Cyberpunk is dead? • Hacker News Board

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#11

Post by spacemanaki » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

demosthenes wrote: post #9

locopati wrote: post #5

"If I write something set 60 years in the future I am going to have to explain how humanity got there and that's becoming quite a big job," [Gibson] said. "Compared to that further investigation of our alien present seems actually way more doable and it may be more fun to do because it shakes all sorts of people out of the woodwork that want to talk to me," [Gibson added]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-1150271…

Interestingly, Gibson's latest book - Pattern Recognition - is set in the present. It's very good. http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Recognition-William-Gibson/dp/... It's not the same dystopian future he envisioned in the 1990s. But his keen eye draws out the darker sides.

He's written two books since then, Spook Country and Zero History which are also set in the present. I haven't read them but supposedly they constitute a sort of informal trilogy.

I agree that Pattern Recognition is very good. Although I will always have a soft spot for Neuromancer and his related books and stories.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#12

Post by demosthenes » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #3

Not dead, just moved. I think the whole bitcoin thing is very cyberpunk-ish. A digital crypto-currency.

Spot on.

Also, browsing pages on Tor and similar networks reminds me a lot of exploring the internet in the early '90s. It's messy, there are lots of abandoned, hastily put together pages. There are weird rants.

The internet that the author misses is still out there. It's just not as close to the surface as it was in the early days of the internet or BBS.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#13

Post by vetler » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:19 PM UTC

daeken wrote: post #4

wladimir wrote: post #2

The problem with cyberpunk is that it's no longer the future, it's the present. Sometimes when I read the news I've got the idea we're kind of living in a dystopian 90's cyberpunk future... When it's the new normal it makes sense that the word is "dead" as a denominator.

My thoughts exactly. I don't mean to threadjack, but I'm running a new startup where I'm building augmented reality displays ( http://gothameyewear.com/ if anyone is interested -- haven't posted it here before, simply because there's not much there), and I occasionally have that "well shit, it's the future" realization in working on it. We may not be in the 2011 of Shadowrun, but we'll have decks soon -- they'll be o…

I've convinced myself that augmented reality displays are right around the corner. Don't we have the technology to to do this now? I suppose the challenge might be to make everything light and compact enough.

The future is so close I can smell it.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#14

Post by demosthenes » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

mrcharles wrote: post #10

wladimir wrote: post #2

The problem with cyberpunk is that it's no longer the future, it's the present. Sometimes when I read the news I've got the idea we're kind of living in a dystopian 90's cyberpunk future... When it's the new normal it makes sense that the word is "dead" as a denominator.

Yes, the only thing truly missing is the idea of a direct neural interface and some kind of virtual world... but in reality that virtual world will likely never exist outside games. Why, you ask? Because the main conceit of the cyberpunk virtual world is that it's entirely like reality with the exception that it's more fantastic. But an amazon/itunes search with a quick click to buy is infinitely faster and more conv…

What is the difference, if any, between alternate reality and augmented reality?

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#15

Post by daeken » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:23 PM UTC

vetler wrote: post #13

daeken wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. I don't mean to threadjack, but I'm running a new startup where I'm building augmented reality displays ( http://gothameyewear.com/ if anyone is interested -- haven't posted it here before, simply because there's not much there), and I occasionally have that "well shit, it's the future" realization in working on it. We may not be in the 2011 of Shadowrun, but we'll have decks soon -- they'll be o…

I've convinced myself that augmented reality displays are right around the corner. Don't we have the technology to to do this now? I suppose the challenge might be to make everything light and compact enough. The future is so close I can smell it.

There are two challenges: getting it into a form factor where normal people would wear it (our initial dev units will not be too far off this mark) and getting the price down to something sane. The latter is the really hard part, if you care about quality; the 0.5" 800x600 OLED displays we're using are $800 for a single unit, and don't drop to $400/unit until you hit a volume of 1000+ units. Of course, they'll get cheaper over time, so I'm not terribly worried about it.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#16

Post by mrcharles » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:24 PM UTC

demosthenes wrote: post #14

mrcharles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the only thing truly missing is the idea of a direct neural interface and some kind of virtual world... but in reality that virtual world will likely never exist outside games. Why, you ask? Because the main conceit of the cyberpunk virtual world is that it's entirely like reality with the exception that it's more fantastic. But an amazon/itunes search with a quick click to buy is infinitely faster and more conv…

What is the difference, if any, between alternate reality and augmented reality?

As far as I can really tell, none. So I kind of use the terms interchangeably. Both are about layering virtual information over top of reality, as far as I know. I guess augmented is the superior term.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#17

Post by wladimir » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:24 PM UTC

mrcharles wrote: post #10

wladimir wrote: post #2

The problem with cyberpunk is that it's no longer the future, it's the present. Sometimes when I read the news I've got the idea we're kind of living in a dystopian 90's cyberpunk future... When it's the new normal it makes sense that the word is "dead" as a denominator.

Yes, the only thing truly missing is the idea of a direct neural interface and some kind of virtual world... but in reality that virtual world will likely never exist outside games. Why, you ask? Because the main conceit of the cyberpunk virtual world is that it's entirely like reality with the exception that it's more fantastic. But an amazon/itunes search with a quick click to buy is infinitely faster and more conv…

Given the advances in EEG and other brain scan techs, I believe direct neural interfaces aren't that far away anymore. One step at a time, we'll first have to get used to motion-based interfaces. Neural interfaces will probably be like moving a limb but not actually moving. With such interfaces, there is no reason anymore to restrict to planar screens. Everything can be 3D.

For buying stuff you're right -- just clicking and using an efficient search system is much more efficient. But the market for experiences is another thing.

Many people will disagree with you that we already have a "perfectly good reality". They might desire things they cannot have in life, for example, or want to do things that physics makes impossible in real life (teleportation?). Just imagine the possibilities. As soon as the tech is there, there will be a huge market for it.

And don't forget collaboration over a distance. "telepresence". It's not just for games and fun.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#18

Post by demosthenes » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:28 PM UTC

wladimir wrote: post #17

mrcharles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the only thing truly missing is the idea of a direct neural interface and some kind of virtual world... but in reality that virtual world will likely never exist outside games. Why, you ask? Because the main conceit of the cyberpunk virtual world is that it's entirely like reality with the exception that it's more fantastic. But an amazon/itunes search with a quick click to buy is infinitely faster and more conv…

Given the advances in EEG and other brain scan techs, I believe direct neural interfaces aren't that far away anymore. One step at a time, we'll first have to get used to motion-based interfaces. Neural interfaces will probably be like moving a limb but not actually moving. With such interfaces, there is no reason anymore to restrict to planar screens. Everything can be 3D. For buying stuff you're right -- just click…

Videoconferencing and telepresence is big business. I expect those applications will lead the way, with the technology being adapted for entertainment purposes soon after.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#19

Post by dedward » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

spacemanaki wrote: post #11

demosthenes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, Gibson's latest book - Pattern Recognition - is set in the present. It's very good. http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Recognition-William-Gibson/dp/... It's not the same dystopian future he envisioned in the 1990s. But his keen eye draws out the darker sides.

He's written two books since then, Spook Country and Zero History which are also set in the present. I haven't read them but supposedly they constitute a sort of informal trilogy. I agree that Pattern Recognition is very good. Although I will always have a soft spot for Neuromancer and his related books and stories.

Read those other two - they're as good, if not a little bit better. Nothing stunningly different.

As a long-time neuromancer and Gibson fan, I can say his writing has changed and approached the modern day just as it should. Neuromancer made sense at the time it was published - the net wasn't around, it was a far out concept - lots of room for imagination. If it were only released today, it would just seem like really bad sci-fi because the net exists, now, and it's not quite what Gibson wrote about.

I'd the pattern recognition/spook/zero set are not so much current day as very near-future. They're entirely plausible with current technology, with a few inventions along the way that don't currently exist, but probably could. PLus they're a good read.

Re: Cyberpunk is dead?

#20

Post by DanI-S » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 2:51 PM UTC

The article defines punk (in general) as a deviant subculture that parents are afraid of.

Perhaps the general decline of punk can be attributed to modern parents being much less afraid than parents in the 70s. Cyberpunk isn't really exciting when your parents all have iPhones.