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

Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

linch.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#101

Post by overfeed »

I love Ted Chiang and re-read his stories every few years. Most of author's criticisms arise from their refusal to accept that Chiang's stories are mostly science fantasy[1][2], and not some third option. Most/all of the stories primarily focus on characters and relationships on the macro and micro.

In each story, the gimmick(tm) is thoroughly examined and extrapolated in an internally-consistant way, but that is excellent world-building, and independent of genre.

1. As exemplified by Tower of Babylon which wouldn't be out of place in a fantasy anthology.

2. Understand is probably his number 2 "hardest" SF story. The way it is told is closer to a character study on the effects of human super-intelligence (unbelievably authored in 1991). Exhalation is no. 1, and it's focus is still very "soft" SF.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#102

Post by jermberj »

kraussvonespy wrote: post #83
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #47

For anyone that wants a quick taste of Ted's writing, I heartily recommend having a read of The Great Silence as it's available here: https://electricliterature.com/the-great-silence-by-ted-chia... The last line always gets me.

Oof. Things got awfully dusty in here thinking about The Great Silence. It's a very short piece with huge emotional impact.

Something that hit me hard about this one is the purported full quote from Alex ends with "See you tomorrow." Given the context of Chiang's story, leaving this off just adds to the gut punch for me.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#103

Post by the_af »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #60

Is this an ai written article? > In Exhalation, thermodynamics appear to work differently The whole point of this story is to explain thermodynamics (or entropy). He wrote a little note! I can’t begin to believe this was written by a human who’s really read Chiang.

Can't people simply misremember or misunderstand the story? I've seen more than once (and been accused of the same sin, to be fair) someone completely getting the point of a story backwards, no need to involve AI!

I found myself in agreement that Ted Chiang is one of the best scifi writers alive today, but disagreed with other points (that his understanding of then-current LLMs was weak -- I thought Chiang's lossy compression metaphor was on point -- or that he should somehow optimize his output to write more stories -- something one of the commenters from TFA deftly rebutts), but I still think it's a human who wrote most of the article.

Happy to be corrected by the author if he wrote it using LLMs. I'm not immune to being fooled; my objection to LLMs is not "they aren't good enough" but instead "I want to talk to humans, not bots".

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#104

Post by the_af »

LinchZhang wrote: post #26
root_axis wrote: post #14

Interesting observation. Spoilers -> He does the same thing in Tower of Babel, where the topology of the universe is structured in such a manner that the tower can physically reach "heaven", which ends up being a surprise to the reader and the characters at the same time. Masterful stuff. I want to nitpick two things. On compatibalism, the first definition presented is the correct one, the framing that "you have to m…

I appreciate the nitpicks! Re #1 It's been several years since I read up on that area of philosophy. I'll need to reread some stuff to decide whether I think the definition I used is a fine enough simplification for sci-fi readers (and, well, myself) vs whether it missed enough nuances that it's essentially misleading. (Some academic philosophers follow me on substack so maybe they'll also end up correcting me at som…

For the record, I also found #2 jarring.

I understand you cannot write as if walking on egg shells; you have your position and maybe your readers do as well. But this is far from a settled matter, and Chiang's position (which was describing earlier rather than current LLMs, but I still think it arguably holds today) is arguably correct, or valid. I probably agree with Chiang more than I agree with you, which is why I find it odd to call it a blind or weak spot as if the matter was settled. Maybe "while I admire Chiang, I fundamentally disagree on some topics, such as LLMs" would have felt less jarring.

(Not saying you must write like this, and it's impossible to write in a way nobody will object to. I'm just explaining why I -- and presumably the person you're responding to -- found it jarring).

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#105

Post by the_af »

nyeah wrote: post #88

Comparing to old sci fi. (For anyone who still cares!) Chiang can be pitched as today's Stanislaw Lem. (And maybe a modern PK Dick but with much less insanity.) I'm thinking especially of His Master's Voice, which is my favorite Lem story and maybe his most Chiangian. Very cerebral and great storytelling. The Chiang story where the mathematician discovers the horrible truth that 1+1=3 while her husband discovers he d…

PKD and Chiang -- I hadn't thought of this comparison, but as a fan of both, it rings true.

Didn't PKD even write a nightmarish story about god and angels being literally true and punishing the infidel that echoes Chiang's story about "Hell.."?

I don't think Chiang is drier than PKD. I think he's a saner PKD, without the tendency to psychedelic ramblings. I say this as an absolute fan of PKD!

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#106

Post by kokanator »

graemep wrote: post #100
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." I kind of see both sides of that. On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably". On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really t…

I agree, but I think that if God undeniably existed it would make faith (in the second sense) more difficult - or at least change how people felt it.

Perhaps faith is a type of choice and in either case difficult.

1. We see often where people deny an objective choice. Even those choices that are predominately 'good' and instead choose those that are predominately 'destructive'.

2. A choice to accept forgiveness is exceedingly difficult as the first step is to accept limits of your own power. That is to say, you must accept another's greater ability to forgive than your own.

In either case, regardless of the objective nature of the 'choice' they remain difficult for humans to make.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#107

Post by the_af »

ayaros wrote: post #36
LinchZhang wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OMG I'm so glad this review might have an impact! Please do check out Story of Your Life and then read the other stories! Without giving too many spoilers away, the short story's plot is simultaneously extremely similar to and extremely different from the movie. YMMV on which one you prefer, fans are divided. In my experience people who read the short story first prefer the story, and people who watch the movie first…

I mean, I'm a bit biased towards Denis Villeneuve. The man is literally the modern embodiment of Stanley Kubrick and everything he stood for. His films contain everything that's lacking in modern cinema - decent plots, good writing, slower pacing, artful framing and composition of shots, a dedication to hard sci-fi, respect for source material, very careful attention to lighting and sound design, miniatures so though…

I think Arrival was quite good, but has some blemishes that Chiang's story doesn't.

To name a few: the movie is way more sentimental -- I subscribe to the notion that "less is more" when trying to stir emotion, and I think Villeneuve overdid it -- and also has your standard "big movie" thriller/suspense/action moments that are completely unnecessary and are only there to make the movie commercially viable. I understand why they are there, but they are still blemishes.

To be fair, some things only work in the movie and are bits of genius, like when Louise suddenly asks why she's getting all these mental images of an unknown girl -- only then the viewer understands she's not remembering something from the past. It's a surprising moment and, to my recollection, it's only in the movie. Even if I misremember and it was in the story, the visual element works better.

The short story is perfect.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#108

Post by red-iron-pine »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #92
graemep wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing that flat earth beliefs or YEC are false is hardly a devastating critique of religion per se. His own explanation of Hell is The Absence of God seems to suggest otherwise too. "He also said that the novelette examines the role of faith in religion, and suggests that if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Is_the_Absence_of_God#Bac...

> "if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." I kind of see both sides of that. On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably". On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really t…

> On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably".

"I don't comprehend what's going on and can hardly read, therefore my views about an invisible sky, man which cannot be proven in any way, are valid"

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#109

Post by janeerie »

skipants wrote: post #87

I'm enjoying this article. One nitpick is that Black Mirror is usually dystopian in its view of technology but there has been more than 1 happy ending. The author probably only has San Junipero fresh in their mind. https://screenrant.com/black-mirror-happy-ending-episodes/

I don't know how one could classify USS Callister and Black Museum as having happy endings! The fates of the bad guys in those episodes are so horrible they still haunt me. Doesn't make it any better that they are bad guys!

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#110

Post by pkd »

nyeah wrote: post #93
sriku wrote: post #46

"story of your life" isn't quite about sapir-whorf but more about the lagrangian view of the world (as opposed to the Hamiltonian). That is difficult to convey in a movie and so the sapir-whorf part got emphasized there. Also Exhalation is a beautiful story that captures the fact that all life and intelligence lives in the space between low entropy and high entropy. So it's not different thermodynamics. But overall I…

Hi, Sriku. Um, is your dissertation available anywhere? I'm an electronic music amateur. Mostly a four-on-the-floor guy but interested in breaking out of that a bit. I'm reasonably mathy. Folks please be gentle with the downvotes. I tried an email but can't seem to make it work!

If you look at his LinkedIn he lists his thesis title, and googling that will bring you to it, hosted on his site.
Post reply on HN