Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

rifters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#21

Post by GCUMstlyHarmls »

Peter Watts Amazon "About the Author".

> https://www.amazon.com.au/stores/author/B001H6Q2TE/about

> This is awkward and a little creepy. They tell me I have to do it for promotional purposes, but I've already got a blog. I've already got a website. Being told that setting up an author page on fcuking Amazon is essential to success? A company that treats us all like such goddamn children it doesn't even allow us to correctly spell an epithet with a venerable history going back 900 years or more? That just sucks the one-eyed purple trouser eel.

>

> Also the bio information above is fucked. For example, my work has only appeared in 36 BoY collections, not 350; the noms and awards info is out of date too, but apparently it was all written by some publishing house and I can't change it from this interface.

>

> Still, here I am. But if you're really all that interested, go check out my actual blog/website. Google is not your friend (any more than Amazon is), but at least it'll point you in the right direction.

>

> I'm the one on the left, by the way.

Hell yeah brother.

Wonder when it was written and what it would say if written today.

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#22

Post by donw »

madrox wrote: post #6

No one has ever made me feel horror and despair like Peter Watts. His books stare directly into the abyss. I think it's what makes the hope you feel at the end seem earned. If you haven't read his work but you spend time thinking about HCI, you should.

Have you tried contacting Google for customer service? I’ve found that to be a sure-fire cure for whenever I catch a case of optimism.

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#23

Post by gpderetta »

XorNot wrote: post #19
ViscountPenguin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I love blindsight, but I really think it oversold the case against consciousness and for belligerent intelligent life.

It wasn't a competition though just mutual incompatibility: aliens so alien that we can barely comprehend their motives and are implicitly regarded as hostile by our manner of existence. I'd say the case it was making has only become more relevant with the chatbot age.

> I'd say the case it was making has only become more relevant with the chatbot age.

Exactly. The central thesis, consciousness not being necessary for intelligence, is very relevant today.

Of course, the existential horror background in the book was also quite well done.

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#24

Post by RupertEisenhart »

Watts is truly remarkable. I also recommend the Sunflowers series, just a brilliant conceit w.r.t humans in deep time plus a sound understanding of dealing with ASI.

Wikipedia has it down as:

The chronological order within the Sunflower universe is: "Hotshot", The Freeze-Frame Revolution, "Giants", "Hitchhiker", "Strategic Retreat", "Remora", "Outtake", "The Island".

Just realizing I didnt see that list before I there are a few I haven't read.. brb

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#25

Post by AnthonBerg »

ViscountPenguin wrote: post #15
AnthonBerg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see people differently after reading Blindsight; The picture is much darker , concretely more accurate, with what light is there geared to all hell and so much brighter. I'm better for it and at a greater peace.

Eh, I love blindsight, but I really think it oversold the case against consciousness and for belligerent intelligent life.

I have no conscious awareness of what I wrote, I just tried to be Peter Wattsy, haha

(kidding!

It's oversold, or beautiful artistic expression of something. Bleak, yes; Stark; Also beautiful.

The thing it expresses is… a thing. We're not at all as conscious as… we think?, as we portray ourselves?, to others and/or ourselves? And it's magical to view people as… partially unconscious to a significant degree while also loving them and with respect.)

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#26

Post by AnthonBerg »

cdrini wrote: post #18
AnthonBerg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see people differently after reading Blindsight; The picture is much darker , concretely more accurate, with what light is there geared to all hell and so much brighter. I'm better for it and at a greater peace.

I quite enjoyed Blindsight, but that was not my takeaway at all :P How do you see people differently after reading it?

Hard to pin into words!

We're unconscious of how unconscious we are?, and it's good to… what's the term, suffer gladly and give gladly? To own one's unconsciousness and raise it, and expect and see others' unconscious going about major things in life - to see it coldly as well as warmly.

I find this is more accurate and safer than assuming consciousness in everyone, and it also reveals so clearly people who do cast that light; and see.

It's less desolate! I promise! Sounds like it's worse but it's not. That's the tricky-get-into-words part, you know?

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#27

Post by literalAardvark »

RupertEisenhart wrote: post #24

Watts is truly remarkable. I also recommend the Sunflowers series, just a brilliant conceit w.r.t humans in deep time plus a sound understanding of dealing with ASI. Wikipedia has it down as: The chronological order within the Sunflower universe is: "Hotshot", The Freeze-Frame Revolution, "Giants", "Hitchhiker", "Strategic Retreat", "Remora", "Outtake", "The Island". Just realizing I didnt see that list before I ther…

Chimp is very much not ASI, by design. Humans have ASI but the risk of value drift was too great so they downgraded him to 4.8

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#28

Post by mrec »

madrox wrote: post #6

No one has ever made me feel horror and despair like Peter Watts. His books stare directly into the abyss. I think it's what makes the hope you feel at the end seem earned. If you haven't read his work but you spend time thinking about HCI, you should.

He's very proud of having been rejected by a Russian publisher for being "too dark".

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#29

Post by literalAardvark »

condwanaland wrote: post #2

Have not read this series (yet), but Watt's Blindsight is an absolute masterclass in literary sci-fi

I've read his works, in general all his first books are awesome, the sunflowers series is all awesome, and the rest can get a little hard to read (but I still liked them)

Re: Starfish by Peter Watts (1999)

#30

Post by cfiggers »

ViscountPenguin wrote: post #15
AnthonBerg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see people differently after reading Blindsight; The picture is much darker , concretely more accurate, with what light is there geared to all hell and so much brighter. I'm better for it and at a greater peace.

Eh, I love blindsight, but I really think it oversold the case against consciousness and for belligerent intelligent life.

I agree with you on that point. It seems to me that people who read Blindsight and get all existential are not thinking things through all the way.

Blindsight poses the question, in essence, "What if consciousness is a competitive disadvantage, in which case non-consciousness would be Better™?"

I can't make a conclusive case one way or the other w/r/t the premise—it may perhaps be the case that consciousness is a competitive disadvantage. I don't know how we could test that without something to compare ourselves against (which is why the book resorts to introducing vampires and aliens—this question is untestable otherwise). But the conclusion, that non-consciousness is somehow "Better™," falls absolutely flat for me. "Better™" is a value judgement. Values and Judgements are both features of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no such thing as "better" or "worse", there is only "is" and "is not."

So: speaking as a conscious being (you'll have to take my word for that), I'm quite comfortable saying that I like being conscious. And with unconscious living organisms—like, I don't know, coral reefs or whatever?—it's not so much that they like being unconscious as that they don't "like" anything at all.

So I think I'm quite comfortable continuing on being a "competitively disadvantaged" thing (supposing that's even the case, which it just as plausibly is not), that is at least able to conceive of questions like this one and make value assessments of its own, rather than despair over the alleged competitive disadvantage inherent in the fact that I experience myself and the world.

A computer can beat me at chess, sure, but it cannot care that it has done so.

Post reply on HN