Re my current kick of bitching against the tide of fluff of the Net:
Charles said:
Most human communication seems to boil down to: "I'm here. Are you?"
Substantive content has always been rare...but we never used to be exposed to [this much] noise.... :)
Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and I can’t find a good argument against it.
Admittedly it’s more likely than mankind having changed suddenly to produce more of the superficial crap. :-)
[Well, I'm sure we do, but percentage-wise it can't be as great a change, surely.]
My emotional problem is that I always assumed that there would all kinds of filtering mechanisms and people to make it easy for me to find that substantial content. But I just can't seem to find those filtering mechanisms!
For example, I joined GoodReads, and rated dozens of books, which should help it to make recommendations for me, to find books I'd like. But looking through the recommendations, not many at all really attract me.
I think part of the problem is that what I consider "substantial" is quite subtle, and probably subjective. For example, I see an abyss of difference between Iain M. Banks and almost all other writers of space-opera books. But clearly most people don't see it, and I find it quite hard to explain. So I get recommendations of "books with big spaceships in them", not books with the subtle wit and insight which I see in Banks' books.
18 comments:
Filters & such are coming..programming lags decades behind hardware...at least until we have better automated programming systems. Which may not be all that soon.
I got bit a few weeks ago working on my pet authoring assistance project because I had assumed that after 50 years, natural language parsing software had made advances to at least a useful stage...it hasn't.
I thus join Marvin Minsky whose early 19060's Heathkit color TV kit still sits in the lab awaiting a robot capable of assembling it...
Some problems are much, much more difficult than they appear on the surface.
I have similar problems with online recommendations because my interests are wide and varied, and additionally often shop for other people.
SF has become difficult as the field has become a catch-all for fantasy, horror and many other genre's not usually included in the past.
At WorldCon last September the vast majority of the content was fantasy/horror and their sub-genres.
Maybe your problems finding substantial works of authorship stem from your use of the word content. I find that using the word "novel" when I want to find great novels, results in more and better hits.
Have you read these already?
The 100 greatest novels of all time: The list
But "content" covers writing, art, films, etc. It's a dumb word, but I don't have a better one.
I love Banks for his wit and insight, but also for his big technology. For the latter reason I also love some less subtle writers such as Larry Niven. I imagine there are quite a few people like me, so when our preferences are fed into Goodreads' algorithm the result may be that lovers of Banks get some recommendations that don't suit them.
But "content" covers writing, art, films, etc. It's a dumb word, but I don't have a better one.
"Content" means the innards of a container. It does not necessarily have anything to do with any form of artistic expression.
No, but that's implied from context.
If you have a better term which covers all artistic and cultural output, i'm listening.
---
David, I also love Banks' big tech. And I think he does it uniquely. I don't recall anybody else making many-kilometers long spaceships with forcefield technology holding them together, with parks and animals in open spaces, and inner bays where they are building smaller ships. And the ships are sentient, and often has a better sense of humor than the human characters. (And a few are highly eccentric, verging on dangerous.)
The technology really gets in the way. It takes a lot more to get started nowadays than grabbing a sheet of foolscap and whittling a point on a goose feather. As you attribute to your model from Prague, Sveta, content providers get "stressed because I don't always understand modern technology, and it makes me feel like a dumbo. I just got an iPhone, and I think the interface is stupid, you can't figure it out by yourself, and the thing does not even come with a manual! This make me feel like maybe my friends think I am stupid or something." ;^)
If you have a better term which covers all artistic and cultural output, i'm listening.
That would be either works, expressions or communication.
Note that "content" can hardly be extended to mean "all artistic and cultural output."
Is Leonardo's Mona Lisa content? Content of what? The Louvre?
Is a street performer's act content? Content of what? The city?
Are printed books content? Content of what? The book case?
I'd be OK with limiting it to contents of the Net, where the term belongs.
I wonder if your problem is with the imprecision of the term, or if it is that you feel it's degrading to use it about artistic works?
---
Funny enough it was in an Iain Banks novel (Espedair Street) that I many years ago read that the protagonist was disgusted by the use of "content" about mayonaise. He thought "at least nobody has yet had the sheer gall to use "content" about artistic works."
I'm usually the one who can take things seriously, not the least about art. But I just don't feel any problem with this, it's a term which works. I don't feel Moby Dick is any less of a novel (or any shorter), just because it's been "content" on a web site.
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". (Shakespeare)
My take is that the major problem is that there is no good way to find items 'content' of interest--without knowing how they are described by the creator/poster.
s
This is a MAJOR issue with the sheer volume of data with a high noise level.
You can easily find things if you know how others describe them, but if you don't or can't remember the 'usual' terms (and 'content' regardless of how well or poorly it fits the current discussion matter, is one of the common descriptive terms.)
One place you can see this problem is in attempting to extract 'viable' information from on-line forums and other postings (a problem I'm trying hard to address in the SF 1632 Universe.)
Despite over 30 years of such conversations, the only currently effective method of extraction of the few percent of actual new material in a thread is to have humans go through and do the extraction.
Despite 50 years of work on NLP (Natural Language Processing.)
Fuzzy searches which use synonyms help...but even with those, it can be nearly impossible to locate something you know exists if you don't know how it's indexed.
In large part this is because humans and computers do not share the same storage and retrieval methods. Human memory is far more associative and flexible than the vast majority of computational solutions.
A major indicator of this is that Google has become such a powerful force. URL's are not the most common method of finding sites--search engines are...memorable URL's are becoming limited in utility (in part because URL's are cheap, and it's easy to buy a whole batch similar to existing companies...and the laws regarding the use of trademark names and such in URL's isn't well defined as yet...and probably won't be until they are obsolete.
Just as I no longer have to remember my friend's addresses or emails or phone numbers--because it's faster and easier to look them up (especially since they now change far more often than in the past,) remembering URL addresses (and typing them correctly!) is becoming obsolete.
We desperately need a breakthrough in search/indexing/retrieval....
I haven't read much science fiction, other than Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Bradbury, a bit of Poul Anderson, some short stories, not much if any space opera before Banks. I like his writing even if I don't always agree with his vision - he's sometimes too much of a hippy. I don't see myself as being much of a conservative but I can't buy into his apparent belief that A.I. can be truly sentient. I'd be interested, though, Eo, if you could recommend anyone in his league. Especially since it looks like I've read my last Culture novel - unless that latest one (Quarry?) is a Culture novel. I'm not sure Niven is my cup of tea from the synopsis I read of a couple of his books.
If' he's a Hippie, I welcome that that as a much-needed antidote to almost every other hard-SF writer, they are usually conservative to the core, some almost fascist in leanings.
And heck, Heinlein had AIs too, even though he was a war jockey.
I love Bank's drone and ship characters. And I think it's a way of acknowledging that we simply have no clue whence consciousness. Why flesh?
Heinlein was a strong believer in AI and it's not exactly reasonable to judge him as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' he fits much better as a sort of libertarian.
He was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal who believed that while individual responsibility and abilities are important, a successful society must care for it's weaker innocents as well as those who could care for themselves.
Clark also wrote about AI and artificial biological intelligences.
By it's nature, 'hard science' fiction attempts to stick to what is known to our scientists and engineers and reasonable projections from that knowledge.
One major change today is that increasingly, 'fantasy' is becoming less and less fantastic and more and more possible.
There's no reason you cannot manufacture a Unicorn as a logical extension of our current knowledge...
We are essentially bags of brine (ocean water!) filled with large colonies of bacteria. Much of our daily action is directed by these bacteria rather than our 'minds' and increasingly it seems we have only limited control over our own actions.
If bags of salt water inhabited by bacteria can do the things we have done...life forms constructed logically of non-DNA or electronic structures aren't very far-fetched.
I love Bank's drone and ship characters. And I think it's a way of acknowledging that we simply have no clue whence consciousness. Why flesh?
Because no matter how sophisticated A.I. can only follow a program. With biological intelligence individual cells are programmed in a sense but come together to form something greater, like consciousness.
Heinlein, Clarke, and others wrote about AI but they didn't have Banks' rosy view of them. Even Banks might not really believe it would be that way but just decided to make them that way and not deal with the old idea of machine intelligence running amok and wanting to destroy humanity. It's a refreshing take even today, never mind in 1987.
One major change today is that increasingly, 'fantasy' is becoming less and less fantastic and more and more possible.
Not really. Take that very popular Game of Thrones, which features dragons (the laws of physics say they couldn't fly or more around at all at their size, never mind breathe fire), there are zombies (maybe possible) and vampires (again a maybe, but very unlikely). Most fantasy today still relies a lot on magic, whether it's the in-your-face, flash-and-bang kind or more subtle).
There's no reason you cannot manufacture a Unicorn as a logical extension of our current knowledge...
We couldn't. Even with a Culture level of knowledge we could only make an animal that looked like a unicorn, which is by definition magical and magic by definition can't exist. Arthur C. Clarke correctly stated that a sufficiently advanced technology could appear to be magic to a sufficiently primitive people but that's not the same thing.
We are essentially bags of brine (ocean water!) filled with large colonies of bacteria. Much of our daily action is directed by these bacteria rather than our 'minds' and increasingly it seems we have only limited control over our own actions.
This is a gross misunderstanding. A lot of people think that if there's a gene for this or a gene for that we're at their mercy and have no free will. Not the case. One gene is not enough, it's the interaction of a lot of things, and it has no bearing on consciousness or decision making ability.
If bags of salt water inhabited by bacteria can do the things we have done...life forms constructed logically of non-DNA or electronic structures aren't very far-fetched.
This is based on no understanding of both programming and biology. A machine intelligence can only do what it's programmed to do, biological intelligence is much more flexible. A machine can't have true sentience, it can only mimic it. The fact that we have nothing remotely as sophisticated as a Culture Mind is irrelevant as that's just a difference of degree, not kind.
I'd be interested, though, Eo, if you could recommend anyone in his league.
I guess you didn't read the whole thing. I think probably I wasted my time trying to explain about the difference between artificial and biological consciousness, though, because it's come up before and you didn't seem to understand then, either - or didn't want to. I'm not sure why it's impossibility is a problem, though, as it's not the only impossible thing in Banks' sci-fi and the impossiblity doesn't bother me. In fact I prefer space opera to what little hard sci-fi I've read - although Star Trek, Star Wars, and Banks' Culture novels are pretty much my only exposure to it.
“...no matter how sophisticated A.I. can only follow a program.”
Same with biological systems but both can self-program/adjust parameters. Current AI <> future AI design.
“Heinlein, Clarke, and others wrote about AI but they didn't have Banks' rosy view of them.”
RAH's Lunar AI Mike, AI planetary controller Minerva and ship computer Dora were all quite civilized machines. Clarke's 2001/2010 obelisks were AI's too. HAL9000 was primitive in comparison, and not obviously self-aware.
“...dragons (the laws of physics say they couldn't fly or more around at all at their size, never mind breathe fire), there are zombies (maybe possible) and vampires (again a maybe, but very unlikely). Most fantasy today still relies a lot on magic...).”
Bumblebees couldn't fly in theory until we changed the theory. It's not the SIZE of a dragon that matters, it's the MASS DENSITY & lift. Because the line blurs is not to imply that ALL fantastic things can be created..but increasingly, they can.
Rabies victims act like zombies (Body of Proof--Skin and Bones,) maybe we can'texactly replicate such beings behavior—but the behavior isn't standardized. I'd say most fantasy today relies upon stating that something is as it is, without explanation...saying 'it's magic' isn't an explanation unless the magic has a system behind it—even magic has rules. Much of today's fantasy has no rules.
“...looked like a unicorn, which is...magical and magic...can't exist. Arthur C. Clarke...stated that ...advanced technology could appear to be magic...but that's not the same thing.”
Really? Isn't the true definition of magic 'something we don't understand?' What is 'magical' about a Unicorn which can't be created?
We are essentially bags of brine filled with large colonies of bacteria...
“This is a gross misunderstanding. ...a gene... that we're at their mercy and have no free will. Not the case. One gene is not enough, it's the interaction of a lot of things, and it has no bearing on consciousness or decision making ability.”
It's not 'a gross misunderstanding'. It's a simplified statement. Genes are a tiny part of what controls known biological life. Bacteria and parasites can and do direct you to do, eat and react in particular ways...without reference to your mind or your genetics. The vast majority of macroscopic Earth life forms consist of bacteria, viruses, prions and other life/proto-life forms. Ask any microbiologist. Even 'our' genetic material (which is separated into at least 3 and probably more components, is largely made of viruses and bacterial DNA.) Expression of that DNA depends upon multiple factors in the environment, including environmental conditions which your 7x great ancestors experienced but which you no longer experience... All of this has GREAT bearing upon both consciousness AND decision making.
“...impossiblity doesn't bother me. In fact I prefer space opera to what little hard sci-fi I've read - although Star Trek, Star Wars, and Banks' Culture novels are pretty much my only exposure to it.”
'Impossibility' is slippery. Lots of routine daily activities were once 'impossible.'
Star Trek & Star Wars are not what most would consider 'hard science' SF. Even truly 'hard science' writers like Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, Brin, Benford, et al made exceptions for the story...and some stories have 'hard science' which was mistaken.
Same with biological systems but both can self-program/adjust parameters. Current AI <> future AI design.
Even if an advanced A.I. could self adjust its parameters it's still just following a program there too. In the end it comes down to being an imitation of sentience. Biological life can be said to be programmed only at the level of DNA or the cell itself, which isn't the same thing because consciousness is not a program, a simulacrum.
RAH's Lunar AI Mike, AI planetary controller Minerva and ship computer Dora were all quite civilized machines. Clarke's 2001/2010 obelisks were AI's too. HAL9000 was primitive in comparison, and not obviously self-aware.
The obelisks were quite sinister. The one around Jupiter gave, or would have given (if I remember correctly, it was stopped), the order to exterminate life on Earth. (This was an odd decision - I don't think we're doing that bad of a job - makes you wonder what standard the aliens had.) HAL's sentience was not in doubt (and certainly not to his creator, as we saw in the sequel). The point, which I'd have though obvious, was that they did not run things in the way the Minds do - and what I was meaning by saying Banks had a rosy view was that it was necessary for his purposes that they would by design never want to go rogue. I'm just not sure you could be that certain about it in real life. If the Minds are truly alive there should be a greater variety in their personalities. If one is created that is a Mind Hitler, in a civilization where there's supposed to be no government, who says that Mind can't develop and be allowed to do what it wants? In Banks' universe the Minds would never do that, and for the purposes of his books that's allowed to be the case but I don't believe it would be in reality. I wouldn't be bothered by the idea of the Minds running things but in the real world there would be the chance one or more could run amok. Even the slightest possibility would be enough to make me think twice about putting my life in its hands - we saw how a human is powerless even against a small, baseball-sized drone (The Player of Games). We've also seen how, while the Minds are mostly benevolent, they do manipulate people quite a lot when they need to (again, The Player of Games but pretty much all the rest as well). That has nothing to do with whether they're sentient or not, of course, but whether they are or not I'm not sure I'd want them in control when it's a total, almost godlike control with no one except other Minds to question its decisions, and no one except other Minds with the power to stop it if it did start to act crazy.
Bumblebees couldn't fly in theory until we changed the theory.
There was never a reason Bumblebees couldn't fly. It was just one of those things that people think they know but which is wrong.
It's not the SIZE of a dragon that matters, it's the MASS DENSITY & lift.
The reason a dragon couldn't fly is the same reason an ant couldn't move or even live were it magnified up to human size. Or why a human scaled up to Giant Size (like Giant Man in Marvel Comics) couldn't walk without breaking his legs without a serious redesign. The giraffe and rhino are related to the gazelle but both needed modifications due to size. I believe it's called the Inverse Cube Law and while I couldn't possibility do the math involved, according to physicists when you increase the size of something you increase its weight by many more times. This is why we see in for example the T-Rex huge cavities in its skull to lighten it and why the pteradactyl could be only so big.
Because the line blurs is not to imply that ALL fantastic things can be created..but increasingly, they can.
Some could be, or as I said something resembling the fantatic creature could be created but unicorns and dragons and other things are supposed to be at least partly magical in nature and magic by definition supernatural. In some fantasy I've read a dragon's ability to fly is explained partly by its being magical.
All of this has GREAT bearing upon both consciousness AND decision making.
I had already accounted for that, the difference is that in artificial life you'd have consciousness being a bunch of subroutines that are directly followed, not the equivalent of a bunch of cells, of bacteria, etc., each doing their own thing and coming together, not by their own design, to form something else. It's not necessary to say that we're not influenced in any way. For one thing, hormones obviously influence our decision making - take away high levels of testosterone or estrogen and we'd make different decisions, for example. That's in no way equivalent to an artificial life form following what amounts to lines of code, a program saying "if this, do that."
'Impossibility' is slippery. Lots of routine daily activities were once 'impossible.'
No matter what else we still have to learn in the various branches of science, it's unlikely that things like transporters and warp drive will be possible but ways around them may be found.
Even truly 'hard science' writers like Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, Brin, Benford, et al made exceptions for the story...and some stories have 'hard science' which was mistaken.
I don't know I'd consider Heinlein to have been hard sf but it's true that a lof them do make a few exceptions for storytelling purposes, like faster-than-light travel. As Asimov said in a letter to a fan, he thought it unlikely that problem would ever be overcome but was open to the possibility. He just made the exception because otherwise he couldn't have taken his characters to other planets. One of my favorites of hard sf is Charles Sheffield. He wrote some books, too, that at least dipped a toe into space opera (the Heritage Universe series for one).
Great Site
Post a Comment