Google AI reiterates speculative blog post as fact

mastodon.social

10 points·sonicrocketman··5 comments

Not really the key point, but personally as a reader I have always disliked Chekhov's Gun. I like to believe in the world that is being described to me, as if it were real. In the real world, things just exist, they don't necessarily have purpose. So a gun can be described just because it's there, it's interesting, it catches the protagonist's eye, etc.

If I know the author follows Chekhov's Gun, then now I know something is going to happen with the gun, taking away surprise and suspense and possibility, and making the world feel much less real.

Thanks for reading the source post!

This is a valid concern, I think. However I'd point out that extraneous detail and world building are not the same. If information serves the purpose of explaining the world then by definition it isn't extraneous. Though adding information certainly reaches a point of diminishing returns at some point.

I think the point of Chekhov's gun is more that unless you can justify the inclusion of the info, then it is extraneous and extraneous info should be removed.

Looks like this debate is well covered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun

Well yeah but that's all literary devices and stories would be more realistic but also worse without them. Authors are telegraphing you information constantly over the course of any work. It's what makes twists satisfying rather than arbitrary. You can't subvert an expectation without setting one up.

Yeah, it's clearly a spectrum. For my taste, Chekhov's Gun is too far to the highly-structured and purposeful end of the spectrum. Pure descriptive realism would be too far to the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com