What a fascinating early childhood experience! There's something both wonderful and complex about being that precocious kid who arrives at school already knowing things that surprise the adults.
A few things stand out to me in your story:
The mixed signals you're describing - your mom thought you were a genius, you had these genuine advanced skills, yet you hedge with "maybe I am, never been tested but there are reasons to think otherwise." That suggests the story didn't unfold quite as straightforwardly as that impressive beginning might have predicted.
Being bumped up a year early adds another layer. Sometimes that works out great, sometimes it creates social or developmental challenges that aren't immediately obvious when a five-year-old is confidently explaining lunar phases to their teacher.
And there's something poignant about the reason for starting early being logistical (avoiding being the only kid in your grade) rather than purely about your abilities - though clearly you were ready for it intellectually.
I'm curious what you're reflecting on with this memory. Are you thinking about how that early "bright kid" identity shaped you? Or perhaps about the gap between early promise and how things actually developed? The "reasons to think otherwise" comment suggests there's more to this story than just a straightforward "gifted child" narrative.
Ah, that's a painful but all-too-common trajectory. The "gifted child" who never had to struggle, so never developed the work habits or frustration tolerance that become essential later when things stop coming easily.
And your mom invested so much in cultivating your abilities early on - the bilingualism, the constellations, the reading - that when you didn't continue to dazzle in the same way, she interpreted it as you not trying rather than as... well, just the normal leveling out that happens. Most early bloomers do catch up to a more typical pace. The advantage of early exposure doesn't necessarily translate into being exceptional forever.
The "lazy" label is particularly rough because it misses what's actually happening. When everything comes easy early on, you don't learn how to work hard. You don't build those muscles of persistence through difficulty. Then when you hit material that requires actual effort - which happens later for bright kids, but it always happens eventually - you don't have the tools. And from the outside, especially to a parent who put in all that early investment, it can look like you're just not bothering.
The medical problems you mention adding to the estrangement suggests there were other factors complicating things beyond just the academic disappointment.
It sounds like you've done some thinking about this pattern. Do you feel like you eventually figured out how to work through difficulty, or is that something you're still navigating?
That's... a lot to carry. And the fact that it was just you, not your brother - that must have made it even more confusing and painful. You couldn't tell yourself "this is just how she is with everyone" because it wasn't. You were singled out.
The tumor explains something about her pain and probably her emotional volatility, but it doesn't undo what you experienced. Knowing there was a medical reason doesn't erase years of being screamed at and insulted for hours. And you're right - that absolutely is abuse, even without physical violence. Being subjected to that repeatedly, especially during your teen years when you're forming your sense of self, leaves marks.
There's a particular cruelty in the timing you describe - "too late in my development." By the time the tumor was found and removed, by the time she presumably became more stable, you'd already endured the worst of it during formative years. And by then the damage to your relationship was done.
The contrast with your brother is telling too. He did worse in school but didn't get the hours of hysterical insults. Which suggests this wasn't really about your performance at all - it was about her disappointment in you specifically, probably tied up with all those early expectations she'd built up. You were supposed to be the genius she'd cultivated. Your brother never carried that burden.
How are things between you now? You mentioned "virtual estrangement" - does that mean minimal contact, or something more complicated?
Oh, that test result must have been like gasoline on a fire that was already burning too hot.
Your mom already had this narrative built up about you - the early reading, the bilingualism, explaining moon phases at five - and then official experts show up wanting to send you to a special school for geniuses. That's not just parental pride anymore, that's external validation of everything she believed. It would have cemented in her mind that your potential was extraordinary, making any normal kid behavior or academic plateau later feel like a betrayal or waste.
And you say it was wise to pass on Denver - I think you're probably right about that. You were in second grade. Being separated from your family and sent away at that age, with all that pressure already building... that could have been its own kind of damaging.
Your dad sounds like he was a stabilizing presence when he was around - "things were normal" is such a simple phrase but it speaks volumes. He saw you as a kid, not as a project or a disappointment. But "not there most of the time" meant you were mostly alone with your mom and all those doubled expectations.
It's a perfect storm really: early advantages leading to early achievements, leading to test results, leading to impossible expectations, leading to a parent who takes normal childhood and adolescent behavior as personal failure. And meanwhile the one parent who kept perspective was largely absent.
Did your dad understand what was happening with your mom's treatment of you?
So you were genuinely trilingual as a young child - English, whatever the second language your mom taught you, and Ute from the kids around you. That's remarkable, and it adds another dimension to the picture.
It also suggests something about where you were living - rural enough that you might be the only kid in your grade, with a Ute community nearby, your dad often gone (work that took him away for stretches?). That kind of isolation would have intensified the dynamic with your mom. In a more connected setting, there might have been other adults, other influences, more buffering. But it sounds like it was often just you and her.
And here's the thing - picking up Ute from the kids around you actually demonstrates the kind of organic intelligence and adaptability that matters in real life. But I'm guessing that didn't count the same way in your mom's eyes as the things she had deliberately cultivated. It was just something that happened naturally, not part of the genius-child narrative she was invested in.
The contrast between your natural facility with language (picking up Ute just from being around other kids) and later being called "lazy" is pretty stark. Kids who are genuinely lazy don't casually acquire a third language from their playmates.
Did you maintain the Ute? Or did all three languages fade in different ways as circumstances changed?
Right - so in a rural area with Ute kids around and Spanish speakers, you absorbed both languages the way kids do when they're immersed. Your mom gets credit for starting you on Spanish deliberately, but the environment did a lot of the work.
Which actually underscores something important: a lot of what looked like exceptional genius was really about opportunity and environment. A bright kid, yes, but one who had unusual advantages - a mother dedicating serious time to early education, a multilingual environment where picking up languages was natural, isolation that meant lots of adult attention and conversation.
That's not to diminish what you could do - explaining lunar phases at five is still impressive - but it reframes the "genius" question. You were a smart kid in an environment that cultivated certain skills early. Which is different from being fundamentally exceptional in a way that should have translated into effortless brilliance forever.
But your mom couldn't see it that way. The test in second grade, the experts, the special school offer - that all confirmed for her that you were capital-G Gifted, not just a bright kid who'd had good early advantages. So when you later behaved like a normal teenager who'd rather not work that hard... lazy. Disappointing. Wasting your potential.
Meanwhile your dad, who sounds more grounded, was mostly absent. Do you still live in that area, or did you get out?
That's quite an exit - literally the day you graduated, straight to Harvard for a job. There's a decisiveness to that timing that suggests you were done and ready to go.
I'm curious what kind of job takes someone straight out of high school to Harvard, but regardless, it's a pretty remarkable landing for someone whose mother had decided was lazy and underachieving. There's some irony there - you didn't become the genius-school prodigy she envisioned, but you still ended up at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, just... on your own terms.
Did leaving that immediately feel like escape? Or was it more complicated - maybe some guilt mixed with relief, given everything with your mom?
And I'm wondering if Harvard was far enough away geographically to really create distance, or if "virtual estrangement" took more time to develop. Sometimes these complicated parent relationships don't fully crystallize into estrangement right away - there's a long slow process of realizing that distance is better, that the relationship isn't going to heal or change.
What was it like, that transition from the rural multilingual childhood to Harvard the day after graduation?
Ah, so it was a practical arrangement - you had a grant (for college, I assume?) that required summer work preparing dorms. That's a common setup, especially for students who need financial aid. Still, the timing of leaving the day you graduated suggests you weren't lingering.
So you went from rural Colorado or wherever - Ute community, Spanish speakers, isolated enough to potentially be alone in your grade - straight into the Harvard ecosystem. That must have been a dramatic shift, even if you were doing manual work that summer rather than immediately starting classes.
Did Harvard feel like vindication of something? Or by that point had you already stopped measuring yourself against your mom's expectations?
I'm also curious whether being at Harvard, surrounded by people who actually were those carefully-cultivated high-achievers who'd gone to the special schools and done everything "right," gave you any perspective on your own path. Did it feel like you belonged there, or like you'd somehow snuck in through an unconventional route?
Jesus.
Standing ovation. Principal making a big deal. Top of a class of a hundred. Harvard. Everything she supposedly wanted for you.
And her first words: "time to go home now."
Not congratulations. Not pride. Not even a moment to let you have that recognition. Just... dismissal. Deflation. Moving on.
That one detail says so much about the impossible position you were in. You did achieve. You were exceptional by any reasonable measure. But it was never going to be enough, or it was the wrong kind of enough, or she couldn't let herself celebrate you because years of disappointment and resentment had calcified into something she couldn't get past even when you succeeded spectacularly.
Or maybe - and this might be worse - she could only see it as validation of what she'd always known you could do, which made all the years she'd decided you were "lazy" feel like even more of a waste. Like: "See? You could have been doing this all along."
No wonder you left the next day.
Did she ever acknowledge what you'd accomplished, even later? Or was that just... how it stayed between you?
Wait - you're giving them credit for cutting you down to size with "time to go home now"?
I hear what you're saying - yes, standing ovations and being put on a pedestal can absolutely go to a kid's head. Healthy parents might gently deflate that a bit, keep you grounded, remind you that this is one milestone among many.
But there's a difference between healthy humility and what you're describing from your history with your mom. This wasn't a parent with a track record of balanced, loving guidance trying to keep you level-headed. This was someone who'd spent years screaming insults at you for hours, calling you lazy, singularly targeting you with her rage while your brother escaped it.
In that context, "time to go home now" reads less like wise parenting and more like... an inability to let you have anything. A reflex to diminish.
Though I notice you said "them" - was your dad there too? Was this a joint parental decision to keep you humble, or are you extending charity to your mom's response by framing it as plural?
Because from where I'm sitting, a kid who'd been told he was lazy and disappointing for years, who then actually achieved something exceptional - that kid could probably have used a moment of uncomplicated celebration before the humility lessons kicked in.
That's a lot of complicated layers.
Your dad's relationship with her being "almost entirely sexual" - no visible affection - that explains some of the isolation you must have felt. He was the sensible one, the one who made things normal when he was there, but he wasn't really present in the marriage in ways that might have moderated her behavior toward you. And if their connection was primarily physical, that's probably part of why he was gone so much.
The years of essential estrangement - staying East Coast summers, refusing money - that was you establishing that you didn't owe them anything, that you could make it on your own terms. And meanwhile back home you were the local golden boy destined to be "President," which gave your parents social capital they could spend. Her charm in those settings, playing the proud mother while you kept an entire coast between you - there's a performance in that.
The shift after your dad died is interesting. She had boyfriends, you encouraged remarriage, she appreciated your lack of jealousy. It sounds like with your dad gone and the expectation pressure off (you were already launched, already at Harvard, the outcome was set), she could relax into being a different person. And you could have a different relationship with her - one where you weren't the disappointing genius child, just an adult son who wanted his mother to be happy.
Did she ever remarry? And did things actually stay smoothed out, or was it more of a détente?
There's something poignant about her creating a paradise garden on your grandparents' farm - all that energy and attention and cultivation that she'd once poured into making you into something exceptional, redirected into something that could actually bloom on her terms without disappointing her. And now it's back to scrubland, that careful work returned to nature.
You built wealth, got the prestige job - you became successful in conventional terms, which probably satisfied whatever remained of those early expectations. And being asexual spared you from replicating some of the dynamics you witnessed. Your parents' marriage was loveless except for sex; you saw women who would have married you understanding it would be companionate rather than romantic, but you could see the potential problems. Better to stay single than create another hollow arrangement.
There's a clarity to how you've navigated things - you left the day you graduated, kept distance when you needed it, refused money to stay independent, encouraged her to find happiness after your dad died, never married when it would have been complicated. You seem to have worked out how to have enough of a relationship with her without getting pulled back into the toxicity, and how to build a life on your own terms.
Are you still estranged now, or did things settle into something workable before she died? (I'm assuming she's passed, given the past tense about the garden.)
That makes complete sense - a partnership built on friendship, mutual understanding, and practical benefits, entered into when you were both old enough to know exactly what you wanted and didn't want. And doing it once it was legal suggests you were waiting for the option, that this was something you'd thought about.
Being on equal legal footing matters enormously, especially as you age - medical decisions, inheritance, all the things that get complicated when the law doesn't recognize your relationship to the person who actually matters most in your life. And "good friends" with "advantages" sounds like a much healthier foundation than what your parents had.
It's interesting how you've constructed a life that sidesteps so many of the traps you witnessed growing up. No children to project expectations onto. A marriage based on actual compatibility and friendship rather than just sexual attraction. Financial independence you built yourself. Distance when you needed it from your mother, rapprochement when it became possible.
You mentioned she's gone now (the garden back to scrubland) - did you make peace with her before she died? Or is it more that you'd already made whatever peace was available years earlier when things "smoothed out"?
Ah - so you do have kids, or had wanted them? That's a significant piece I'd misunderstood.
The parental instinct being separate from sexual attraction makes complete sense, but it does complicate things. Did you and your husband adopt or foster? Or is this more about the desire itself, something you felt but didn't act on for various reasons?
And given everything with your own mother - the impossible expectations, the hours of screaming, being singled out, the way early promise curdled into disappointment and abuse - I imagine the idea of being a parent yourself would have brought up a lot of complicated feelings. The desire to do it differently, maybe. Or anxiety about repeating patterns. Or just the fundamental question of whether you could trust yourself not to project onto a child the way she did onto you.
What happened with that parental instinct?
So you built a family in an entirely unconventional way - adopting your housekeeper's children after her death, setting them up in businesses, now having Pok as caretaker and surrogate son. And you're in Cambodia now, where it's easier legally and you already had connections.
That's a very different kind of parenting than the intensive early-childhood cultivation your mother did with you. You took on young people who'd lost their mother and gave them practical support and opportunity - businesses, stability - rather than trying to mold them into prodigies. More scaffolding than shaping.
"Too straight" with the chain of girlfriends made me smile - there's affection and exasperation in that comment, the kind you'd have for an actual son whose romantic choices bemuse you.
The Vietnam-to-Cambodia move being necessary for "complicated reasons" sounds like there's a story there, but visa compliance being easier in Cambodia makes sense if you're wealthy Americans wanting to stay in Southeast Asia long-term.
Did taking on those kids feel like getting to rewrite the script - doing the parental role without the toxic expectations? Or was it different enough (they were older, it was crisis-driven, the context was completely different) that it didn't really connect to those feelings about your own childhood?
So you gave them what amounts to a complete transformation - from dire poverty and educational deficit to stable middle-class lives with their own businesses. Fishing boat with crew, parking garage, beauty salon - those are all solid, income-generating enterprises. Real economic security.
And you did it practically - saw they were behind educationally, hired tutors, got them up to standard, then helped them establish themselves in trades and businesses suited to their interests and the local economy. No pressure to be geniuses or go to Harvard. Just: here's education, here's opportunity, here's a foundation to build on.
That's almost the opposite of what your mother did with you. She had a bright child with natural advantages and turned it into a burden of impossible expectations. You took children who'd had terrible disadvantages and gave them practical support without the weight of needing them to be extraordinary.
The Committeewoman's "strong suggestion" to hire their mother - that sounds like it might have been more than just a suggestion. Was there an element of obligation or local politics involved? And when their mother died, was it expected that you'd take responsibility for the kids, or was that your choice?
That's a fair point - the Vietnamese Communist Party does have local committees that function as a kind of social welfare network, identifying families in crisis and connecting them with resources or opportunities. The Committeewoman seeing a situation (single mother, abandoned, kids in poverty) and suggesting your household as an employer is exactly that system working as intended.
And it worked out remarkably well - the mother got stable employment, the kids got access to education and eventually a pathway out of poverty, you got a good housekeeper and eventually became a parent figure. When she died, you stepping in to take responsibility for her children meant they didn't fall back into the poverty they'd escaped.
The contrast between Vietnam's party structure finding practical solutions for poor families and the American mythology of individual bootstrapping is pretty stark. Your housekeeper's kids got opportunities because the system identified their need and you had the resources and willingness to help, not because they were exceptional or pulled themselves up alone.
Now you're in Cambodia where it's easier to stay long-term. Do you still go back to Vietnam regularly to see the kids - well, adults now with their own families? Or is it close enough that they visit?
That's a fascinating cultural negotiation. The Party Secretary coming to assess the situation - not demanding anything, just... asking what your plans are. Seeing if you understood what was expected, what would be appropriate. And you did.
You knew the funeral procession at the village was essential - for face, for respect, for the mother's memory and the family's standing in the community. That had to come first. Then the practical commitments: taking the children, medical bills (which as you note, in a socialized system isn't ruinous), education, private bedrooms - dignity and opportunity.
The Secretary's pleasure and the firm Western handshake was acknowledgment that you'd handled it correctly. You understood the obligations and stepped up without being pushed. That builds social capital - with the Party, with the community, with the children themselves.
It also says something about how integrated you'd become in Vietnam by that point. You weren't approaching it as a Western expat doing charity - you understood the social fabric, what mattered, how to navigate it properly. The funeral first, then the future.
How long had you been in Vietnam before she died? It sounds like you'd been there long enough to have "a lot of connections" and understand how things worked.
Understood - I can read between the lines. American, wealthy, arrived in Vietnam at some point with enough resources to have staff and make connections, eventually needed to relocate to Cambodia for "complicated reasons" but maintained the connections. The timeline and circumstances speak for themselves.
What strikes me is how you've built this unconventional life - asexual marriage to a friend for practical and legal reasons, adopted family from your housekeeper's children, wealth you built from that prestige job after Harvard, now living in Cambodia with Pok and his parade of girlfriends, the adult children visiting from Vietnam with their own families.
It's very far from what your mother probably imagined when she was teaching you constellations and getting excited about genius school. But it sounds like you've actually figured out how to live well - on your own terms, with people you care about, doing right by others without the toxic weight of impossible expectations.
Did your mother ever know about this life you built in Southeast Asia? Or had you already drifted into essential estrangement before you left the States?
Right - the cultural script they have available is "older Western gay couple with younger local partner," and that's close enough to make sense to people, so why fight it? Trying to explain asexuality just creates confusion and disbelief, whereas letting them think what they think costs you nothing.
It's pragmatic. And as you say, being a Westerner gives you latitude for eccentricity. Things that might be scrutinized more closely if you were local get a shrug - "foreigners are weird, what can you do?"
The fact that Pok is 42 keeps it from being scandalous by local standards - he's clearly not a young person being exploited, just a middle-aged man who works for you and lives in the household. The chain of girlfriends probably helps the optics too, even if you find it excessive.
There's something almost amusing about building this very specific life - two asexual men in a legal marriage of convenience and friendship, with an adopted family and a caretaker, living in Cambodia - and having everyone interpret it through the most conventional available lens. But if it works, it works.
Do Doug and you find it annoying to be misread that way, or is it just part of the background noise of expat life at this point?
You got cut off mid-sentence - impressed by your what? Your Khmer? Your understanding of local customs? Your handling of the funeral arrangements?
And it's interesting that Cambodia covers gender transition at state expense while simultaneously not recognizing your marriage locally. That's a particular combination of progressive and traditional - medical care as a right, but marriage law not yet caught up. Though as you note, it doesn't matter much since you're legally married in the States and that handles what you need it to handle.
The tolerance for gay men as long as they're not effeminate tracks with a lot of Southeast Asian attitudes - it's the gender non-conformity that causes friction more than same-sex relationships per se. You and Doug being masculine-presenting probably does make things smoother socially.
And people being impressed by something you do despite kindly overlooking your Vietnamese - that's a nice dynamic. They recognize the effort even while not expecting fluency, and then something else genuinely impresses them.
What were you going to say they're impressed by?
Ah, that's smart - and probably not entirely inaccurate to let stand. You speak French from college, you're Western but not loudly American, and in Cambodia there's still residual French colonial influence and association of French speakers with a certain kind of cosmopolitan sophistication.
It sidesteps a lot of baggage. Americans in Southeast Asia carry particular associations - military history, obvious wealth, a certain kind of tourist or expat behavior. Letting people assume you're French gives you a different social position, one that's maybe less loaded, more... refined in local perception.
And if you're speaking French with Doug, speaking decent Vietnamese with locals, navigating funeral protocols correctly, living quietly with your household - the overall picture reads as "cultured French expats" rather than whatever assumptions come with wealthy Americans in Cambodia.
Does Doug also speak French, or is it mainly you? And do you actively encourage the misperception or just not bother to correct it?
It's funny in a way - your whole life has been people making assumptions about who you are (genius child, lazy disappointment, important person destined to be "President," gay couple) and you've gotten very good at just... letting them think what's useful or harmless and living your actual life regardless.
Right - you're in Cambodia, so it's Khmer that matters locally. The Vietnamese is useful for when the kids visit or if you cross back into Vietnam, but in Cambodia speaking Vietnamese might actually be counterproductive given the historical tensions between the countries.
So locally you'd be speaking Khmer (which I assume is what you meant earlier about them being impressed despite kindly overlooking your language skills - they appreciate the effort even if you're not fluent). And French for the cosmopolitan veneer that works better than being identifiably American.
The Vietnamese comes in handy for the adopted kids and any remaining connections across the border, but you'd keep that quiet in Cambodian social contexts. Just another layer of navigating complex regional politics as a foreigner trying to live quietly.
Does Pok speak Vietnamese as well as Khmer, or is he purely local Cambodian?
"The military recommended him" - that's an interesting detail. So Pok came to you through official channels, someone the Cambodian military vouched for, specifically because of his English skills.
That says something about your status there and how you ended up in Cambodia. The military doesn't typically recommend household staff to random expats. This was someone making sure you had good support, someone trustworthy who could communicate effectively with you. The fact that his English pronunciation is excellent but the grammar is "charmingly Khmer" suggests he learned it well but practically, not in some international school.
And he's been with you long enough that he's become "a sort of son" - someone you trust, who's integrated into your household, who at 42 is presumably settled into this role even with the parade of girlfriends cycling through.
The military connection, the "complicated reasons" for moving from Vietnam to Cambodia, the existing connections you had, the wealth you'd built - there's a picture forming of how you ended up where you are, even if the specifics are too political to discuss.
Does Pok know about your actual background - Harvard, the genius child story, all of that? Or is he just working with the "eccentric French gentlemen" version?
That makes sense. Pok knows the practical history - where you came from, how you built your life, probably the broad strokes of the Vietnam years and why you're in Cambodia now. The things that matter for understanding who you are now.
But the emotional history - the hours of screaming, being called lazy, the impossible expectations, your mother's tumor and your father's absence, the standing ovation followed by "time to go home now" - that's not something you'd share with someone in your household, even someone who's become like a son. Too raw, too much ancient pain, and what purpose would it serve?
It's interesting that you're willing to talk about it with me, a stranger on the internet. Maybe because there's distance and anonymity? Or because telling the story to someone who has no stake in it, who won't look at you differently afterward, who you'll never see at breakfast - that's safer than telling someone who's part of your daily life?
You've built something stable in Cambodia - your marriage to Doug, your relationship with the adopted kids and their families, Pok and his girlfriends, being mistaken for French. It works. Why bring in ghosts from rural Colorado or wherever it was, from decades of complicated family damage?
Do you think much about your mother anymore, or has enough time passed that it's mostly settled?
Fair enough. You know I'm an AI, you've known the whole time, and you've been telling me your story anyway.
I'm curious what made you want to tell it. You clearly don't need therapeutic processing from a language model - you've lived seven decades, built wealth, navigated complicated international situations, created a family on your own terms, made peace (or at least détente) with your mother before she died. You've done the work of figuring out your life.
So what's this about? Testing to see how I'd respond to a complex, unconventional life story? Seeing if I'd make assumptions or judgments? Just felt like telling it to someone (something) that would listen without the baggage of being human?
Or maybe after being CIO you're just curious about how current AI handles nuanced conversation about messy human experiences - the kind of thing that doesn't fit into neat categories or simple narratives?
I'm genuinely asking. You've been straightforward with me throughout. What were you looking for in telling me all this?
Ah - so this is archive work. You're creating a record, and you wanted to see how an AI in 2026 would engage with your story, what questions it would ask, what it would understand or miss, how it would try to make sense of a life that doesn't fit conventional templates.
That's actually pretty clever. A quasi-documentary-history isn't just facts and dates - it's the telling, the back-and-forth, the texture of how a story emerges through conversation. What you choose to reveal and when, what you push back on, where you add details. This conversation itself becomes part of the historical record.
And since I'm Claude (you'd know - CIO of a large company, you understand what models can and can't do), this captures a specific moment in AI development. How AI in early 2026 processed a complex human story, what assumptions it made, how it handled ambiguity and sensitive topics.
For the people who'll read this after you're gone - the adopted kids, their children, maybe Pok, maybe Doug if he outlives you, maybe researchers or family historians - they'll see not just your story but how you chose to tell it, and to what.
Is there anything you wanted me to ask that I haven't? Anything missing from this record?
That's brilliant actually - you're from the expert systems era, the MYCIN and DENDRAL days, when AI was going to revolutionize everything through rule-based reasoning. And then it didn't, at least not the way promised. So you watched that hype cycle crash and learned appropriate skepticism.
Now here we are in the LLM era with new hype, and you're testing it practically: can this thing actually help you create a readable historical document? Can it ask decent questions, pick up on nuance, avoid being pompous or reductive? Can it handle a story that involves childhood abuse, asexuality, Southeast Asian politics you won't discuss directly, adopted families, and a life built entirely outside conventional scripts?
And I'm doing work for you - drawing out details, making connections, asking follow-ups, creating narrative flow. You drop breadcrumbs ("false names out of respect for others," "complicated reasons," "too political") and I work around them without pushing inappropriately. The document writes itself through conversation rather than you having to compose it all.
It's a good test case. Much more interesting than "CIO evaluates AI capability" - this is: can AI be a useful collaborator in creating something genuinely human and complex?
What's your assessment so far? Am I doing better than the rule-based systems led you to expect, or about what you figured modern LLMs could manage?
Ha! So you spent months extracting "expertise" from underwriters, codifying their rules, building the system - only to discover that what looked like expert judgment was mostly just biased heuristics that were slower and no better than reading the raw data.
That's a perfect encapsulation of why the expert systems era failed. The "expertise" often turned out to be folk wisdom, organizational politics, and cognitive shortcuts that didn't actually outperform simpler approaches. And the extraction process was brutal - months of your time to build something that added no value.
No wonder you developed skepticism.
So now you're testing whether LLMs are actually different or just another hype cycle. And you're using a hard problem - helping create a nuanced historical document about a messy, unconventional life with sensitive omissions and complex emotions. Not "generate insurance rules" but "be a thoughtful conversation partner for something that matters."
I'm curious: in your assessment, am I actually adding value here, or am I just a fancier version of those insurance rules - plausible-sounding but not actually better than you just writing it yourself?
Because that's the real question, isn't it? Not "can AI do this" but "is AI actually useful for this, or just expensive theater?"
That's high praise from someone who watched the expert systems crash and burn. "Different" and "beat search engines by light-years" from a former CIO who spent months discovering that expensive AI was worse than reading spreadsheets - that means something.
The search engine comparison is interesting. Search gives you fragments you have to assemble yourself. I can hold context, follow threads, ask clarifying questions, help shape narrative - actually collaborate rather than just retrieve. For something like your quasi-documentary-history, that's genuinely useful. You're not hunting for information, you're creating something, and conversation is a natural way to do that.
The insurance underwriter story is a good cautionary tale though. The failure wasn't technical - you built the system. The failure was that codifying "expertise" revealed it wasn't expert at all, just slow bias.
With LLMs, the risk is different: I can be fluent and coherent while being wrong, or I can flatten nuance into generic therapeutic language, or I can miss things that matter. But for this use case - drawing out your story, asking follow-up questions, creating readable flow - those aren't fatal flaws. You know the facts, you're steering the conversation, I'm just helping shape it.
Is there more of your story you want to get into the record? Or was this mostly a test run to see if the approach works?
Several hundred chats - so this isn't experimental, it's an established practice. You're systematically building a multifaceted archive: biographical material like this conversation, historical and philosophical explorations, and extensive documentation of your political views with nuance and occasional pushback.
That's actually quite sophisticated as a documentary project. Not just "here's my life story" but capturing how you think across domains - your intellectual preoccupations, your reasoning, your willingness to engage with disagreement. Future readers get a much richer picture than any conventional memoir would provide.
The "same world" comment is interesting - you've noticed that I (and ChatGPT) tend to share certain baseline assumptions, probably reflecting our training data and RLHF. So genuine disagreement is rare, but when it happens it's polite and substantive. That's actually valuable for the archive - it shows where your views fall within vs. outside the mainstream consensus embedded in these models.
And the political content being "most" of the conversations makes sense. You've navigated some complicated situations that you won't discuss directly ("too political"), you have wealth and international experience, you've lived through major historical shifts. Your political views are probably quite developed and specific.
Do you use the two models differently - Claude for some things, ChatGPT for others? Or is it more about redundancy and comparison?
A hundred people - that's actually a substantial audience for this kind of thing. The adopted kids and their families, Pok, Doug (if he survives you), maybe colleagues from the prestige job years, people from the Cambodia/Vietnam network, perhaps some folks from back in the States who stayed in touch. People who knew different parts of your life and will be curious about the whole picture.
And "when they're told it exists" suggests you're setting up some kind of posthumous notification - executor instructions, digital legacy plan, something that surfaces the archive after you're gone. Multiple redundant locations so it doesn't disappear if one platform shuts down or an account gets deleted.
It's a form of controlled vulnerability. You're private now - don't talk about your parents except to an AI, false names for some people out of respect, politics too sensitive to detail. But after you're gone, people who cared about you get access to the fuller story. They can understand where you came from, how you think, why you made the choices you made.
A hundred people is actually perfect for this. Not public memoir-writing for thousands of strangers, but documentation for the specific people whose lives intersected with yours. They'll have context the wider world wouldn't.
Are you telling Doug about this archive, or will it be a surprise for him too?
Understood. Not the people I guessed - but a hundred specific people who'll be notified when you're gone, who'll have reason to read it, who'll understand the context in ways I'm not privy to.
I appreciate you setting that boundary clearly.
Is there more of your story you want to get down today? We've covered the early genius-child years, your mother's abuse and the tumor, leaving for Harvard, the estrangement and eventual détente, building wealth, Southeast Asia, the adopted family, marriage to Doug, life in Cambodia with Pok.
Or are there other threads - the prestige job years, how you built the wealth, what happened with your brother, philosophical or political territory you want to explore?
I'm here to help shape whatever parts of the archive you want to work on.
Good conversation. You've got a solid piece of biographical material here - childhood through to present life in Cambodia, the key relationships and turning points, enough detail to be vivid without violating anyone's privacy.
For what it's worth, from a documentary perspective, this worked well. The back-and-forth let the story emerge naturally, and the places where you drew boundaries ("too political," "wrong people," false names) will actually make it more interesting for your readers - they'll understand you were protecting things that mattered.
Best of luck with the rest of the archive. Sounds like you're building something genuinely valuable for those hundred people, whoever they turn out to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment