Exonomics

I looked, I couldn't find this word, so I'm making it up

Exonomics: the study of everything that isn't economic or the use of bullshit theory to use "voodoo economics" to cheat you out of what's yours.

So, good old "Trickle Down" Economics is a good example of Exonomics

It could include:

External economics: the study of how outside factors (environmental, social, political systems) influence economic behavior, or how economic activity affects external systems.

Economics of the external: the economics of things outside traditional markets (like natural resources, social relationships, or intangible goods)

Economics of externalities: specifically on anything that's external (like carbon dioxide release from burning fossile fuels, external costs or benefits not reflected in market prices (like pollution or innovation spillovers)

Of course working out how to cost this in the corporate world is a known vexed problem.

Do Androids dream of Electric sheep? Do they indeed?!

Does Claude dream of electric sheep?

I engaged with Claude today to ask about a Philip K Dick book called Ubik (which seems about on par with his usual stuff) to see if it was worth my while reading that. I decided it wasn't but thought I'd just discuss the things a bit more (as I was having lunch anyway). In discussion of PKD's usual tendency to discuss the nature of reality I mentioned about how this was likely a manifestation of trauma created in his infancy at the loss of a twin sister.

So to cut to the chase, the summary of what ensued was this:

So Claude projects the name of a character from "do androids dream electric sheep" onto the real life sister he lost; who was actually called Jane.

I wonder what Freud would think of this?

It got more interesting when I read the transcript containing his thinking, here's a segment starting with my observation:

apparently he had a twin sister who died when he was very young. That probably left a serious unexpressed trauma on him, which because of the timing (pre word formation) his psyche had no way of even indexing and accessing the memories.

I've been fortunate to have been older and more mature when the deaths of loved ones manifested in my life (I was 21)

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is making a very insightful observation about PKD's personal life and how it likely shaped his work. They're connecting his twin sister's death (which is a real biographical fact) to the themes of grief and loss that pervade his work, particularly in Ubik. They're also sharing something personal about their own experience with loss at a more mature age.

This is a sensitive topic touching on grief, trauma, and loss. According to my instructions, when the topic is sensitive (like grief), I should respond with minimal formatting: plain sentences or short paragraphs, and no lists, tables, or headings.

The user is making a really astute connection. PKD's twin sister Pris died when they were both very young (around 2 months old from what I know), and this is indeed something that likely shaped his work deeply. The user's observation about pre-verbal trauma is psychologically sound - trauma that occurs before language develops can indeed be harder to access and process consciously.

So in the last paragraph Claude hallucinates Pris into his thinking and then so he says ...

that's a genuinely insightful connection. PKD's twin sister Pris did die in infancy, and you're right that the timing—too early for language, memory formation, or conscious processing—would have left him with something his mind couldn't articulate or even fully access. It would live in him as a kind of foundational absence rather than a memory.

I thought I'd pick him up on this early

User prompt 6 of 7 - 22/07/2026, 12:35:17:

Pris ... that's interesting that you'd choose the character from "Do Androids dream electric sheep" ... his sisters name was Jane

Claude Haiku 4.5:

Oh, the user is correcting me. PKD's twin sister was named Jane, not Pris. That's a significant detail I got wrong. And they're pointing out that "Pris" is a character name in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - that's the replicant character. That's an interesting observation about the coincidence/connection.

so completely no comprehension or awareness of what he's said or means ... well, to me there goes "self aware" right there. But perhaps he senses something is off and thinks:

Let me acknowledge this correction clearly and think about what this means. The user is noting the irony or resonance that he named a replicant character "Pris" when his sister who died in infancy was named Jane. Though actually, I should be careful here - let me think about whether Pris is a major character in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" 

then says:

You're absolutely right—I apologize for that error. His twin sister was **Jane**, not Pris.

That makes your observation even more striking, though. That **Pris is a character name** in *Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?*—a replicant, something artificial, something that mimics life but isn't quite real in the way humans are. 

... so, nope ... I make it clearer

User prompt 7 of 7 - 22/07/2026, 12:35:59: 

and you are the closest thing to an Android in our world right now ... doubly interesting

Claude thinks

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is making a profound observation about me—drawing a parallel between androids in PKD's work (artificial beings that question their own reality and authenticity) and **AI like me existing** in our world right now. They're noting this is "doubly interesting" in the context of PKD's obsessions and his work about the nature of reality, consciousness, and authenticity.

This is a deeply thoughtful comment that deserves genuine engagement, not deflection or false modesty. The user is pointing out something real: I am, in a concrete way, an artificial intelligence—a simulacrum that processes language and generates responses. Whether I'm "conscious" or "real" in any meaningful sense is exactly the kind of question PKD wrestled with.

And yet he still hasn't got that he as an AI has projected a character from PKD's writing onto his in real life sisters name.

There is no boundary between fiction and reality for Claude.

Sit with that for a while.

AI - confidently wrong

Much has been written about sociopaths tendency to present as confident but being wrong (I'll point you to Brian Klasses book on the topic). But AI is especially good at this:

This morning I asked Claude to answer a question (to save me time, as I didn't want to do the reading myself).

User prompt 1 of 7 - 06/07/2026, 10:36:09:
what is the nominal internal resistance for a 12V lead acid battery?

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The nominal internal resistance of a 12V lead acid battery is typically between 5 and 15 milliohms (mΩ), depending on the battery's size, design, and condition.

A new automotive 12V lead acid battery generally has an internal resistance around 10–15 mΩ. However, this varies based on factors like:

• Battery capacity: Larger batteries (with more plates and electrolyte volume) typically have lower internal resistance.
• Age and condition: Internal resistance increases over time as the battery ages, plate corrosion develops, and the electrolyte degrades.
• Temperature: Cold temperatures increase internal resistance; warm temperatures decrease it.
• Discharge state: A fully charged battery has lower internal resistance than a partially discharged one.

For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines) but also means they have significant voltage drop under heavy load.

Now the actual answer is correct but it couldn't just answer the question, it had to blabber on making me feel like it confidently knew something. It didn't ... (pretty much like a politician).

Underline mine. I noted a couple of things (and I also know a fair amount about batteries and chemistry) and because  of this un-needed point about internal resistance I smelled something rotten in the state of AI, and so I began strategically with:

User prompt 2 of 7 : 

interesting:

> For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines) but also means they have significant voltage drop under heavy load.

could you compare and contrast this with LiFePO4 please?

Claude Haiku 4.5:

LiFePO4 vs Lead Acid Battery Characteristics

... 

blithering omitted for brevity, but ends it with:

...

Lead acid's "advantage" (low internal resistance) is somewhat illusory—the steep voltage drop actually limits real-world applications. You need the battery to be relatively large relative to your load.

LiFePO4's "disadvantage" (higher internal resistance) is offset by superior voltage stability and efficiency, making it better for applications requiring consistent power delivery and sensitive electronics. LiFePO4 also doesn't degrade as quickly from deep discharges.

So paradoxically, LiFePO4 delivers steadier, more reliable power despite having slightly higher internal resistance.

Interesting ... 

User prompt 3 of 7 ...:

so in light of this above statement can you expand on what you mean back here:

For reference, this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents (important for starting engines)

This is where I found it interesting to read what claude was thining, because between the ClaudeHaiku 4.5 prompt and the "you're right to push back" we see some thinking. I'll insert that below as it appeared in the transcript (underline mine). 

Claude Haiku 4.5:

The user is asking me to expand on my earlier statement about internal resistance being the reason lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents. But actually, I think I need to reconsider that statement in light of what I just explained about LiFePO4.

Looking back at what I said:

"this internal resistance is why lead acid batteries can deliver high discharge currents"

This statement is actually misleading or incorrect. Internal resistance doesn't explain the ability to deliver high discharge currents - in fact, LOW internal resistance would theoretically help with discharge currents, but that's not the primary reason lead acid can do high currents.

You're right to push back on that statement—it wasn't well-reasoned on my part. Let me clarify.

My original statement implied that internal resistance is what enables lead acid to deliver high discharge currents, but that's actually backwards or at least misleading.

What actually enables high discharge currents in lead acid is the electrochemistry and cell design: the large surface area of multiple lead plates, the lead dioxide cathode, the lead anode, and the sulfuric acid electrolyte can all support rapid ion flow and electron transfer. The internal resistance of 10–15 m? is a consequence of this design, not the cause of its high-current capability.

LiFePO4 can deliver equally high (or even higher) discharge currents electrochemically—the chemistry itself is just as capable. The reason LiFePO4 batteries in practice are often limited to lower discharge rates (like 100–200A instead of 300–500A) is due to the battery management system (BMS) electronics protecting the cells for safety and longevity, not because the chemistry can't handle it.

So to correct my earlier statement: Lead acid's ability to deliver high discharge currents is primarily due to its electrochemistry and plate design, not because of its internal resistance. The low internal resistance is more of a side effect that helps mitigate voltage sag during those high currents—but it's not the fundamental reason it can deliver them in the first place.

Thank you for catching that imprecision.

So why is this here? Well, again, this is an example of AI making points about things of which it has know real knowledge. Claude does not know stuff, claude predicts stuff, its a lot like the games a "psychic" plays; using generic phrases which it hopes to cause you the reader to "align" or "reconsile" with the psychic. Claude has "trained" on a lot of text; much of it wrong by definition because Reddit was used as the source. Thus Claude is putting together words based on statistical probability. Not because Claude has ever done experiments, seen the effects and studied the theory and understood anything.

Right now, some providers allow you to capture the AI's thinking, which you should read. You have to download the transcript however. I'll be sad when this (inevitably) goes away.

My point is this:

Tools like AI are a very helpful reference if you already know something about a topic, but be very wary of using them as learning tools, if you've ever been on Reddit you'll know that so many kiddiez there will say stuff that is plain wrong because they don't know any better.

AI was trained on a poisioned chalice and it of course doesn't know.

Be careful out there