The Last Choreography: Teaching Our Executioners to Fold Towels

 

The Last Choreography: Teaching Our Executioners to Fold Towels

Humanity has a peculiar talent for inventing the tools of its own obsolescence, but the new "hand movement farms" in India have turned this into a literal performance art. Here, hundreds of workers spend their days wearing head-mounted cameras, meticulously filming themselves performing the most mundane tasks imaginable: folding towels, stacking crates, and grasping small components. These Point-Of-View (POV) clips are the raw fuel for "embodied AI," teaching silicon brains the subtle, tactile secrets of the human grip—the exact pressure needed to hold an egg without crushing it, or the flick of a wrist required to smooth a linen sheet.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a surreal inversion of our history. For millennia, the human hand was our ultimate competitive advantage, the physical manifestation of our superior nervous system that allowed us to manipulate the world and climb the food chain. Now, we have reduced that ancestral mastery into a series of data points sold for a pittance. These workers are not just laborers; they are biological motion-capture actors providing the final training manual for their mechanical replacements.

The irony is deliciously dark. In our desperate hunt for short-term survival, we are exceptionally good at ignoring the long-term cliff. The "hand movement farm" is a modern-day Trojan Horse, built by the very people who will eventually be crushed by its occupants. It is the ultimate business model of the 21st century: paying the redundant to digitize their own souls before showing them the door.

History shows that the "Rule of Tools" is absolute. We didn't stop using horses because we cared about their retirement; we stopped because the engine was more efficient. Today, we are teaching the engine how to have "hands." We call it progress, but it looks a lot like a species-wide effort to ensure we never have to lift a finger again—mostly because those fingers will no longer be needed.

---

The AI Mirror: Returning to Our Primal Senses

 

The AI Mirror: Returning to Our Primal Senses

The rise of Artificial Intelligence hasn't just automated our spreadsheets; it has triggered a profound identity crisis for the naked ape. For centuries, we defined our superiority through logic and the accumulation of data—the very things machines now do better, faster, and without needing a coffee break. We are being forced back into our physical bodies, or as anthropologist Xiang Biao suggests, we are being forced to "become human again."

The irony of the modern condition is that while our digital footprints are massive, our actual life experiences are "thin." We navigate the world through abstract concepts and curated feeds, losing the granular touch of reality. We have become "minority shareholders" in our own lives, obsessing over the market value of our degrees while our direct perception of the world withers.

In the evolution of human behavior, we survived by being generalists with acute environmental awareness. We didn't just "see" a tree; we understood its relationship to our survival. Today, we look at the world through the "academic jargon" or the "corporate slide deck," which acts as a filter that sanitizes the messiness of human existence. When a student looks at a canteen menu and sees only prices, they are missing the entire socio-economic ecosystem behind the food.

The dark side of human nature is our tendency to succumb to "domestication" by our own systems. We build cages of bureaucracy and call it progress. AI is simply the ultimate cage-builder. If we compete on its terms—technical skill and rote knowledge—we have already lost.

To "re-humanize" means reclaiming "Natural Language"—the plain, unvarnished talk that reflects real pain, real joy, and real sweat. It means developing "Vision," not to critique art history, but to see the invisible social tensions in a city street. If you cannot feel your own hunger or understand your own suffering, you have no hope of empathizing with others. In an era where silicon can simulate everything, the only thing left for us is to be stubbornly, physically, and inconveniently alive.

---

The Revenge of the Luddite Barber

 

The Revenge of the Luddite Barber

The City of London recently dropped a report that serves as a polite obituary for the "knowledge worker." It turns out that if your job involves staring at a screen, moving data from one cell to another, or drafting emails that nobody reads, a series of algorithms is currently measuring your office chair for its next occupant. Over a million Londoners are now "highly exposed" to generative AI.

For decades, we were told that education was the ultimate shield. Get a degree, learn a complex system, and you’ll be safe from the grubby gears of automation. Yet, the irony is delicious: the high-flying financial analysts, IT developers, and journalists are now the ones looking over their shoulders. Meanwhile, the humble barber, the chef, and the undertaker are leaning against their shopfronts, whistling a tune.

History has a wicked sense of humor. In the 19th century, the Luddites smashed weaving frames to protect their manual craft. In the 21st century, the "Elite" are being unceremoniously shoved aside by lines of code while the people who actually touch things—the builders and the nurses—remain indispensable. We’ve spent centuries trying to transcend our biological hardware, only to find that our most "primitive" traits are our only remaining competitive advantages.

The report also highlights a grim reality of human nature: the widening gap. While administrative staff face the abyss, the top-tier professionals who master AI will likely see their wealth skyrocket. It’s the same old story of "spontaneous order" favoring the agile and the entrenched. If you’re young, female, and working in a back-office role, the "exposure" isn't just a weather report; it's a flood warning.

Perhaps it’s time to stop teaching kids how to code and start teaching them how to cut hair or bake bread. At least the AI can’t accidentally snip your ear or smell the yeast rising. In the end, the machines are coming for our brains, but they still haven't figured out what to do with our hands.

---

The Invisible Tax on Babel: Why Your Language Costs More

 

The Invisible Tax on Babel: Why Your Language Costs More

In the modern digital savanna, we are witnessing a new form of evolutionary pressure: the "Language Tax." For decades, English has functioned as the global "alpha" dialect, not because of its inherent linguistic beauty, but because it is the infrastructure of power. Much like the Roman Empire imposed Latin to streamline trade and tax collection, the AI empires of Silicon Valley have built their neural networks on an English-molded foundation.

The data reveals a stark reality: if you aren't communicating in English, you are being penalised at the gateway. Anthropic’s tokenizer, for instance, consumes nearly double the resources for Chinese and triple for Hindi compared to English. This is the AI equivalent of a surcharge on "non-standard" behavior. Every time you type in Traditional Chinese, you aren't just paying a higher bill; you are occupying more "contextual space"—meaning your AI "brain" gets cluttered and exhausted faster than an English-speaking one.

From a historical perspective, this is nothing new. The darker side of human nature dictates that the architect builds the house to fit his own stride. When Hollywood dubs a movie into French or Cantonese, the overhead costs of translation and syncing are passed down to the consumer or absorbed as a barrier to entry. English has the "home-field advantage." It is the most efficient currency in the marketplace of ideas because the machines were taught to think in it first.

We like to talk about AI as a great equalizer, but beneath the surface, it is a tool of consolidation. Just as the high-vis vest grants a fake legitimacy to the worker moving a bank vault, the sleek interface of a chatbot hides a massive infrastructure imbalance. If your language is "expensive" to process, your culture becomes a luxury item in the digital age. We aren't just losing money; we are losing the "reasoning space" for non-English thought. The empire doesn't need to ban your language; it just needs to make it too expensive to use.

The Faustian Bargain in Shenzhen: Primate Cages and Cybernetic Dreams

 

The Faustian Bargain in Shenzhen: Primate Cages and Cybernetic Dreams

In the grand theater of human evolution, the drive to transcend biological limits is our most potent—and dangerous—instinct. Charles Lieber, the former Harvard titan once humbled by the American legal system for his "creative" accounting regarding Chinese funding, has found his resurrection in Shenzhen. He didn't just find a new job; he found a kingdom.

At the i-BRAIN Institute, Lieber is no longer shackled by the pesky ethical constraints or the aging equipment of the Ivy League. Instead, he is greeted by deep ultraviolet lithography and a primate facility boasting 2,000 cages. It is a biologist’s wet dream and a humanist’s nightmare. In the West, we perform a ritual of "3R" ethics (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement), a polite nod to the guilt of our species. In Shenzhen, the logic is far more primal: the one who moves fastest, wins the future.

The "Brain-Computer Interface" (BCI) is marketed as a miracle cure for paralysis, but the darker side of our nature knows the truth. This is about the ultimate integration of the tool and the user. From the first sharpened flint to the neural chip, our species has always sought to externalize its will. When a government invests $150 million into a lab led by a man with "nothing to lose," they aren't just looking for medical breakthroughs. They are looking for the "God Key"—the ability to interface directly with the human mind, whether for drone swarms or internal "harmony."

Lieber’s defense—that he is "just a scientist"—is the oldest song in history’s choir. It was sung at Peenemünde and in the labs of the Cold War. Science has no inherent morality; it is merely an accelerant for the intentions of the person holding the checkbook. As Lieber looks at his 2,000 subjects, one must wonder: in a land where the definition of "primate" can be flexible depending on one's political standing, where does the laboratory end and the empire begin?

The Ghost in the Lecture Hall: Why We Fail to See the Gap

 

The Ghost in the Lecture Hall: Why We Fail to See the Gap

We like to believe that progress is a ladder of increasing complexity. In our vanity, we assume that if a student—or a citizen, or an employee—stumbles, it must be because they lack the "advanced" tools. We throw more content, more technology, and more "innovative" assessments at the problem, much like a government trying to fix a collapsing economy by printing more complex regulations.

But as the Harvard professor discovered through her AI-assisted epiphany, the bottleneck isn't usually the "hard stuff." It’s the foundational lie we tell ourselves: the assumption that everyone is standing on the same ground.

This is the Theory of Constraints applied to the human mind. In any system—be it a manufacturing line or a semester of Political Philosophy—there is one specific point that limits the throughput of the entire operation. You can polish the end of the line until it shines, but if the raw material is stuck at the second station, you’re just wasting expensive wax.

In the wild, survival depends on accurate signaling. However, in the sanitized world of the ivory tower and modern bureaucracy, we suffer from the "Curse of Knowledge." The professor, having mastered her craft, had long since lost the "beginner’s mind." She had forgotten the visceral confusion of the foundational gap. She was teaching the nuances of the canopy while the students were still tripping over the roots.

The darker side of human nature suggests we enjoy complexity because it signals status. We would rather fail at something "advanced" than admit we don't grasp the basics. It takes a cold, cynical algorithm like NotebookLM to strip away the ego and point to the obvious: you’ve been building a skyscraper on a swamp for a decade. The smartest people are often the most blinded by their own light. We don't need more information; we need to find the one missing brick that makes the whole wall lean.

---

The Digital Zombie Apocalypse: Why AI Motion Comics are a Dead End

 

The Digital Zombie Apocalypse: Why AI Motion Comics are a Dead End

The promise was intoxicating: "zero-threshold wealth." In 2025, the Chinese market hailed AI-generated motion comics as the ultimate democratizer of content. Fast forward to 2026, and the dream has curdled into a textbook example of Social Darwinism at its most cynical. What we are witnessing isn't an evolution of storytelling; it’s a mass extinction event for creativity.

History teaches us that when humans find a way to lower the cost of production to near-zero, they don't use the surplus time to create masterpieces. Instead, they behave like locusts. We see this in the "Great AI Crash" of Beijing’s content industry. With over 120,000 series flooding platforms—averaging 470 new titles daily—the market has become a digital landfill. When everyone can be a "director" for the price of a subscription, nobody is an artist.

From a biological standpoint, these creators have reverted to amoebic behavior. They aren't building complex narratives; they are simply reacting to the stimulus of "potential profit" by dividing and replicating. The result? A 80% overlap in themes. "Overbearing CEOs" and "Revenge Plots" are the new genetic mutations that have failed to adapt. The survival rate for a "hit" is now 0.1%.

The economic carnage is equally brutal. Prices have plummeted from 5,000 RMB per minute to a pathetic 200 RMB. At that price point, you aren't paying for talent; you’re paying for the electricity to keep the server humming. Platforms, acting as the apex predators, simply withhold payments when the view counts—predictably—crater.

Taiwan must watch this wreckage closely. The "China Model" proves that high-speed, low-quality industrialization of "art" leads only to a race to the bottom. Culture is not a commodity that can be solved by brute-force computation. Without the "naked ape's" unique spark of genuine status-seeking through actual skill, we are just monkeys pressing buttons for fermented fruit that never arrives.

---

肉身的悲劇：為什麼效率提升了，人卻不值錢了？

 

肉身的悲劇：為什麼效率提升了，人卻不值錢了？

這是一個極其荒謬的現實：當煤炭或算力的效率提升時，我們會瘋狂地消耗更多；但當「人力」的效率提升時，公司卻急著把人踢出大門。這難道不違反「傑文斯悖論」嗎？

其實不然。傑文斯悖論之所以在人力市場失效，是因為勞動力與資源在權力結構上有本質的區別。資源（如電力或石油）是被動的消耗品，成本降低會誘發新的用途；但人是主動的成本中心。在資本家的邏輯裡，提升效率的目的不是為了「僱用更多人來做更多事」，而是為了「用更少的人完成一樣的事」，從而省下那筆最昂貴的開支：薪水。

機器不會要求勞健保，AI 不會抗議加班。當技術讓一個員工能做三個人的工作時，老闆絕不會再請兩個員工來陪你，他會直接裁掉那兩個人，然後把省下的錢變成報表上的淨利。這就是人性的陰暗面：我們對物質的欲望是無限的（所以資源消耗激增），但對「分享利潤」的意願卻是極其有限的。在技術的軍備競賽中，人不再是需要被「更高效利用」的資源，而是被視為一種「待解決的瑕疵」。當我們把人變成了工具，而工具又變得太好用時，人就成了多餘的零件。

The Meatware Exception: Why Jevons Fails the Working Class

 

The Meatware Exception: Why Jevons Fails the Working Class

It is a delicious irony of our age. When coal gets efficient, we use more coal. When data gets efficient, we use more data. But when human labor gets efficient, we use fewer humans. Why does the Jevons Paradox suddenly stop working when the "resource" being optimized is a person in a cubicle?

The answer lies in the cold, hard logic of ownership and substitution. You see, Jevons Paradox triggers because the costof the resource drops, stimulating massive new demand. If electricity gets cheaper, I want more of it because it improves my life. But if a worker gets "more efficient"—thanks to AI or automation—they aren't becoming a cheaper, more desirable resource for the market to consume more of. They are becoming redundant. Unlike coal, a human being is a "multi-purpose resource" that comes with annoying overheads: health insurance, lunch breaks, and the inconvenient tendency to ask for a raise.

In the eyes of a corporation, a human is not a resource to be "saved" and reallocated; they are a cost center to be eliminated. When technology improves, we don't use the "saved" human time to let people write poetry or work more deeply. We simply replace the human component with a digital one. In the capitalist business model, the "efficiency dividend" of human labor doesn't go back into hiring more humans—it goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders. We’ve managed to create a world where everything gets consumed more voraciously as it gets cheaper, except for the one thing that actually needs a paycheck to survive.

---

藝術為何動人？關於藝術與美感的十個問題

 

藝術為何動人？關於藝術與美感的十個問題

為什麼有些作品讓人起雞皮疙瘩，有些卻像「垃圾」？藝術與美感，不只關於技術，更關於意圖、脈絡，以及我們觀看時的感受。

1. 如果大猩猩亂塗鴉畫出驚世傑作，這算藝術嗎？

若藝術必須有創作者的意圖，那它不是；若藝術在於觀眾的感動，那它絕對是。

2. 一幅完美偽畫與真跡一模一樣，為何價值差一千倍？

因為人們買的不只是「好看」，還有背後的歷史與創作者的生命故事。故事拉高了價值。

3. 若某件藝術品必須殺死一隻動物才能完成，它還美嗎？

這觸及藝術與道德的界線。許多人會認為道德瑕疵會抵銷美感，藝術不應凌駕生命。

4. 為什麼垃圾桶放進美術館就變成藝術品？

這是杜象式挑戰：藝術不再只是「技術展示」，而是「誰宣稱它是藝術」以及「被放在哪個框架裡」。

5. 如果 AI 寫出的流行歌比人類更好聽，音樂家會失業嗎？

商業曲風可能被取代，但作為情感故事與人味連結的音樂仍需要人。聽眾渴望的，是人自己的故事。

6. 美是客觀存在，還是情人眼裡出西施？

美感部分來自生物傾向（如對稱），更多來自文化與個人經驗。美是主觀與客觀交織的結果。

7. 若天才畫家的作品要到他死後才被發現，那他生前的畫算藝術嗎？

藝術的本質不因觀眾多寡而改變，但社會上的價值與影響，需要被發現與傳播才能實現。

8. 我們該因為作者品格卑劣（例如犯重罪），而抵制他的偉大作品嗎？

這取決於你能否把「人」與「作品」切開。若你相信作品是心靈投影，要分開就很困難。

9. 若未來每個人都能靠晶片畫出大師級作品，藝術還珍貴嗎？

當技術變得廉價時，真正稀有的將是獨特的想法與觀點。

10. 荒島上最後一個人畫完一幅畫後就死了，那幅畫有價值嗎？

若價值必須被別人評價，那它沒有；若價值存在於創作的行動本身，那它已經是永恆。

藝術最終不只是「看見什麼」，而是「你用什麼眼光去看」，以及你選擇讓哪些意義留在心裡。

Beauty, Art, and Meaning: Ten Questions About Aesthetics

 

Beauty, Art, and Meaning: Ten Questions About Aesthetics

Why do some works move us to tears while others feel like “just trash”? Art and beauty are not only about skill; they are about intention, context, and how we feel when we look at them.

1. If a gorilla randomly paints a masterpiece, is it art?

If art requires the creator’s intention, then no. But if art is defined by the viewer’s experience, then it absolutely counts as art.

2. Why is a perfect forgery worth a thousand times less than the original?

Because we often pay not just for beauty, but for history and the creator’s “soul.” The story behind the work shapes its value.

3. If a work of art requires killing an animal to complete, can it still be beautiful?

This tests the boundary between art and ethics. Many would say moral flaws cancel aesthetic value—art should not stand above life.

4. Why does a trash can become “art” when placed in a museum?

This follows Duchamp’s challenge: art is no longer just about technique, but about framing and declaring, “This is art.”

5. If AI can write catchier pop songs than humans, will musicians lose their jobs?

Commercial music may change, but music as emotional connection remains human. People still long for human stories, not just algorithms.

6. Is beauty objective, or only “in the eye of the beholder”?

There are some shared patterns (like symmetry), but culture and experience shape taste. Beauty is a mix of world and person.

7. If a genius painter’s works are only discovered after death, were they art while hidden?

The artistic essence doesn’t depend on audience size, but its social value needs others to see and respond.

8. Should we boycott great art created by immoral people, like criminals?

That depends on whether you can separate creator from creation. If art reflects the soul, separating them becomes difficult.

9. If everyone could make master-level paintings with a brain chip, would art still be special?

Then technique would be cheap, and true luxury would be unique ideas and perspectives.

10. If the last person on an island paints a picture and then dies, does the painting have value?

If value needs someone to judge it, then no. If value lies in the act of creating, then it is eternal.

Art, in the end, is not only what we see—it’s how we see, and the meanings we choose to live by.

人類2.0：關於科技與未來的十個問題（41–50）

 

人類2.0：關於科技與未來的十個問題（41–50）

科技不斷改寫「人是什麼」的定義。當人工智慧與虛擬世界日益逼真，我們必須思考：要保留什麼，又該放下什麼？

41. 如果虛擬實境與現實完全分不出來，留在虛擬世界有錯嗎？

若你認為「真實性」有道德價值，那是錯的；但若體驗本身就是意義，那虛擬與現實已無分別。

42. 如果大腦能上網並下載他人記憶，那記憶算你的嗎？

這挑戰「個體性」。若記憶決定了身分，分享記憶將使人類變成集體意識的一部分。

43. 永生若藉由不斷更換零件達成，人類還會進步嗎？

死亡帶來創造與珍惜。沒有死亡，人類或許會失去熱情與革新力，變成「活著的化石」。

44. 如果 AI 寫的情書比你寫的更感人，你該用嗎？

這是誠意的考驗。感情的珍貴在於「心意的努力」，而非「成果的完美」。

45. 若未來能預測你一生的不幸，你會提前看劇本嗎？

知道未來會摧毀希望與自由意志的幻覺。一旦看過，你的人生就變成被執行的程式。

46. 當機器人擁有與人類相同的痛覺，殺掉它算謀殺嗎？

痛覺象徵意識。若它能感受痛苦與恐懼，理應與生物享有同樣的道德保護。

47. 若大腦晶片能讓你瞬間學會德文，這是「學習」還是「安裝」？

學習包含過程與體悟；安裝只有結果。這讓我們重新思考「努力與成就」的關聯。

48. 若能將意識上傳雲端，雲端中的你還有人權嗎？

這取決於「人」的定義。是需要身體，還是只要持續的意識即可？

49. 若自駕車在意外時選擇犧牲乘客救行人，它還能賣嗎？

這是「電車難題」的商業版。多數人道德上贊成救多人，但購買時卻選擇保護自己。

50. 當所有勞動皆被自動化，人類存在的意義是什麼？

人類將從「生產者」轉為「創造者」，學會從體驗與想像中重新定義「價值」。

未來不只是關於機器，更關於重新發現「人」的意義。

Humans 2.0: Ten Questions About Technology and the Future (41–50)

 

Humans 2.0: Ten Questions About Technology and the Future (41–50)

Technology keeps reshaping what it means to be human. But as machines grow smarter and reality becomes blurred, we must ask: what should we preserve—and what should we let go?

41. If virtual reality became indistinguishable from real life, would staying there be wrong?

If you believe “authentic experience” has moral value, then yes. But if experience itself is all that matters, there’s no difference between real and virtual.

42. If your brain could connect to a network and download someone else’s memories, would those memories be yours?

This challenges individual identity. If memories define who you are, sharing them merges people into a collective consciousness.

43. If immortality were achieved by endlessly replacing body parts, would humanity still progress?

Death fuels creativity and urgency. Without it, we might lose passion, innovation, and the beauty of impermanence—becoming living fossils.

44. If an AI writes a love letter that moves your partner more than one you wrote, should you use it?

That tests sincerity. The value of affection lies in the effort and intention, not in polished results.

45. If the future could be predicted and your entire life’s misfortunes revealed, would you read the script?

Knowing everything destroys hope and illusion of free will. Life becomes an execution of destiny rather than a discovery.

46. If robots could feel pain like humans, would killing one be murder?

Pain signals consciousness. A being that suffers deserves protection—regardless of whether it’s made of flesh or metal.

47. If a brain chip let you instantly speak German, is that learning or installation?

True learning involves struggle and reflection. Instant download gives knowledge without growth, challenging our idea of effort and achievement.

48. If your mind were uploaded to the cloud, would “you” still have human rights?

It depends on whether law defines “person” by biology or by continuity of conscious experience.

49. If a self-driving car chose to sacrifice you to save pedestrians, would anyone buy it?

That’s the “trolley problem” on the market. People claim to value morality, but prefer machines that protect themselves.

50. If all work were automated, what would be the purpose of human life?

We’d shift from producers to creators, defining value not by labor but by imagination and experience.

The future won’t just change machines—it will redefine what being human means.

到底什麼是愛？關於愛情與關係的十個問題

 

到底什麼是愛？關於愛情與關係的十個問題

愛有時浪漫，有時痛苦，但最終總是關於人。當科技與理性介入情感時，我們仍能說那是真愛嗎？以下十個問題，邀你一起思考「情感的邊界」。

1. 跟一個完美的擬真機器人談戀愛算背叛嗎？

若愛在於情感連結，那或許是真實情感。但若它取代了伴侶，這是背叛，還是另一種渴望親密的方式？

2. 如果藥物能讓你永遠愛一個人，你願意吃嗎？

它保證穩定，卻奪走自由。若愛是被化學強制，而非選擇，還能算愛嗎？

3. 如果另一半外遇，但你一輩子都不會知道，這算傷害嗎？

即使你毫不知情，信任已經被破壞。愛情的本質，是誠實，還是感受？

4. 你愛的是對方的肉體，還是對方大腦裡的神經衝動？

浪漫似乎源於心靈與身體，但從科學看，它只是荷爾蒙與電訊號。若如此，愛還有靈魂嗎？

5. 如果透過數據能配對出「100% 靈魂伴侶」，還需要約會嗎？

找到「對的人」似乎更省事，但也少了探索與成長的經歷。也許愛的價值，不在於準確，而在於旅程。

6. 為了拯救愛人而犧牲一百個陌生人，這叫偉大嗎？

愛能激發勇氣，也能引出自私。所謂「偉大的愛」，可能與「偉大的道德」衝突。

7. 如果前任被複製出一個一模一樣的人，你會復合嗎？

他外貌與性格都相同，卻沒有共同的回憶。原來愛的不只是人，而是彼此共享的故事。

8. 虛擬世界裡的性愛算不算出軌？

若情感與慾望是真實的，那也可能是背叛。數位時代，幻想與現實的界線愈來愈模糊。

9. 如果能看見對方的「好感度數值」，感情會更順利嗎？

誤會可能少了，但神秘也不在。愛情需要發現與不確定，而非精準數據。

10. 父母有權透過基因工程設計出「最完美的你」嗎？

完美也許符合期待，但愛源於接納。被「設計」的愛，可能失去「被選擇」的自由。

最後，愛或許永遠難以定義，但也正因如此，它才讓人真實。