Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

lithub.com

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#21

Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists. Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.

I think you missed the key theme that human lives still have meaning on their own terms even in a world where personal achievement & competitive excellence do not. The stories are about the struggles of individual humans to discover those terms for themselves, but the work doesn't attempt to show that this quest is impossible or futile.

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#22

I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'. It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are. (Yes there is a lot of exploration of the grey areas and inhumanities, and thereby legitimately critical questions of the titular society- but Bank's himself has said that he would…

There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain. Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identifi…

Do you have some kind of reference for this phenomenon? If so it would be very interesting to read. If not, what is this statement based on?

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#23

I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'. It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are. (Yes there is a lot of exploration of the grey areas and inhumanities, and thereby legitimately critical questions of the titular society- but Bank's himself has said that he would…

There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain. Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identifi…

See also - A number of fans of "The Man in the High Castle" series on amazon a few years back were expecting it to somehow be a redemption story for the actual chief nazi.

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#24

Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists. Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.

I think you're going to want some super intelligence on your side eventually

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#25
Banks has a vision of the future where space travel, AI, and near-immortality are all widely distributed. What other science fiction is optimistic on a grand scale like that?

You can appreciate the overall Banks vision without agreeing on every particular political stance.

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain. Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identifi…

Do you have some kind of reference for this phenomenon? If so it would be very interesting to read. If not, what is this statement based on?

"But then there are good, smart, law-abiding people who still root for [Walter White], and I find that a very interesting sociological study"[1] - Vince Gilligan creator of Breaking Bad.

"Nevertheless, [Dan Harmon] and Roiland insist these people are a small subset. The worst of them—the ones who see Rick as a role model—are missing the point."[2] - On Dan Harmon's[Co-creator of Rick and Morty] view of Rickfandom.

"Tyler [Durden] has proven so perniciously stubborn as a hero of alienated young men."[3]

Generally, I see this aligned with Protagonist-centered Morality[4]. The way I discovered this phenomenon was repeatedly observing it in fan forums. I decided not to link to those because they are low signal to noise[5], but you're welcome and encouraged to seek them out. In revisiting them to refresh my memory, my present impression is:

1. Some people just like rooting for and sympathize with the main character above all else - no amount of atrocities can change that.

2. Some people just think the these characters are 'cool'.

Tony Soprano is an interesting case, because the creator was one of the die hard Tony fans, while much of the audience concluded that "He was a fucking murderer." I guess being in the creator seat doesn't magically bestow insight.

1. https://filmmakermagazine.com/84504-its-better-to-be-somebod...

2. https://www.gq.com/story/dan-harmon-rick-and-morty-profile?

3. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a44891150/chuck-...

4. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCente...

5. ie: Reddit.

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#27
post #16

Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists. Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.

A pet who gets whatever they want and is encouraged to find and do what makes them happy. Feeling important and actually doing things that feel important is nice but if AI is better than you at everything its the best we can expect we can expect with AI. I get how it can be dystopian to people who live for competition or just need to feel useful but we need to adapt if AI is going to be better than us at any jobs to…

I'm with you. I don't think Banks is saying "this is the best way for things to be". I think he's saying "this is the best way things can realistically be once true AI is developed and given appropriate rights".

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#28

Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists. Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.

What is a pet in the relevant sense here?

Let's assume you have everything in the Culture except the ASIs. So you have full blown Drexlerian nanotechnology, access to all the technology more or less possible out to the limits of physical law. Energy is functionally infinite, and if you want basically anything to be produced you simply order it from the AI equivalent of ChatGPT today and it is directly manufactured from base chemical feedstocks and delivered to you by a simple automaton. Food, clothes, furniture, any sort of electronics. Homes are extremely plentiful and similarly require ~ no effort to obtain, since they are just snapped together from atomically perfect panels. When you're done with something, it gets recycled back to feedstocks to be made into something else.

Okay. Now what? You're free to love who you like, befriend who you like. But nothing you do matters really for anyone else beyond sentimental value, since nothing you do effects whether they live or die (you're all functionally immortal after all, plausibly you can backup your consciousness and get resleeved if something truly catastrophic was to happen to you). There's no scarcity, no need to horde things, you play games and amuse yourself in whatever little hobbies delight you, and you socialize with those who you care to.

What exactly is the grand thing that you think people are going to be doing in that scenario that they can't do in the Culture?

It seems apparent that for the overwhelmingly enormous majority of people the Culture is identical to the case where there are no Minds, because to whatever extent some tiny portion of humans needs to make some sort of major decisions in a post-scarcity world with no Minds, 99.9999+% of people will not be among them. We see mostly people interacting with Special Circumstances (a tiny fraction of the overall population) and most of those who live on GSVs etc managed by Minds in SC themselves are also just going about their days and not involved with whatever machinations the Minds have going on.

Like, what is the problem that ASI really introduces here for regular people? And in a world where you are indeed free to leave the Culture (as we've seen) if you really want to, and there's plenty of variety in how smaller groups in the Culture live their lives, what exactly is missing? There is no oppression, no brutality, no war, disease, famine, poverty, or want and you're free to do as you like except kill people without their consent and/or otherwise hurt others. What more freedom do you really want?

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#29

I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'. It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are. (Yes there is a lot of exploration of the grey areas and inhumanities, and thereby legitimately critical questions of the titular society- but Bank's himself has said that he would…

> I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'.

I just can't imagine how that would happen. As others mention, missing the point on villains _is_ a thing, but Veppers is almost comically villainous. Like, he all but indulges in Bond-villain-style "have I mentioned that I'm evil" monologuing. He's _awful_.

(I actually think he's likely Banks' most objectionable antagonist.)

Re: Elon Musk Just Doesn't Understand the Sci-Fi Visions of Iain M. Banks

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain. Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identifi…

Do you have some kind of reference for this phenomenon? If so it would be very interesting to read. If not, what is this statement based on?

TVTropes covers it here, with many, many, _many_ examples: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPa... and the somewhat related https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom

The Musk/Banks thing even gets a mention under MisaimedFandom.

Post reply on HN