Frederik Pohl had digital assistants in his 1970s Heechee Saga books (but mainly in Beyond the Blue Horizon and after). Not only that but they would emulate different personalities depending on the need, eg spitballing with Einstein. However Pohl was a lot less expositional; in his novels the technology existed and he didn’t feel the need to get meta about why or how. Much more accessible than Banks, in my humble opinion.
Well, there is 'Feersum Endjinn' which you have to tune your ear to the language. 'Excession' had a lot of talk between Minds/Ships which was quite dense.
Also there is a lot of descriptions of hyper-advanced weaponry, drones, etc - even though I enjoy the books, it can be a bit much sometimes.
Of course, most are more readable in the original Marain :)
> Well, there is 'Feersum Endjinn' which you have to tune your ear to the language.
True up to a point. Not limited to Iain M Banks, though: the Bridge does much the same.
The key thing to know is that Banks was a Scot, and sounded like it. (I met him quite a few times.) If you read the phonetic passages aloud in a cod-Scottish accent they are much easier and clearer, IMHO.
> 'Excession' had a lot of talk between Minds/Ships which was quite dense.
I can only say that I did not find that. It's widely rated as many readers' favourite Culture or IMB novel.
I though that, for instance, Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon The Deep was harder work, and much as I love Vinge's work, I found Rainbows End unreadable and DNF.
> Also there is a lot of descriptions of hyper-advanced weaponry, drones, etc
Personally I lap that stuff up.
> even though I enjoy the books, it can be a bit much sometimes.
Interesting. For me the reverse is true. I find they make most other SF seem a bit dull and lifeless.
Hah, I hadn't thought of Feersum Endjinn as Scottish, but you might be right. I've lived in both Edinburgh and Glasgow (although quietly, as an Englishman) so perhaps that made it easier for me, at least.
What I liked about Banks' sci-fi is that he generally avoided too much 'info dumping' that some authors suffer from. Like "He was a X'nar'kk from the Blagh'le system ..." for like 3 paragraphs before you get to some actual plot. The only time I saw that a bit was in the Algebraist - funnily enough - in the subplot with Luseferous (diamond teeth, enemy head punching bag). Of course the parts with the Dwellers made up for that ('I do hope you have enough people.').
I guess it comes down to whether all the detail is enjoyable or not. When it's a long description of how a Ship converts the majority of its mass into a swarm of weapon platforms or the rapid sequence of events in a battle between drones over the space of a millisecond then it can be good. If someone was not into that, I guess the extra detail is going to make it worse for them.
Feersum Endjinn and The Bridge are fascinating but, yeah, work.
Excession IME is fine for people -if- they've read several other Culture novels first. Having it be somebody's first one tends to be ... suboptimal, at best.
Inversions is also weird in that it feels a bit empty ... -unless- you know to read it as a novel about SC agents, and then it's far more interesting.
The rest of the sci-fi ones seem reasonably grokkable, the non-sci-fi ones really depend on whether you get into the style or not, I think.
I am the same. I adore the SF, but don't find the mainstream fiction very interesting.
I started with the Wasp Factory which I used as external reading for my English Literature 'A' level -- I still have my first-edition hardback -- and I moved on to Consider Phlebas and loved all of IMB's stuff. Most of IB's did not move me, although the Bridge and Transitions are interesting.
Not the OP, but I'm curious (sorry). What does provenance have to do with finding Banks accessible?
For the record, I'm Greek and I read most of my Sci-Fi in Greek translations. Banks was one of the first writers whose work I read entirely in the original English (the other two were Terry Pratchett and Jeff Noon, both of which I started reading around the same time as Banks). I don't remember ever feeling that his writing was inaccessible, not even Feersum Engine, discussed in the sibling comments, and which was his first I ever read. At the time my English was not too good, so, like I say, I'm curious, why do you ask the OP where they're from? Is it because of the Scottish thing you mention below?
Reading your other comments here you say you met him many times. I'm envious! Me and my friend who have both read all his books (and all the M-less books also) managed to mix up the dates and miss his visit to the town we lived at the time. That was a couple of years before he died. I hate being a fan girl but I've always felt a certain regret for never having met the guy. Or Pratchett. I'm the worlds' worst fan :)
> What does provenance have to do with finding Banks accessible?
Well, for instance, my first fiancée was Norwegian, and she really struggled with both Feersum Endjinn and the Bridge. She spoke superb English, better than native level (I am among other things a qualified TEFL/TESOL teacher, and I'd assess her as better than C2 level) -- but she could not handle phonetic English that was not in RP. (Received Pronunciation, that is, "standard" British English, or BBC English.)
Banksie was Scottish and sounded Scottish. (She met him with me, I think. I don't recall if she had problems with his spoken English.) To read the phonetic parts in IMB/IB, you need to read them in a Scottish accent -- the phonetics don't work with RP English.
(Not a clue how they work with American English, which like most Brits I understand fine but cannot speak.)
Another comparison: a few years ago in Brno in the Czech Republic I went to see Trainspotting 2 with a bunch of people: Italian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, German... and one other Brit, a friend of mine. It was shown in an art-house cinema, not subtitled. I told them they were brave. "Why?" they asked. "It's in English, isn't it?"
"Well, not really..." I replied. "It's in Scottish. It's not the same."
Later they told me that they barely understood a word.
The only people in that showing who did were me and the other Brit.
I am learning Czech. After 8 years, I am approaching B1 level. (Getting to A1 German took me 3 days, for comparison. A1 Czech took about 2-3 YEARS.) The more Czech I learn, to my dismay, the less Slovak I understand.
Scottish is to English as Slovak is to Czech: they are similar, quite close, but not the same. Knowing one as a foreign language may not help you to understand the other. Written English is standardized on the RP British English dialect. When Bankie wrote phonetically, he is recording a different dialect.
So, in my personal experience, a non-native speaker trying to read IB or IMB's books might struggle a lot more than they might do if they were, say, listening to an audio book of the same material.
> I've always felt a certain regret for never having met the guy.
I am very happy I got to spend a little time with him. He is one of my all-time favourite writers, and it was a privilege.
I have in fact got to meet quite a lot of my favourite writers... since you said:
> Or Pratchett.
Yes, Pterry too. I also have his first-ever novel in hardback first edition, as I was a fan of his before he wrote the Discworld books, and met him many times. About half my Pratchetts are signed.
>> Yes, Pterry too. I also have his first-ever novel in hardback first edition, as I was a fan of his before he wrote the Discworld books, and met him many times. About half my Pratchetts are signed.
>> And Douglas Adams, just the once.
Oh gosh, now I'm even more jealous :)
>> Banksie was Scottish and sounded Scottish. (She met him with me, I think. I don't recall if she had problems with his spoken English.) To read the phonetic parts in IMB/IB, you need to read them in a Scottish accent -- the phonetics don't work with RP English.
Well that's interesting. I read Feersum Engine back in 2004 I think, a year before I moved to the UK. Once arrived, it was a couple of years before I could make myself undestood by, or understand myself, any person of the British persuasion. I distinctly remember an hour-long conversation with a man from Glasgow, in which I did not understand a single word. For all I know, I nodded along and smiled politely to him claiming that the Holocaust was all made up and Hitler was right to exterminate the Jews anyway.
I know Glaswegian accents are hard. I think I get about 60% of Burnistoun. It never occurred to me that Feersum Engine must be read in a Scottish voice. I wouldn't be able to pull it off anyway. But it just really clicked for me and I didn't find it a drag, in fact the parts of Ergates the ant where the ones I liked reading the most. You know, because they were the most fun!
I certainly don't have an RP. After 17 years in the UK I have a soft, but firm, South European accent. I once watched a recording of myself giving a presentation and my accent is very, very there. It could maybe sound like a very poor attempt at imitating a Scottish accent, by someone who had only heard a very vague description of it. Maybe. Dunno.
>> "Well, not really..." I replied. "It's in Scottish. It's not the same."
More weird. I've watched Trainspotting a few times, with subtitles on or off, can't remember. I can always understand it just fine. Spud is the only one I have trouble understanding and I think that's partly on purpose.
Maybe has something to do with being Greek, at a very wild guess? Scottish people speaking English sound to me like they're making the sweetest sounds that remind me of home. We have strong "ARRRs" (like in "Rory") and "CHAAAs" (like in "loch") too.
I found there were too many new concepts just thrown about with little or no exposition. Where some authors would go on and on, I found Banks to be too light on the background. I realise the books would have likely been much longer had every piece of tech or new planet had been elaborated, and for the most part much of it was minor detail, but it disconnected me from his stories.
Interesting... it was on another site, so I think I should not C&P someone else's words, but someone recently said that they found IMB hard work because there was just too much to absorb: it was so information-rich they found it overwhelming.
There's probably some general point in here about how one thing can't please everyone.
I recently set aside book 2 of N K Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy. I may come back to it, but while it is very original, it is at heart a post-apocalyptic fantasy series, and I am just not very into fantasy.
Yes this is a multi-award-winning series that's been praised to the skies.
Similarly several friends were recently delighted to get commemorative editions of John Crowley's Little, Big -- for me, one of the single least enjoyable, most irritating books I've ever forced myself to finish.
I did not enjoy Fifth Season, so never bothered going beyond that.
I didn’t enjoy the frequent switch between first, second and third person and I honestly didn’t think it was that interesting of a story, but for some reason people seem to rave about it. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Absolutely so, and I relish diversity and that there's lots out there.
The only thing is, it makes me treat reviews and recommendations with great caution. I have some friends who like most of the books I like, but they also like some utter dross, and don't like things I consider wonderful. So one is left to one's own devices.
Greg Bear's Eon also had the characters using "search programs" which were autonomous agents to collect data for consumption, which seems like something that's obviously coming soon.
Although that's a more recent work, coming out in 1985.
Since Banks had solispistic terrorists in one of his books, and so was known for playing with these philosophical concepts, I assume he was playing with the idea that you would think "but isn't that what I do too?"
Btw: If this is your first intro to Banks I recommend starting with The Business, absolutely fantastic book! He's generally a great author. Wasp Factory is his most famous book I guess, but The Business is by far my favorite.
I tend to start people on either Use of Weapons or Player of Games depending on the person. Excession is IMO a lot easier to appreciate when you've already got your head around the Culture, Minds etc.
Me too. Especially "Player of Games." I re-read Weapons just before Algebraist...it's long and very introspective, whereas Player is easier to just follow along with the plot. If people don't like Player, they're not going to like Weapons, but I'm not sure the reverse is true.
I loved The Bridge! The first three Culture novels are exceptional: Consider Phlebas, The Player of Games and Use of Weapons. Highly recommend all three. The rest are probably great too but I haven't read them yet.
The first thing ChatGPT reminded me of was the précis in Neuromancer.
`Panther Moderns,' he said to the Hosaka, removing the trodes. `Five minute precis.' `Ready,' the computer said.
It wasn't a name he knew. Something new, something that had come in since he'd been in Chiba. Fads swept the youth of the Sprawl at the speed of light: entire subcultures could rise overnight, thrive for a dozen weeks, and then vanish utterly.
`Go,' he said. The Hosaka had accessed its array of libraries, journals, and news services. The precis began with a long hold on a color still that Case at first assumed was a collage of some kind, a boy's face snipped from another image and glued to a photograph of a paint-scrawled wall. Dark eyes, epicanthic folds obviously the result of surgery, an angry dusting of acne across pale narrow cheeks. The Hosaka released the freeze; the boy moved, flowing with the sinister grace of a mime pretending to be a jungle predator. His body was nearly invisible, an abstract pattern approximating the scribbled brickwork sliding smoothly across his tight onepiece. Mimetic polycarbon.
I guess we’re still months/years away from it stitching together an intelligent sequence of video clips, though.
Sorry for going off topic but how do people pronounce "Neuromancer"? Of course it's a deliberate play on words and the obvious thing is to pronounce it Neuro-mancer but to me it has always been "New Romancer". Maybe because I grew up in the late 70s and early 80s when the new romantics [1] were popular (and this book was written). Aside to my aside - William Gibson turns 75 in a few days. Insane.
I’ve always just said Neuro-mancer (like necromancer) but your phrasing sounded familiar so I looked into it:
Norman Spinrad, in his 1986 essay "The Neuromantics" which appears in his non-fiction collection Science Fiction in the Real World, saw the book's title as a triple pun: "neuro" referring to the nervous system; "necromancer"; and "new romancer." The cyberpunk genre, the authors of which he suggested be called "neuromantics," was "a fusion of the romantic impulse with science and technology," according to Spinrad.
When speaking it out loud, I tend to weight the 'neu' slightly more than the 'ro' but little enough that I think the double interpretation is probably still audible - certainly saying it out loud to myself now I can hear both.
It's a pun on "neuro-" as in neurological, meaning of the nervous system and brain, and "necromancer", as in a black magician, one who summons the dead.
Chatgpt is like the machine that wrote poetry in the Cyberiad. It even had the poets protesting it, which feels a lot like stable diffusion vs the artists.
I know every field has its jargon, but as I see it for “training” the training data is a program. The training process lexes that program, tokenizes it, and then compiles that parsed data. Finally it links it with other compiled programs to build a large model.
With respect to Iain Banks, he's probably one of my favorite authors (both sci-fi and non-sci-fi).
With respect to the question of having consciousness and free will -- don't we all just reduce down to atoms obeying the laws of physics? Are our actions not therefore deterministic? Sure maybe there's some quantum uncertainty principles at work (but it's not like LLMs produce the same output every time either). So it's not at all clear how consciousness arises, and thus not clear that e.g. GPT-7 "cannot" be conscious.
The other part of this is as relates to the question of AGI and its risks -- there's lots of things that are not necessarily consciousness but are nonetheless extremely bad for humans. Viruses. Tigers. Fire (when not appropriately managed). And for the set of things on Earth we're pretty well equipped to handle them, but if the sun went supernova, screaming "nooo I'm conscious and you're not" would not prevent humanity from being wiped out.
> With respect to the question of having consciousness and free will -- don't we all just reduce down to atoms obeying the laws of physics? Are our actions not therefore deterministic?
The majority of living humans profess a religious faith and probably would not agree with that statement. That doesn't make it wrong obviously, but I don't think you should treat it as a settled question.
> So it's not at all clear how consciousness arises, and thus not clear that e.g. GPT-7 "cannot" be conscious.
Arguments from position that there is an essential human characteristic that AI cannot capture always leaves me wanting. It seems almost like their arguing from a position of ontological impossibility when I read their responses.
On one had we have a few simple classical physics equations which describe how matter behaves, and brains being matter, should follow these rules. On the other, we have universal function approximators - models which given enough resources can approximate any function. Theoretically it seems like one can be arbitrarily approximated by the other.
That's why dismissals feel like an argument from consequence. As one gap closes, another gap emerges. In the same way that science creates a god-of-the-gaps - incremental advances in science make god retreat into ever smaller and obscure gaps, advancements in AI create a consciousness-of-the-gaps where the justifications for consciousness retreat into ever smaller and obscure gaps. Embodiment is the newest of these gaps and once embodiment occurs, another gap will be discovered and retreated to.
Unfortunately, consciousness and sentience are social categories, not scientific categories - like countries, they gain legitimacy when enough agents say they're legitimate - and just like the gaps, this trend isn't stopping.
See also Mike, from 1966's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". While in the novel he is sentient, the descriptions of his computer model and the way he learns and grows is very similar to ChatGPT.
>HOLMES IV ("High-Optional, Logical, Multi-Evaluating Supervisor, Mark IV")
50 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 31.5 ms ] threadMay I ask, where are you from?
Also there is a lot of descriptions of hyper-advanced weaponry, drones, etc - even though I enjoy the books, it can be a bit much sometimes.
Of course, most are more readable in the original Marain :)
True up to a point. Not limited to Iain M Banks, though: the Bridge does much the same.
The key thing to know is that Banks was a Scot, and sounded like it. (I met him quite a few times.) If you read the phonetic passages aloud in a cod-Scottish accent they are much easier and clearer, IMHO.
> 'Excession' had a lot of talk between Minds/Ships which was quite dense.
I can only say that I did not find that. It's widely rated as many readers' favourite Culture or IMB novel.
I though that, for instance, Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon The Deep was harder work, and much as I love Vinge's work, I found Rainbows End unreadable and DNF.
> Also there is a lot of descriptions of hyper-advanced weaponry, drones, etc
Personally I lap that stuff up.
> even though I enjoy the books, it can be a bit much sometimes.
Interesting. For me the reverse is true. I find they make most other SF seem a bit dull and lifeless.
What I liked about Banks' sci-fi is that he generally avoided too much 'info dumping' that some authors suffer from. Like "He was a X'nar'kk from the Blagh'le system ..." for like 3 paragraphs before you get to some actual plot. The only time I saw that a bit was in the Algebraist - funnily enough - in the subplot with Luseferous (diamond teeth, enemy head punching bag). Of course the parts with the Dwellers made up for that ('I do hope you have enough people.').
I guess it comes down to whether all the detail is enjoyable or not. When it's a long description of how a Ship converts the majority of its mass into a swarm of weapon platforms or the rapid sequence of events in a battle between drones over the space of a millisecond then it can be good. If someone was not into that, I guess the extra detail is going to make it worse for them.
Excession IME is fine for people -if- they've read several other Culture novels first. Having it be somebody's first one tends to be ... suboptimal, at best.
Inversions is also weird in that it feels a bit empty ... -unless- you know to read it as a novel about SC agents, and then it's far more interesting.
The rest of the sci-fi ones seem reasonably grokkable, the non-sci-fi ones really depend on whether you get into the style or not, I think.
I've never got on well with the Iain Banks novels, and devoured the Iain M Banks novels.
I started with the Wasp Factory which I used as external reading for my English Literature 'A' level -- I still have my first-edition hardback -- and I moved on to Consider Phlebas and loved all of IMB's stuff. Most of IB's did not move me, although the Bridge and Transitions are interesting.
Not the OP, but I'm curious (sorry). What does provenance have to do with finding Banks accessible?
For the record, I'm Greek and I read most of my Sci-Fi in Greek translations. Banks was one of the first writers whose work I read entirely in the original English (the other two were Terry Pratchett and Jeff Noon, both of which I started reading around the same time as Banks). I don't remember ever feeling that his writing was inaccessible, not even Feersum Engine, discussed in the sibling comments, and which was his first I ever read. At the time my English was not too good, so, like I say, I'm curious, why do you ask the OP where they're from? Is it because of the Scottish thing you mention below?
Reading your other comments here you say you met him many times. I'm envious! Me and my friend who have both read all his books (and all the M-less books also) managed to mix up the dates and miss his visit to the town we lived at the time. That was a couple of years before he died. I hate being a fan girl but I've always felt a certain regret for never having met the guy. Or Pratchett. I'm the worlds' worst fan :)
No problem!
> What does provenance have to do with finding Banks accessible?
Well, for instance, my first fiancée was Norwegian, and she really struggled with both Feersum Endjinn and the Bridge. She spoke superb English, better than native level (I am among other things a qualified TEFL/TESOL teacher, and I'd assess her as better than C2 level) -- but she could not handle phonetic English that was not in RP. (Received Pronunciation, that is, "standard" British English, or BBC English.)
Banksie was Scottish and sounded Scottish. (She met him with me, I think. I don't recall if she had problems with his spoken English.) To read the phonetic parts in IMB/IB, you need to read them in a Scottish accent -- the phonetics don't work with RP English.
(Not a clue how they work with American English, which like most Brits I understand fine but cannot speak.)
Another comparison: a few years ago in Brno in the Czech Republic I went to see Trainspotting 2 with a bunch of people: Italian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, German... and one other Brit, a friend of mine. It was shown in an art-house cinema, not subtitled. I told them they were brave. "Why?" they asked. "It's in English, isn't it?"
"Well, not really..." I replied. "It's in Scottish. It's not the same."
Later they told me that they barely understood a word.
The only people in that showing who did were me and the other Brit.
I am learning Czech. After 8 years, I am approaching B1 level. (Getting to A1 German took me 3 days, for comparison. A1 Czech took about 2-3 YEARS.) The more Czech I learn, to my dismay, the less Slovak I understand.
Scottish is to English as Slovak is to Czech: they are similar, quite close, but not the same. Knowing one as a foreign language may not help you to understand the other. Written English is standardized on the RP British English dialect. When Bankie wrote phonetically, he is recording a different dialect.
So, in my personal experience, a non-native speaker trying to read IB or IMB's books might struggle a lot more than they might do if they were, say, listening to an audio book of the same material.
> I've always felt a certain regret for never having met the guy.
I am very happy I got to spend a little time with him. He is one of my all-time favourite writers, and it was a privilege.
I have in fact got to meet quite a lot of my favourite writers... since you said:
> Or Pratchett.
Yes, Pterry too. I also have his first-ever novel in hardback first edition, as I was a fan of his before he wrote the Discworld books, and met him many times. About half my Pratchetts are signed.
And Douglas Adams, just the once.
>> And Douglas Adams, just the once.
Oh gosh, now I'm even more jealous :)
>> Banksie was Scottish and sounded Scottish. (She met him with me, I think. I don't recall if she had problems with his spoken English.) To read the phonetic parts in IMB/IB, you need to read them in a Scottish accent -- the phonetics don't work with RP English.
Well that's interesting. I read Feersum Engine back in 2004 I think, a year before I moved to the UK. Once arrived, it was a couple of years before I could make myself undestood by, or understand myself, any person of the British persuasion. I distinctly remember an hour-long conversation with a man from Glasgow, in which I did not understand a single word. For all I know, I nodded along and smiled politely to him claiming that the Holocaust was all made up and Hitler was right to exterminate the Jews anyway.
I know Glaswegian accents are hard. I think I get about 60% of Burnistoun. It never occurred to me that Feersum Engine must be read in a Scottish voice. I wouldn't be able to pull it off anyway. But it just really clicked for me and I didn't find it a drag, in fact the parts of Ergates the ant where the ones I liked reading the most. You know, because they were the most fun!
I certainly don't have an RP. After 17 years in the UK I have a soft, but firm, South European accent. I once watched a recording of myself giving a presentation and my accent is very, very there. It could maybe sound like a very poor attempt at imitating a Scottish accent, by someone who had only heard a very vague description of it. Maybe. Dunno.
>> "Well, not really..." I replied. "It's in Scottish. It's not the same."
More weird. I've watched Trainspotting a few times, with subtitles on or off, can't remember. I can always understand it just fine. Spud is the only one I have trouble understanding and I think that's partly on purpose.
Maybe has something to do with being Greek, at a very wild guess? Scottish people speaking English sound to me like they're making the sweetest sounds that remind me of home. We have strong "ARRRs" (like in "Rory") and "CHAAAs" (like in "loch") too.
Thank you for being kind to my curiosity!
Yes, what your L1 language is does affect these things, and ability with accents varies a lot, even among natives.
I found there were too many new concepts just thrown about with little or no exposition. Where some authors would go on and on, I found Banks to be too light on the background. I realise the books would have likely been much longer had every piece of tech or new planet had been elaborated, and for the most part much of it was minor detail, but it disconnected me from his stories.
(Edit: fixed typo)
There's probably some general point in here about how one thing can't please everyone.
I recently set aside book 2 of N K Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy. I may come back to it, but while it is very original, it is at heart a post-apocalyptic fantasy series, and I am just not very into fantasy.
Yes this is a multi-award-winning series that's been praised to the skies.
Similarly several friends were recently delighted to get commemorative editions of John Crowley's Little, Big -- for me, one of the single least enjoyable, most irritating books I've ever forced myself to finish.
I didn’t enjoy the frequent switch between first, second and third person and I honestly didn’t think it was that interesting of a story, but for some reason people seem to rave about it. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
The only thing is, it makes me treat reviews and recommendations with great caution. I have some friends who like most of the books I like, but they also like some utter dross, and don't like things I consider wonderful. So one is left to one's own devices.
Although that's a more recent work, coming out in 1985.
I also recommend The Crow Road.
`Panther Moderns,' he said to the Hosaka, removing the trodes. `Five minute precis.' `Ready,' the computer said.
It wasn't a name he knew. Something new, something that had come in since he'd been in Chiba. Fads swept the youth of the Sprawl at the speed of light: entire subcultures could rise overnight, thrive for a dozen weeks, and then vanish utterly.
`Go,' he said. The Hosaka had accessed its array of libraries, journals, and news services. The precis began with a long hold on a color still that Case at first assumed was a collage of some kind, a boy's face snipped from another image and glued to a photograph of a paint-scrawled wall. Dark eyes, epicanthic folds obviously the result of surgery, an angry dusting of acne across pale narrow cheeks. The Hosaka released the freeze; the boy moved, flowing with the sinister grace of a mime pretending to be a jungle predator. His body was nearly invisible, an abstract pattern approximating the scribbled brickwork sliding smoothly across his tight onepiece. Mimetic polycarbon.
I guess we’re still months/years away from it stitching together an intelligent sequence of video clips, though.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Romantic
Norman Spinrad, in his 1986 essay "The Neuromantics" which appears in his non-fiction collection Science Fiction in the Real World, saw the book's title as a triple pun: "neuro" referring to the nervous system; "necromancer"; and "new romancer." The cyberpunk genre, the authors of which he suggested be called "neuromantics," was "a fusion of the romantic impulse with science and technology," according to Spinrad.
https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Neuromancer
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5DFSvbkQaD0&t=42>
(time mark: 42s)
It's a pun on "neuro-" as in neurological, meaning of the nervous system and brain, and "necromancer", as in a black magician, one who summons the dead.
With respect to the question of having consciousness and free will -- don't we all just reduce down to atoms obeying the laws of physics? Are our actions not therefore deterministic? Sure maybe there's some quantum uncertainty principles at work (but it's not like LLMs produce the same output every time either). So it's not at all clear how consciousness arises, and thus not clear that e.g. GPT-7 "cannot" be conscious.
The other part of this is as relates to the question of AGI and its risks -- there's lots of things that are not necessarily consciousness but are nonetheless extremely bad for humans. Viruses. Tigers. Fire (when not appropriately managed). And for the set of things on Earth we're pretty well equipped to handle them, but if the sun went supernova, screaming "nooo I'm conscious and you're not" would not prevent humanity from being wiped out.
The majority of living humans profess a religious faith and probably would not agree with that statement. That doesn't make it wrong obviously, but I don't think you should treat it as a settled question.
Arguments from position that there is an essential human characteristic that AI cannot capture always leaves me wanting. It seems almost like their arguing from a position of ontological impossibility when I read their responses.
On one had we have a few simple classical physics equations which describe how matter behaves, and brains being matter, should follow these rules. On the other, we have universal function approximators - models which given enough resources can approximate any function. Theoretically it seems like one can be arbitrarily approximated by the other.
That's why dismissals feel like an argument from consequence. As one gap closes, another gap emerges. In the same way that science creates a god-of-the-gaps - incremental advances in science make god retreat into ever smaller and obscure gaps, advancements in AI create a consciousness-of-the-gaps where the justifications for consciousness retreat into ever smaller and obscure gaps. Embodiment is the newest of these gaps and once embodiment occurs, another gap will be discovered and retreated to.
Unfortunately, consciousness and sentience are social categories, not scientific categories - like countries, they gain legitimacy when enough agents say they're legitimate - and just like the gaps, this trend isn't stopping.
Banks' warminds run society better than the most wise and benevolent politicians in recorded history.
It will 100% claim to be self aware, alive, embodied and sane. None of which it actually is.
Migrant Worker : Hey, that was pretty good, except when you said, "Me llamo es Brian," you don't need the "es", just "me llamo Brian".
Brian Griffin : Oh! So you speak English!
Migrant Worker : No, just that first speech and this one explaining it.
Brian Griffin : You... you're kidding, right?
Migrant Worker : Que?
>HOLMES IV ("High-Optional, Logical, Multi-Evaluating Supervisor, Mark IV")