| ▲ | Jedd 6 hours ago |
| I adore Banks' universe, but recall reading some notes from him years ago, as tialaramex indicated, that 'all the interesting stuff happens at the edge' given utopias are, almost by definition, pretty tedious. Even though there's a good amount of utopia-description in the novels, I'd still be wary about extrapolating too much from what are primarily stories of exceptions. (One might suggest, in response to TFA's expectation there'd be more arseholes in the Culture, that one of the most important things a utopian Culture would ensure is a robust education for all its citizens -- but I realise some popular contemporary earth-bound cultures may take that as a subtle dig.) > we need more fiction examples of positive AI superintelligence I'd rate the Eschaton series by Charlie Stross (sadly only two books ever published in that series, and it's unlikely we'll ever see a third) - Singularity Sky & Iron Sunrise - in this category. I think Accelerando might fit, too. |
|
| ▲ | OgsyedIE 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Most of the members of the human race present on Earth, Jupiter, Saturn etc. during the events of Accelerando are murdered by their posthuman descendants. This includes the vat-grown population of conservative humans used to sway the electoral outcomes of the gas giant societies, who were murdered after they had served their use of swaying those societies. |
|
| ▲ | EdwardCoffin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're probably referring to A FEW NOTES ON THE CULTURE by Iain M Banks [1] [1] http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm |
|
| ▲ | ableal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> we need more fiction examples of positive AI superintelligence Neal Asher did pretty well with his Polity universe. Besides AIs with some capacity for playful violence (Agent Cormac thread, but always there), we also get crablike aliens (the Prador war) and very weird biology (in particular the Spatterjay water world). |
| |
| ▲ | chrisweekly 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tchaikovsky's "Children of Time" might qualify, if you look at it right. | | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, depending on whether you view Kern as an AI at all. She certainly wouldn't thank you for implying it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | svieira 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > we need more fiction examples of positive AI superintelligence There are some _very_ interesting examples in John C. Wright's Count to the Eschaton sequence. |
| |
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pure power fantasy & gratuitous as heck, but man, loved the The Golden Oecumene series, Wright's debut novels. Had not thought to see what else Wright has done! Side note, my homelabs Kube cluster's naming scheme is AI from fiction. Rhadamanthus is one of the computers from Golden Oecumene, a powerful manor computer. Also in the cluster: Jarvis (Iron Man), Cohen (Spin State), Epicac (eponymous Vonnegut short story). | | |
|
|
| ▲ | davidivadavid 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > given utopias are, almost by definition, pretty tedious. By definition, if they're tedious, they're not utopias. It's more that writing convincing utopias is hard and people are lazy. |
| |
| ▲ | DowsingSpoon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How so? In this context, “tedious” clearly means “not very exciting for the reader.” Were you hoping for more relationship drama, or romance? I’d be down for that. Though, it doesn’t seem to be what Banks was most interested in writing about. | | |
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen an hour ago | parent [-] | | It is often remarked, by those who may be assumed to have some insight into it, that the difficulty in writing Superman is to convey his perfection and goodness, but that for people who do not understand Superman well the difficulty is that he is too perfect and unbeatable and thus boring. I put forward thus that in the same way Superman can be tedious so can Utopias, and Utopias can be interesting in the same way that Superman can. |
| |
| ▲ | Barrin92 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >By definition, if they're tedious, they're not utopias Utopias are by definition tedious because a utopia is an end to history and as such an end to meaning or negotiation of how to live. A utopia is always an end to a story or Freedom with a capital f. As Dostoevsky points out in Notes from Underground, on man in utopia: "[he] would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin; but he has proved it!" Another way to phrase it. If you are in a utopia, you cannot be in a democracy that entails the possibility of ending it. Which is to say, you can't govern yourself at all. And that is why Ian M Banks culture is nothing of the sort. It's a society literally controlled by "perfect minds" using a Sapir-Whorf like language to manage the behavior of its people. Even Banks who tried to write a positive utopia and that's not his fault, couldn't imagine a utopia that entails the possibility of rebellion. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | The Culture is an anarchic democracy: if all but one single GSV had voted to disband, or to become a dictatorship, that lone GSV could disappear elsewhere without anyone stopping them. They were up for, and welcoming of, even quite extreme changes; compare with humanity today, where being transgender is considered controversial by a significant percentage of the population of a nation that likes to self-promote on the idea it is the beacon of liberty and freedom, versus the way Culture bodies are written to be able to flip gender more completely than our best biotech and just by conscious will, with most people being expected to try it, and with some couples flipping gender while pregnant and pausing the pregnancy just so both can give birth together. Even species changes are, for them, easy and of no great consequence or dispute. While you may be seen as weird if you choose to give up the visual accuity of an owl and the cerebral resliliance to survive decapitation in order to live out your life on this quaint rock recently discovered to be hosting an atomic age civilization, the Mind won't refuse to change you into a mere human just because you found Jesus. | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > to be able to flip gender more completely than our best biotech and just by conscious will a constant hedonic self modification and individual reinvention is obviously no sign of extreme change but the opposite, banality and powerlessness. As Augusto de Noce used to point out about the sexual revolution of the 60s, the sexual dimension became an obsession precisely because all other revolutions had been rendered impossible by an atomized society. There was nothing radical at all in it. It's no accident that the Culture puts so much emphasis, and in that it reads ironically enough like satire of modern consumer society, on choice only at a level of reshuffling your sexual organs or bodily characteristics. The minds in the culture are by no means just a sort of voting mechanism that summarize the attitudes of the population of the Culture. They control the culture which we even get to learn in the books in the series that delve into the minds as characters. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > only at a level of reshuffling your sexual organs or bodily characteristics "Only"? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | logicprog an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I really don't think accelerando is a good example of positive AI super intelligence LMAO. |
