, perhaps.

Note Clarke's Third Law.

[KevxD]

No update this week?

[BenRG]

Nope; Jeph was at a convention in Vancouver.

[brasca]

I thought as much, but usually we get a note informing us of this. 

[Method of Madness]

I dunno if I'd consider her a witch, but (and I know I've said this several times), I still don't think she was created.

[derech]

Note Clarke's Third Law.

Yes but there is a difference between innately and inherently being able to harness natural forces via paranormal manipulation, and using tech to accomplish something like it or that works the same.  Others may not be able to tell tech from magic or the opposite, and perhaps even the user wouldn't know.   If somebody knew or could find out the mechanism, they'd know though.   Short of absolute indistinguishable where the difference couldn't be told, or where the method was some blend or mix, it's one or the other.   (Blend/mix, imagine perhaps something like being able to collect and create power and effects from high frequency sound waves by a normal natural ability they'd evolved into, or somebody building a tool that draws upon nodes of tri-folded inter-dimensional magitrons to power it.) 

With Alice IIRC she's not done anything that has appeared to be magical, it's been physical.  Not very witchy.   Age and wisdom and control-wise, perhaps the term fits.  Maybe her demeanor.   She's not really claimed to be one, but maybe she is.    Gavia's tech has appeared to be tech, biometric, created, limited, removable and addable.  What Ardent is doing seems more like magic.   Whatever it is, as far as anyone knows,  it's tech.    Yet why not tech created by magic.   Or the opposite, magic created by tech that looks more like tech so far.  Perhaps it's both   Although content-wise not many could well argue this story has been fantasy and not sci-fi.   

[Morituri]

To me technology and magic are fundamentally different because technology is based on knowledge about the universe, and those natural laws are the same for everybody.  The universe doesn't discriminate, and what is true, is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or cares about it. Therefore technology works exactly the same for everybody.

Magic is based on psychology, and psychology is different for everybody.  What is true depends on subjective experience, belief, symbolism, implication, and identity, and what is true depends on who you are.  Magic works differently for different people because the universe itself (if it's a universe where magic works) cares who they are and how they are psychologically different from everybody else, or because someone has been chosen by the universe as a unique symbol for some principle and is therefore 'fated' to some demonstration of that principle.

In a universe where magic works, natural laws as we know them cannot exist; they have to bend, or break, in order to bring about predetermined or symbolic or believed sequences of events, and therefore such things as the Gravitational constant aren't even constant; it depends on who's asking and why.  Nor are statistical laws capable of describing things, because probability is out the window when someone is fated to act as a champion of the Holy Winslow or whatever.  The natural laws that apply to each person, and to each situation, depend on circumstance and identity and symbol that changes from minute to minute.  In a universe that can't be described by any constant set of laws, technology as we understand it can't exist because no repeatable experiment can reveal any natural laws reliable enough to build it.  Further, if anyone did or could, then the power conferred by that technology would perforce be perceived in symbolic ways and would have consequences - and such a universe operates on symbolism and consequences in terms of fate and identity, so any supposed technology would only work for you if the universe were willing to accord you that power for symbolic reasons anyway.

So while Clarke has a point that from the POV of an outside observer it may be indistinguishable, they imply and require profoundly different things about the universe.

[Tova]

Isn't the POV of an outside observer the entire point of Clarke's Third Law? One person's sufficiently advanced technology is another's sticks and rubber bands, after all. Which means you can either interpret the law as saying that everything is magic, or that nothing is.

The Alice Grove universe, as far as I'm concerned, is only a universe where magic works in the sense that there is, from our universe's POV, and obviously from the POV of the villagers, some seriously advanced technology and lifeforms.

I'm not sure what point OldGoat was trying to make, but the term "witch" in the context of this comic falls into the same category. The villagers call her a witch because she has powers beyond their comprehension. Alice herself would obviously not regard her own powers in the same way.

[derech]

Most places that have actual magic seem to have a given set of natural laws as well, it's just that some inhabitants can adjust some of these natural laws.  Removing localized gravity, creating energy from nothing / converting magic into energy, making objects become without mass or be not solid.  There is some structure and set of rules on top of some base though.   So perhaps it would be more correct then to say that magicians are capable of altering nature or nullifying physical laws in some ways for some period of time.   That where magic exists,  'the laws of physics' aren't always 100% universal.  Be that magic alone,  tech and magic mixed,  tech that works like magic, etc.     Even still, places with magic have limitations.  Not anyone can do anything at any time in any way.  Either because the person casting doesn't know how or isn't powerful enough to, or because such things are even beyond the powers of magic, or because some things take too much magic to carry out.   Sometimes there are just some things someone sane doesn't do, like destroying the star the planet they're on is rotating around. Not unless their magic is capable of and strong enough to substitute for all the forces that keep things in orbit in ways capable of supporting life.   Or they've got a spell to provide long-term protection from deep space, if they even had some reason to do such things.  Unless it was trivial for them and unimportant to them or others...    In that case, such a person might very well be indistinguishable from a god.  Which  goes back to the other subject.

Fort:  "a performance that may some day be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."  Brackett: "Witchcraft to the ignorant, … simple science to the learned"   Ambrose:  "Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." 

Yes, the notion is that if you didn't know anything at all about anything technological (and were not genre savvy and were not capable of advanced thinking) science that could revitalize and supercharge old spacecraft or light one on fire from a flaming forcefield might seem like pure magic to you.  As would be the notion of spaceships and forcefields.    Although that isn't necessarily a fully convincing concept either.   Algebra dates back to at least the Babylonians circa 2000 BC, would modern quadratic equations seem all that odd potentially.  Somebody from 100 BC who was familiar with Antikythera mechanisms that saw somebody today using a voice-communication-enabled pocket supercomputer might well be able to extrapolate.  People were imagining somewhat practical ways to get to the moon long before anyone actually did.     (Presenting things like this to far earlier versions of humans (such as  Au.africanus) is really another matter.   If we showed up 3.5 million years ago, would the brain of that time even be able to recognize we were the same type of animal, much less be able to conceptualize either technology or magic?   Would lighting a cigarette or turning on a television make us seem like gods, just cause them to run away in terror from a horrible monster, make them try and kill us for food, or would we just notice the spaceships seeding the planet with DNA and get back in our time machine before we even began. )   

Beyond that sort of endless discussion,  it's not entirely convincing that this entire 'did she call herself a witch, did she claim to be a witch'  rises to  these sorts of discussions when it comes to either Alice Grove the person or the location.  Yes,  to a given observer, they may not be able to tell the difference between advanced tech and magic.  Is that the case?   Seems the real question is more like if what Alice does appears to be like magic to these people. 

Why do the folks in the town call her a witch? Because she does witchy things, even if that's just  falling dozens of feet, hitting the ground, and being fully unharmed, or without effort beating up the toughest guy in town.   Does that fit, maybe not very witchy at all.   Why does she sometimes use that term.  It could work to explain her advanced status comparatively, her attitude towards them and things in general.  Perhaps even describe to others how she's thought of by the locals.    However, the term has been used mostly in flippant, neutral, wry, mocking, sarcastic, ironic, hyperbolic, joking, dismissive ways though.  Not seemingly as an claim by anyone she is magical or can perform magic.      Which to large extent also rather seems to match how the townspeople use the term, doesn't it?   They don't really seem all that under the impression she's magical either.    Powerful, not to be trifled with, in charge, indestructible, etc; but not an actual witch or with witch-like power.    Nobody appears to believe she weighs as much as a duck.

[Pilchard123]

And don't forget, any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

[Tova]

That formulation makes no sense to me at all.

[retrosteve]

Since we're still on this topic, and there have been no new posts this week, I'll break down what I'm thinking. Clarke's Law and variants are all very nice, but there is an element of sentience here, not just technology. It's not a matter of whether a given technology is science or 'magic'. That's, as Clarke points out, a matter of knowledge.

What I keep seeing, to my surprise, is the idea that sentient creatures (whether the sentience is artificial, natural, or magical) can be somehow "programmed", the way the genie of the lamp was in the Arabian Nights stories. And it totally rings false to me, regardless of the source of the intelligence. Unless it's a genie-type fantasy, which has not been a thing for a few centuries really.

Sentient creatures have self-awareness. In my view, that self-awareness can examine itself down a layer or two, but no further. So you can be aware of your emotions, of your body, of your thought processes. But you cannot be aware of how many neurons are firing or where in the brain they are firing right now.  And if someone wanted to hypnotize or brainwash you, they wouldn't know those things either -- they'd have to program you at the level of emotions and thoughts.

Similar observations have been made about artificial intelligence programs. Once they reach a certain level of sophistication, their creators generally admit that they don't really know how they work anymore. Assuming that such an AI became fully self-aware someday, neither the creator nor the AI would know, at the neuron level (or its equivalent) how things were working. Too many independent levels of processing are going on in between, and self-awareness does not penetrate that deep.  Even AI, the science, doesn't try to.

And that's why I don't believe it's possible to "program" an AI to be guaranteed loyal, or guaranteed non-violent except in certain circumstances, or any other such thing. It's a mixing of levels that, in my experience, is likely to be far beyond either human or artificial intelligence to accomplish.  It's also, my intuition says, impossible, on the same level of impossibility as Turing's Halting Problem. If a program cannot tell you if another program (or itself) will ever halt, then a program cannot tell you how to circumvent its own programming.

Intuitively, I'd guess that no program can "brainwash" a working AI program without impairing its function down below the level of self-awareness.

Since Church and Alice, whether AIs (which I seriously doubt) or modified organic creatures, are obviously sentient, including emotions, impulses, and full self-awareness -- they cannot be programmed, only damaged. Maybe brainwashed, but that is traumatic, damaging and can still be broken out of.  But applying laws like Asimov's, or the if-then rules discussed above, would be a fatal mixing of levels. It can't happen, same as they can't tell you how their own intelligence functions.

All of this is unproven, but I firmly believe it, and I also really think it's unlikely that any decent modern SF story would attempt to break it.

[pwhodges]

What I keep seeing, to my surprise, is the idea that sentient creatures (whether the sentience is artificial, natural, or magical) can be somehow "programmed", the way the genie of the lamp was in the Arabian Nights stories. And it totally rings false to me, regardless of the source of the intelligence. Unless it's a genie-type fantasy, which has not been a thing for a few centuries really.

Have you not read 1984?

Or just watch the news - what else is the radicalisation that leads to terrorism, and notably suicide bombers?

[retrosteve]

What I keep seeing, to my surprise, is the idea that sentient creatures (whether the sentience is artificial, natural, or magical) can be somehow "programmed", the way the genie of the lamp was in the Arabian Nights stories. And it totally rings false to me, regardless of the source of the intelligence. Unless it's a genie-type fantasy, which has not been a thing for a few centuries really.

Have you not read 1984?

Or just watch the news - what else is the radicalisation that leads to terrorism, and notably suicide bombers?

Yeah, brainwashing is possible, but traumatic! It tends to be Skinnerian. And not as simple as "if someone saves your life they can dominate all your decisions forever."

[Pilchard123]

That formulation makes no sense to me at all.

That would be because I mis-typed it. I meant to say 'sufficiently analyzed magic'.

[jwhouk]

It sounds like things before The Blink had, indeed, devolved to the point of 1984-like proportions. In fact, with technology being one side of the argument, I'd say that it was definitely 1984-like.

Now, imagine IngSoc if suddenly Big Brother was shut down permanently because of the decision of an AI - or the main computer frame running Big Brother was destroyed.

That would have been a perfect sequel to 1984, IMNSHO.

[brasca]

And that AI who realized the futility of endless war was named...  Joshua.

And now you know the rest of the story. 

[jwhouk]

And that AI who realized the futility of endless war was named...  Joshua.

And now you know the rest of the story.

"A strange game. The only winning move is to not play. How about a nice game of chess?"

[brasca]

Strip is up! 

And apparently I was partially correct about my genie theory.

[BenRG]

Yeah, I figured that there might be some kind of 'find a commander and follow him' gene programming in the combat units. What's interesting is that Alice has been able to fool it by choosing to serve the whole world rather than a single commander.

In some ways, she's evolved in the same way R Daneel Olivaw wanted the AIs of the Caves of Steel/Empire/Foundation universe to evolve: She's no longer obeying or protecting a single person or faction. Rather, she's somehow implemented a 'Zeroth Law' in herself where all of humanity¹ and its best interests as a whole are her cause.

P.S.:
Whilst it's possible Alice has lost an eye, it is also possible that she's already regenerating, which is almost frightening in its implications.

----------------------
^1. Not only does this give her the ability to destroy any individual faction or person she regards as a threat to the greater community of humanity, it probably means that there are some post-humans who lie outside of her 'protect and serve' criteria. Gavia and Ardent are probably hovering on the very edges of that.

[brasca]

I wouldn't worry about Alice's eye.  It looks like Church's eyes match again.

[pwhodges]

You mean Church's, I guess.  But maybe one of his abilities is to change the functionality of his eye (and its appearance changes with it).

[brasca]

Thank you.  Just corrected that and speaking of eyes Gavia's are red again instead of blue and glowing I hope that she hasn't relaxed her defenses and removed the knife.

[pwhodges]

It was also interesting that Sedna's spiel put Alice and Church in the same bracket.  So why did Church appear to have the upper hand?  Just the slightly varied capabilities of different models?

[brasca]

Probably a subclass.  The question is whether Alice was an earlier model and Church was an overpowered prototype they had trouble controlling or an enemy faction.

[BenRG]

It was also interesting that Sedna's spiel put Alice and Church in the same bracket.  So why did Church appear to have the upper hand?  Just the slightly varied capabilities of different models?

Several upgrades down the line, I'm thinking.

[Kugai]

My guess is that Alice, while strong herself, requires a connection to a 'Command Center' or something similar in order to cal down strikes to augment her abilities along with that giant Warhammer weapon  to operate at 'Full Power' so to speak, while Church may be one of those operatives who is designed to operate without such a 'Back Up' need, consequently, he's now in a position to be able to overmatch Alice after The Blink.

[Morituri]

As I read it:  (Conjecture, really)...

Called it.

[Is it cold in here?]

"Things like Alice and Church" ...

Sedna calls her own former lover a "thing".

Uh, Ardent, did you actually fail to see that Alice was serving the village?

[Tova]

"Things like Alice and Church" ...

Sedna calls her own former lover a "thing".

Uh, Ardent, did you actually fail to see that Alice was serving the village?

She also called herself a "thing."

"We were designed to be strong. ... You don't create something like that without giving it a failsafe."

It's quite possible that Ardent was indeed aware that Alice was serving the village, but at that particular moment incorrectly narrowed his interpretation of "serving" to serving an individual, as was the case with Church.

[brasca]

"Things like Alice and Church" ...

Sedna calls her own former lover a "thing".

Uh, Ardent, did you actually fail to see that Alice was serving the village?

She also called herself a "thing."

"We were designed to be strong. ... You don't create something like that without giving it a failsafe."

It's quite possible that Ardent was indeed aware that Alice was serving the village, but at that particular moment incorrectly narrowed his interpretation of "serving" to serving an individual, as was the case with Church.

Service can be a subjective thing.  Church most definitely acts as a servant, but Alice has been known to threaten and rebuke those she serves.  We've never seen Church do that, but ultimately she does what she thinks is best for her people and in doing so serves them.  Perhaps this is a defect in her programming or maybe it evolved after the Blink.  She may have roamed the Earth for years looking for a superior officer like that last Dalek that didn't know what to do when it found out it was alone.   

[BenRG]

"Things like Alice and Church" ...

Sedna calls her own former lover a "thing".

By extension, she also called herself a 'thing' too. With exceptions like Church, I suspect that the surviving super-soldiers are horrified by what they were made to be and by the fact that they were literally engineered to be slaves.

Uh, Ardent, did you actually fail to see that Alice was serving the village?

Ardent didn't previously know that Alice had to serve anyone. There were a thousand and one possible reasons for her to do what she was doing and, frankly, I doubt Ardent cared very much so long as she didn't kill Gavia or interfere with his vacation.

[Case]

Uh, Ardent, did you actually fail to see that Alice was serving the village?

Was that a serious question?

(To be scrupulously fair to Ardent, a casual observer could have gotten the impression that the villagers were serving Alice ...)

[cesium133]

This thing about serving the village reminds me of one of the strings left over from the early plot: the villagers don't actually need Alice. They seemed to be doing fine without her. Especially considering she specifically gave them a device to notify her if they needed help. That device hasn't been mentioned at all since.

[TheEvilDog]

Guess I was partially right about why Church is serving Pate. He needs a commander.

[brasca]

This thing about serving the village reminds me of one of the strings left over from the early plot: the villagers don't actually need Alice. They seemed to be doing fine without her. Especially considering she specifically gave them a device to notify her if they needed help. That device hasn't been mentioned at all since.

We've seen her help out and provide advice so it appears the villagers need her especially if they are attacked by someone like Gavia or perhaps some brigands or raiders.  However, the village doesn't appear all that old.  If it existed for 5000 years there would be a lot more development so either Alice has purposely kept it small and manageable or she's gone through this process many times before which could explain a lot about her outlook.  She serves everyone and in an emergency leads, but because she is compelled to serve she never takes power on a permanent basis and rules as a queen, but that's just what we know in the present.  Perhaps she felt it was in the people's best interest for her to rule over them and reigned as a queen for some time until she found herself facing a rebellion from the very people she was supposed to serve.  This may have lead to some actions she still feels a great degree of guild over since Sedna mentioned she still can't forgive herself.  Perhaps her town is just the latest attempt to fulfill her compulsion after previous failures.   

[sitnspin]

It's been heavily implied that she purposely keeps them at a low technology level to keep their civilisation sustainable. She stated as much when Ardent upgraded the water pump.

[derech]

Sedna counts both the others as like her yet.... more complex.   Sedna as a support class non-leader type more happy with more limited goals, with the tasks to which she was designed for more like.     Perhaps this leads to explaining why she harbored some anger towards Alice.   And might also explain why it's taken a while for her to self-repair (not instantly or within minutes) because she's not front-line.   Which would then seem to suggest that it could be extended to the other two that they would be faster to heal and from even more extensive injuries.   

As far as the differences between Alice and Church .    Alice seems more refined and thoughtful, with more latitude in choices of what to do and how to do it.  Less of a compulsion going along with less power and more intelligence.  Is that because she's a more advanced model, or a less advanced one?  Seems like more, could be less.     It would appear that whichever it is, she was in a level of more responsibility/power in whatever hierarchy there might have been.  Also aligned with a more stereotypical or traditional female gender-role for the form she has?   Seems pretty clear he's more so some  brutish testosterone type, which appears to also match stereotypical/traditional male gender-role fitting his form.    Beauty and beast,  thoughtful motherly type and meathead bodyguard.     Sophia and Demiurge ish even.

Alice certainly appeared to not want the village to outstrip its own ability to exist.    Guardian and judge.   More maternal, caring but open to discipline when needed.     Protecting them from themselves but mostly hands off except in matters they couldn't reasonably be expected to handle.   Them aware of it to the point they jokingly call her a witch (but not 100% a joke).   

Church as the bully.   Won over by a less physically-imposing bully in Pate?  Or even Pate as a person more matching the type of Church's victims.  It's interesting that Pate didn't say yes to Sedna suggesting (accusing) he was the big meanie back home, but simply didn't  disagree with it.   Given his reactions since space, it appears either way to have been more of an act.   

Well whatever we might say about the two regarding sex and gender in how they look and how that might lead to how they act, and their levels of power and intelligence.  She appears to have disciplined him in some way for some reason, and now he was looking for might makes right.   

[Method of Madness]

We were designed

Welp, it's official. I was wrong.

[brasca]

It's been heavily implied that she purposely keeps them at a low technology level to keep their civilisation sustainable. She stated as much when Ardent upgraded the water pump.

Alice understands the perils of too much technological progress all at once on account of how depleted the Earth was after the catastrophic wars, but to keep her town at the level it's at in perpetuity would require among other things population control.  Eventually that town would grow to a size which would require improvements to its infrastructure and smaller satellite towns and villages surrounding it, but from what we can tell Alice's town is the only settlement for miles around.  How she does it if she even does remains unclear.  As I previously stated she may repeatedly try to help a community until things go wrong beyond her ability to fix and she wanders over to the next settlement to begin the process again or she resorts to measures of keeping her town just the way it is which leaves her feeling constantly guilty.

Another matter that's not entirely clear is why she and Church fought all those millennia ago.  There were 2 factions the AI and augmented humans.  According to Alice the AIs disappeared so unless she was providing misdirection she and Church either fought for the augmented faction or the AIs also produced immortal soldiers too with similar designs and compulsions.   

[BenRG]

Another matter that's not entirely clear is why she and Church fought all those millennia ago.  There were 2 factions the AI and augmented humans.  According to Alice the AIs disappeared so unless she was providing misdirection she and Church either fought for the augmented faction or the AIs also produced immortal soldiers too with similar designs and compulsions.

I still think that Church was a runaway and Alice (along with many other super-soldiers) had been sent to stop him. Maybe Church's designated commander was killed after giving him a disturbingly broadly-interpretable order like: "Kill them! Kill them all!"