Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Community Reviews
posted by martyb on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the cell-ular-automaton dept.

March: We Are Legion (We Are Bob) (Bobiverse #1) by Dennis Taylor

Discuss The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein in the comments below.

Fiasco was translated into English in 1988 by Michael Kandel:

Fiasco (Polish: Fiasko) is a science fiction novel by Polish author Stanisław Lem, first published in a German translation in 1986. The book, published in Poland the following year, is a further elaboration of Lem's skepticism: in Lem's opinion, the difficulty in communication with alien civilizations is cultural disparity rather than spatial distance. The failure to communicate with an alien civilization is the main theme of the book.

Previously: Announcement postMars, Ho!FoundationThe Three-Body ProblemSnow Crash


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:07PM (10 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:07PM (#800606) Journal

    It's been over a decade since I read it. (from an ancient socialist thing called "a public library") While I enjoyed it, I was very skeptical of a society that was basically anarchy. Everyone armed. Anyone could kill anyone at any time, but you could be sure revenge would ensue. It seems more like some of our barbarian history. It seems like the very worst in human nature would emerge. As it does in our society, but in a more violent and brutal fashion.

    Under such conditions, I doubt that higher level intellectual progress and invention can prosper. The geeks and nerds aren't (usually) the ones with the bully and fighting mentality.

    I was a bit skeptical about the spontaneous unexpected emergence of the AI. It would be as if Google just suddenly "woke up". A purpose built machine suddenly becoming unintentionally sentient about everything, not just it's particular domain specialization.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:56PM (1 child)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:56PM (#800638) Homepage Journal

    I was a bit skeptical about the spontaneous unexpected emergence of the AI. It would be as if Google just suddenly "woke up". A purpose built machine suddenly becoming unintentionally sentient about everything, not just it's particular domain specialization.

    In 2019 (or even 2009), that's a reasonable thought. However, given the state of computer science and neuroscience in the mid 1960s (as I discuss here [soylentnews.org]), Heinlein's premise was certainly plausible.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:27PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:27PM (#800683) Journal

      Yes.

      And I don't mean to be too critical. After all, I did enjoy reading it.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:44PM (6 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:44PM (#800665) Journal

    Actually, for Google to suddenly "wake up" would be much more reasonable. A LOT of intelligence is basically pattern matching. But for Google to wake up and be either decently human or a decent human would be astounding. Basic goals and motivations are built-in, complex, immutable, and invisible. Nobody knows what they are, or really has a good idea. Just consider that they are built in such a way that we respond to key features of the external world at key times without knowing ahead of time what those are. Even blind infants will smile at a gentle voice.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 13 2019, @07:55PM (5 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday February 13 2019, @07:55PM (#800711) Homepage Journal

      But for Google to wake up and be either decently human or a decent human would be astounding. Basic goals and motivations are built-in, complex, immutable, and invisible.

      And Heinlein's Mycroft was neither decently human or a decent human -- at least not at first. From the second or third page of the novel:

      Some logics get nervous breakdowns. Overloaded phone system behaves like frightened child. Mike did not have upsets, acquired sense of humor instead. Low one. If he were a man,
      you wouldn’t dare stoop over. His idea of thigh-slapper would be to dump you out of bed—or put itch powder in pressure suit.
      Not being equipped for that, Mike indulged in phony answers with skewed logic, or pranks like issuing pay cheque to a janitor in Authority’s Luna City office for
      AS$10,000,000,000,000,185.15—last five digits being correct amount. Just a great big overgrown lovable kid who ought to be kicked.

      The character acts like a bratty child. Which, as long as you can accept the state of computer/neuro science when this novel was written, seems reasonable if a personality is maturing as a human child might.

      Then again, your apparent inability to suspend disbelief leads me to think that maybe you should just stick to non-fiction.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:23PM (4 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:23PM (#800738) Journal

        The problem is "acts just like a bratty child" is a description of a fully human motivational system. If you want a current analog of the problem I'm talking about consider https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai-image-attacks-adversarial-turtle-rifle-3d-printed [theverge.com] . That's *not* the problem I'm talking about, but it's the closest currently realized analog.

        Let me try again "The thing about aliens is that they are alien.". A lobster doesn't process images the same way you do. It doesn't have the same motives. And it has a large amount of shared ancestry. So much that some molecules are recognizably the same. (I'm not sure that there are any that haven't changed somewhat during the period of separation, but the HOX genes are recognizable, and so are several others.)

        I'll agree that for story purposes you need to anthropomorphize all the characters. But this is why I'm insisting that it should be called fantasy. And as fantasy I like the story. But not as science fiction. (Very little science fiction holds up over the decades as fiction. Well, actually little is ever written, but even of that which is written little of it holds up. Fantasy, however, doesn't have that problem. I can read and enjoy "When Worlds Collide", even though things couldn't happen that way. But I read it as a fantasy.)

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 13 2019, @10:53PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 13 2019, @10:53PM (#800772) Journal

          Very interesting. I generally take a dim view of fantasy. Especially when it is perceived as science fiction.

          Now there is the stuff where "science fiction", or really technology, is just a back drop. Like Star Wars. It's not really meant to be taken seriously. The heroes and villians could be a Western instead of immersed in technology that they make very little reference to.

          Then there is sci fi that has supernatural elements, which I also don't generally care for.

          But then there is the "more serious" sci fi. I would compare Star Trek to Star Wars. I'm a Trek guy. But really, it is just a question of where you draw the line on suspension of disbelief. I can suspend my disbelief about transporters, replicators and warp drive. But I can't suspend my disbelief about a planet being made into a sooper dooper death star. And being visible in the sky from another planet in the system, as it moves and prepares to fire. If two planets were that close together their gravitational pull would . . . well, you know. Star Wars is too easy to criticize as "unrealistic" where Trek is "realistic" -- yeah, right.

          So I find myself amused by your post where you draw the line maybe even further than I do towards realism. Or plausibility. I definitely agree that good sci fi would have aliens that are not actors in this week's prosthetic make up. That has gotten quite old by now.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 13 2019, @11:23PM (2 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday February 13 2019, @11:23PM (#800781) Homepage Journal

          I do not accept your definitions of fantasy vs. science fiction. Life is like that sometimes.

          As such, I agree that I disagree with you. You can do the same if you like.

          I am a little curious as to what you thought of the story. so far, you've posted on this topic seven times without discussing the story itself, the quality of the writing or anything specific to the novel other than to say that:
          1. It doesn't fit *your* version of what science fiction *should* be;
          2. The concept of a self-aware computing device is completely ridiculous and always has been;
          3. Stories written without scientific data and theories available in 2019 are fantastical, even if they were written before 2019.

          None of those general topics touch on the novel itself, other than to "prove" that you're better and smarter than Heinlein.

          Did you enjoy the story?
          Was it engaging?
          Were the characters relatable?
          What was your take on the blatant and biased liberty vs. tyranny threads?
          Given the backstory of the Luna colony (shades of Botany Bay and early North American convict transportation/indenture), did the mix of cultures/languages and customs make sense?
          Did the various polyandrous marital relationships, given the serious male to female asymmetry, seem forced or contrived?
          Did you even bother to read the novel?

          Inquiring minds want to know that sort of thing much more than your personal definitions of common terms or your dismissive pronouncements on what people thought, believed and pursued scientifically 50-plus years ago.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:27AM (1 child)

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:27AM (#800901) Journal

            I'm not better and smarter than Heinlein. I could never have written those stories, and they're excellent fantasy.

            Heinlein wasn't a technologist. In his stories the technology is always background material. The foreground is human interaction. I could never do that part, and that's the important part in building a story that grips you. I read the book three times before I started noticing that it was fantasy, so I've got to admit I rather liked it. I don't particularly like it anymore, but I've changed, and the book isn't new to me anymore either.

            The story was engrossing, and I liked the characters. Heinlein is usually about duty vs. liberty, or some similar choices. This was true all the way back to the 1940's. I suppose "All you Zombies" could be considered an exception, so I guess always is really too strong, but just barely. If you don't like that kind of political argument, you won't like Heinlein. I can't say the mix of languages made sense or didn't. It certainly never bothered me. I'm not sure that using the moon as a "Botany Bay" would make economic sense without some sort of sky-hook, and that wasn't included in the story. (Even then I find it dubious, but that was a matter that hadn't previously obtruded into my notice.)

            As to the date...no. You're missing the point. There was good reason to know at the time that the proposed mechanism for AI wouldn't develop as simply as the story supposed. Heinlein ignored that not because he couldn't know, but because it was a fictitious engine...i.e., it was there to move the story forwards. He needed it to be plausible enough that not many people would care. I.e., he was intentionally writing fantasy. Contrast this to "Mission of Gravity" where it still wouldn't work that way, but the author did his best to make things plausible. That's not fantasy, even though we now know it wouldn't work that way. Because he made it as accurate as he could. Heinlein wasn't interested in that, he was interested in the human interactions...and for that he needed a computer with a human living inside it as software, so that's what he wrote.

            Personally, I usually prefer good fantasy over careful science fiction, but this is partially because there's so little science fiction written (despite what it says on the label). Science fiction takes a long time to write, and a lot more effort, and it has to skimp on human interactions, because you've only got so may words allowed. There's been some really interesting science fiction written, but none that's really been popular, because it's intellectual rather than gripping. The closest to an exception that I can think of is "Masters of the Metropolis" Authors: Lin Carter and Randall Garrett Date: 1956-01-00. That was published in Astounding, and was a spoof of Hugo Gernsback, and I think in particular of "Ralph 124C41+". But it was science fiction of a weird sort, too.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday February 15 2019, @04:13AM

              by deimtee (3272) on Friday February 15 2019, @04:13AM (#801390) Journal

              The story was engrossing, and I liked the characters. Heinlein is usually about duty vs. liberty, or some similar choices. This was true all the way back to the 1940's. I suppose "All you Zombies" could be considered an exception, so I guess always is really too strong, but just barely. If you don't like that kind of political argument, you won't like Heinlein. I can't say the mix of languages made sense or didn't. It certainly never bothered me. I'm not sure that using the moon as a "Botany Bay" would make economic sense without some sort of sky-hook, and that wasn't included in the story. (Even then I find it dubious, but that was a matter that hadn't previously obtruded into my notice.)

              Given when he wrote it and the rapid advances in rocketry, it was expected that the cost of getting to the moon would be much lower than it currently is. But even with that, while it may not have made economic sense to ship criminals and dissidents to the moon it it is much more politically acceptable than a bullet in the head and a mass grave.

              Your comparison to Botany Bay is apt and is the reason for all the aussie slang. Which do you think would cost less, and which was actually used : a quick hanging and burial or a 12000 mile ocean cruise and maintaining a garrison at the destination?

              --
              If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday February 15 2019, @06:53PM

    by deimtee (3272) on Friday February 15 2019, @06:53PM (#801715) Journal

    It's been over a decade since I read it. (from an ancient socialist thing called "a public library") While I enjoyed it, I was very skeptical of a society that was basically anarchy. Everyone armed. Anyone could kill anyone at any time, but you could be sure revenge would ensue. It seems more like some of our barbarian history. It seems like the very worst in human nature would emerge. As it does in our society, but in a more violent and brutal fashion.

    Very few people were armed, only the warden's guards and a few hidden weapons I think. But it was a closed, very harsh environment and the book even says there was huge attrition in the early years. When there is nowhere to go and the guy next to you can let you die by doing nothing it is a survival skill to not be an arsehole.

    I don’t care for such work at zero pressure; mishaps in pressure suit is too permanent—especially when somebody arranges mishap. One first thing learned about Luna, back with first shiploads of convicts, was that zero pressure was place for good manners. Bad-tempered straw boss didn’t last many shifts; had an “accident”—and top bosses learned not to pry into accidents or they met accidents, too. Attrition ran 70 percent in the early years—but those who lived were nice people. Not tame, not soft, Luna is not for them. But well-behaved.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.