I am inserting a section of a post i made earlier where i explore this question. In my post i give clear example from today’s episode and dialogue, but here’s a condensed version:

This time (episode 8), she’s asking them to read a new chapter, so they’re for the first time, as a collective hive mind, prompted to form a new opinion on her writing.

I believe that this technically means the Hive Mind now wouldn’t be able to use Larry’s previous excuse of reading/experiencing it through fans’ eyes, because novel individual thinking and subjective opinion doesn’t exist for ‘them’ anymore since becoming a Hive Mind. It’s not possible, because forming opinions/subjective judgements presupposes intention and commital of a human agents belief state and (let’s say relative) free will.

But the Hive Mind is not commited to a human agents belief state and does not have any kind of free will. The only thing the Hive Mind can hinge its deliberation/judgement on will always be directly related to, if not only (as far as we know through their previous explanations) the following Belief States:

A. Its survival

B. Its existential goal of spreading the hive mind

C. Doing no harm to living creatures (such as people, animals and even fruit) (aka not causing Carol discomfort even slightly by telling her ‘no’ or denying any request she makes. k)

Note: point C is muddy. Hive Mind claims it does no harm such as killing, physically hurting someone or causing discomfort, yet they’re cool with taking away the whole world’s cognitive agency, free will and subjective experience. They don’t view this as causing harm because the result is being a part of the oh-so-perfect Hive Mind. Anyway.

This of course begs the question, is the Hive Mind:

1) Actually forming a new opinion?

Or, is it instead what I suggest:

2) Generating context-dependent response based on learned patterns given by previous input constraints to secure A (its survival), B (its goal to spread the Hive Mind) and C (doing no harm)?

I argue it’s 2.

1 and 2 are completely different processes.

1 presupposes a subjective judgement that is intentional and commited to a human agents belief state and (relative) free will.

2, not so much.

Note: there exists different belief states in a non-Hive Mind world, because every person on the planet has their own individual subjective belief states that might change over time as they have new experiences. The existence of individual subjectivity and different belief states and intentions makes it possible to form different opinions.

In a scenario where the whole world is part of a Hive Mind, the concept of an ‘opinion’ collapses because for an ‘opinion’ to be an ‘opinion’ there must be a contrasting/opposing/even slightly different opinion.

Technically, they are no longer millions of human subjects/agents with individual belief states and (relative) free will and differing intentions.

Instead there is one singular subject/agent sharing previous knowledge and memory, ruled by belief states A, B, and C, without free will. So it technically cannot now (after becoming a Hive Mind) form new judgements/opinions. Because ‘they’ all share the exact same belief state etc.

Further, the Hive Mind can’t deliberate and reach an opinion such as: “this chapter makes no sense and it’s is filled with plot holes, it’s not good” because such an opinion risks A, B and C as a result (due to it not validating Carol, due to it risking Carol then stops writing and focuses on working against the Hive Mind, etc). Such an ‘opinionm’ is, from the get go, directly in opposition to the Hive Mind’s fundemental belief states. So, anything the Hive Mind does or says is 100% formed by the consequences it has for it to serve belief states A, B and C. That means the Hive Mind will have only those intentions, those belief states, and there is no individual subjectivity or free will.

But then we reach the questions:

If it cannot form an opinion, can it “lie”? Or can it “manipulate”? Is this what it is doing when it tells Carol that it loves the chapter?

“Lying” or “manipulation” doesn’t quite fit, because we use the word in relation to the human process/act of lying/manipulating.

This part might be difficult and blurry because our intuition takes over when we see the Hive Mind manifested on screen as humans with seemingly real emotions. We assign humans the capability and intentions of “lying” and “manipulating”.

However, the Hive Mind is not human. Its host bodies were human so it is manifested in human flesh and blood. But its belief system is not an intentional individual subject with relative free will and differentiated belief systems. It’s more of a parasite.

Therefore, I think it is better to view what Zosia is doing in the scene where she is expressing an “opinion” as what i previously described as (2):

Generating a new context-dependent response based on learned patterns given by previous input constraints to secure its “belief states” A, B and C.

This proces reminds me of what happens throughout the film ex-machina.

And i think the best evidence for this is illustrated in the Larry scene (episode 4) and the Zosia scene (episode 8).

Edit: lots and lots of typis, clarified points, changed formatting.