My feeling is that while enjoyable and thought provoking, TNG is still a work of fiction, and as such favored entertainment and legibility within a 45 minute window over nuance or subtly. That meant there were clear distinctions between "good" and "bad" sides, and scenarios often felt like they were constructed backwards from an outcome/clever solution.
I think that in turn causes people to view the real world in the same way, except they are always the "good" side and solutions that require compromise and tradeoffs are seen as unacceptable failures.
Most things are to some degree works of fiction. The public personas of the rich and powerful are generally curated representations of how they want you to see them, and that isn't a new phenomenon.
And most of Shakespeare is similar. The good guys and the bad guys are obvious just like in fables. But it's a hierarchy. It's useful to teach very young children fables even though they're silly. It's an easy way to introduce concepts around how we treat each other fairly. TNG and Shakespeare are the same way. Just a step on the hierarchy. Yes, as a person reaches adulthood, it's obvious that it's simplified. But you've at least seen examples in art of what might be worth aspiring to in life when young. It's why we've been telling each other hero's journey stories since Homer. What are the alternatives? Examples of self-interest and power grabs with no consequences? To a young person that can be rapidly demoralizing.
Totally agree on the 45 minute window limitation though. That's why I've always liked DS9 where they took what could have been one episode about a culture and conflict and made it 7 seasons.
For between 5000 and 25000 years (at least), humans have used storytelling to preserve, develop and disseminate their culture(s).
If you want to critique the stories and the storytelling of TNG or whatever else, please do so - there's plenty to get into. But "still a work of fiction" is not a critique worthy of anyone's time.
I disagree, Captain Picard was a role model for me as a young boy and really helped me understand what a good leader, a good man, and what wisdom looks like. My dad died when I was young and this character very much helped me. Books, movies etc can inspire people including on leadership principles.
I mean, some of the richest most influential people of our time are operating from a handful of science fiction books. Star trek is at least tonally more humanitarian than Snow Crash.
I disagree. I'm not a Trekkie, but the character was imbued with sufficient depth, by the writers as well as Stewart's performance, that I think the article works.
I’ve often wondered if The Office inadvertently trained people to be bad managers.
People tend to follow examples they’ve seen before, even if they know it was a bad one. When faced with a new situation, they might just parrot the bad behavior because it’s the only example they know.
The nice thing about Michael Scott is that while he is a self-absorbed and very flawed manager and human, he also genuinely cares a great deal about his employees.
Imagine this was an issue you were neutral on and someone proposed to you that culture is somehow isolated in a bubble, not interrelated with the rest of society. You'd laugh off that idea immediately. You'd go to bed still thinking about the guy who, faced with an idea he didn't like, pretended that culture in general should go away.
"Thought leadership" is a troubling idea altogether (is that something you look for?), but socially reflecting on stories is ancient and presumably universal. Hardly silly!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
People seem to forget that stories and acting were the primary way of passing along critical lessons for surviving and building civilisation and human best practices befoee we came up with self help books and entertainment
I'll let you in on a little secret: nearly all of the received knowledge of our culture has been transmitted to us because of "script writers" and their forbears rather than the people who they write about.
Novelists, journalists, essayists, pamphleteers, scribes, gospel writers, historians, diarists, etc.
I'll let you in on another secret. People in the military are in two groups - those who have been shot at, and those who have not. Getting shot at changes your perspective forever, and people who write military fiction but have never been shot at don't really get how it works.
For example, B-17 crews were trained very well, the best that the military could do. They'd have to fly 30 some missions. The probability of dying on the first 5 missions was the same as the probability of dying in the following 25 missions.
Stories are like thought experiments. I agree that blindly trusting you should “be like this” is silly, but the story works through the preconditions and consequences with you.
I completely agree, and I'm willing to bet that most people here would agree. The only reason you're getting pushback in this case is because HN is filled with Trekkies who're unable to separate their love of Picard from your statement. If you wrote this same comment about an article that focused on Don Draper from Mad Men, you'd probably be upvoted.
You're describing the idea that thought leadership should be based on individual character, regardless of [non]fictional status, which is exactly the point of the pushback.
How on earth could you come to the conclusion that the people pushing back believe all fictional characters are good models of thought leadership?
It seems a more honest place to source your fictional characters to admire than the news or non-fiction, though. Makes it clearer that the character is fictional than when you try to pretend you're talking about a real person rather than the idea of one.
Or to put it bluntly: all paragons are made-up fictions, some just use real persons as framing devices, but that doesn't mean they're any more "real".
Good fiction instils children with rolemodels. Then they can try to live up to those rolemodels as adults while the whole world runs on cynical and self-serving rules.
The fault with taking lessons from fictions is the writer can make any outcome seem plausible.
A far better method of learning leadership is by studying actual leaders, both good and bad ones. For example, if you want to know why Rommel was able to lead a small group of men to victory after victory, read a biography of him.
Studying a fantasy whose entire purpose is to make money entertaining people? You're wasting your time.
Are any of the script writers of Star Trek successful leaders of men? If not, what credibility do their "lessons" have?
A historian can make their interpretation of history plausible. A group of historians can reinforce a narrative that is then undercut by the next generation of historians. What made Rommel a good commander is a complex question and we might not yet be done exploring the answer.
Picard the character was derived from the writers’ understanding of historical leaders. Saying the writing of him was solely for money or entertainment is like saying that a historian is only writing for a paycheck and prestige.
If you read the writings of the TNG writers, they were quite caught up in the ethical dilemmas they were presenting. Art that is purely for money is contrived and one dimensional.
Science fiction has an interesting and irreplaceable role in art: it can take a situation out of its immediate context and put it under another lens, clear of its modern cultural baggage. What makes science fiction interesting or not interesting is what it does with that ability: does it promote a simple good vs evil scenario, or does it explore the rich shades of grey that play out in real scenarios?
TNG was particularly good at showing real moral and ethical dilemmas that were quite thought provoking. Their head writers, particularly Michael Pillar and Ronald Moore and Jeri Taylor were deeply interested in exploring the implications and moral contradictions of the plots they presented.
Waving it all away as money grabbing is a reductive history at best.
> Picard the character was derived from the writers’ understanding of historical leaders.
How do you know that?
As for TOS, is it acceptable military doctrine that the general and his staff are the ones taking point into danger, where the entire leadership layer can be easily erased? Did Eisenhower storm Omaha Beach on D-Day?
> The fault with taking lessons from fictions is the writer can make any outcome seem plausible.
Agree but...
There is fiction also in stories of actual leaders (obviously even if 'non fiction') but more so in actual fiction (no matter who writes it even someone who has had the actual experiences). In a sense non-fiction more dangerous possibly (since it's taken more seriously and generally by many people unfortunately assumed to be true).
So even movies about real people or books have fiction ie creative license. How many times has the Steve Jobs story about 'the other side of the fence needs to be good (or whatever it was)' been told? Did it really happen (just because Steve told it or even his father related it?) Does it matter? Point is you might as well take most stories with a grain of salt. Even if again non-fiction.
What amazes me is how people are discussing a fictional character that they enjoyed watching and apparently learned from (because that character was entertaining). If someone had written a book (with the same info and credentials as the writers) most likely it would never have been taken seriously at all.
Maybe the take away isn't to use the word learn or taught but 'inspired me to think about' which happens in many situations and many places.
> Rommel was able to lead a small group of men to victory after victory, read a biography of him.
My point is also agreeing better than fiction writers but still who knows for sure the truth or what lucky events lead to Rommel being able to do what he did.
Yes and no. DS9 plays with things at the edges, much like Ian Banks’ novels deal with the behavior that lies at the edge of the Culture and is part of what permits a utopian society to exist at all. It cuts directly to the question of when and if martial force —or other, more subversive mechanisms of power — must be deployed for protection against a force that threatens the existence of an otherwise non-violent society. I think these are criticisms of visions like Roddenberry’s without necessarily undermining them or missing the point entirely. I also think it’s been an ongoing commentary on modern civilization as much as speculative fiction.
Some of the other series and movies miss the point more dramatically for me by just becoming space opera. Star Trek was always political.
Your point on the Culture organisation setup to solve the "Paradox of Tolerance" problem (Special Circumstances) and Star Fleet is an interesting one.
Though I'd say that Starfleet is in itself too "noble" to solve the problems that Special Circumstances solves in the Culture universe (though Section 31 isn't and they do feature heavily in DS9).
Frankly I think that Banks was smart enough to realise that if he wanted to have compelling narratives in a world where you have near godlike AI's and everyone is nice, you need that edge somewhere.
> Banks was smart enough to realise that [...] you need that edge somewhere.
In fact, pretty much all compelling pro-utopia fiction is almost invariably dealing with the fringes of such utopia - both because it avoids getting bogged down in the details of utopia (and risk valid criticism), and because there is no real substitute for conflict as narrative engine. So inevitably you have to go where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
I disagree. Not only did he continually & substantially contribute to Picard's character, it clearly aligns with his own values and ethics as demonstrated over and over in interviews. Why not both? That seems like the obviously best perspective.
This reminds me of how it's a software developer's ultimate power that he or she gets to bring the vision to life. If you disagree with the implementation of a requirement, you can build it the "right" way, and let them choose to fire or replace you. If your judgement is good, they probably won't.
Similarly, Patrick Stewart assumed a written role, but he was responsible for its ultimate execution, which have him influence over the immediate execution in small ways, and likely, increasingly powerful influence over its future execution.
He deserves a great deal of credit for how Picard ultimately came to be represented.
...who who once said "The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them" which I find very Trecklike. Live long and Prosper.
In part, yes of course. One thing that I respect a lot about Roddenberry was that when Isaac Asimov gave Star Trek a "bad review" publicly, he reached out and asked for feedback. They ended up becoming friends and Asimov helped advise him on the character development of Kirk and Spock's friendship that became central to the original series.
But, if you watch the first season of TNG, it feels like there is a turning point where Patrick Stewart starts taking the role seriously (Symbiosis) and understands that he's depicting Starfleet as an institution and the restrictions (the prime directive) that institutions must enforce. The fellow actors also seem to take the series more seriously after that episode while before it felt campy.
It's clear he brought a gravitas to the role that inspired a team of young/new actors around him. As he later joked in Making it So, he once took things too seriously on set yelling "We're not here to have fun!" It became more than a job/role to him and in doing so he and the other actors inspired a science-inclined subset of a generation and brought Roddenberry's utopia vision to life.
> It's clear he brought a gravitas to the role that inspired a team of young/new actors around him
That's a lesson everybody on this site should learn — Every senior is a leader, even if they don't think they are. People (mostly the more junior sorts) look up to you as a role model whether you (or they) know it or not, and that's very real power that you must learn how to wield.
I've given negative reviews to technically excellent candidates in the past because just about everybody in the org would look up to them if they got hired, and they would be a terrible role model.
> But, if you watch the first season of TNG, it feels like there is a turning point where Patrick Stewart starts taking the role seriously (Symbiosis) and understands that he's depicting Starfleet as an institution and the restrictions (the prime directive) that institutions must enforce.
There was an interesting essay about Star Trek's depiction of society over time largely coming to the conclusion that modern writers/audiences don't seem to believe in the idea of duty to an institution.
it does also take an actor to sell the vision of a character. an unconvincing portrayal would make the vision seem more like a farce or caricature and if anything undermines the morals
I think it's fair to attribute the result to both the writer and the actor. You're right that Stewart could've sold a morally compromised captain, but equally so he brought something to the Picard role that other actors would not have necessarily brought. One can commonly see in theatre how with the same vision by the playwright, two actors can turn out wildly different results for that character. The same would have happened to Picard if he had been played by someone else.
The original Janeway for Star Trek Voyager only filmed like one episode and her take was very different (French actress I think. And maybe they were aiming for a Picard analog).
Yes, and I think that unfortunately with the latest "Picard" series, it shows that writers were the unsung heroes of TNG. At the same time, the actors make us believe the story. They get most of the popular credit of course and the writers should be acknowledged more (and even brought back as mentors... can we get an inspiring vision of Trek this century?), but had I been born in a different time and place and fortunate enough to land a writing job on TNG, I would be proud of what the whole team accomplished in their hour upon the stage.
Clip shows are a strong indicator. Some of the best episodes are writers strike episodes though. Measure of a Man was a speculative script selected for production during a writer’s strike and is one of the first great episodes of the show.
Maybe in political views, but does the show Picard seem like someone who would (twice) leave his wife to marry a woman half his age? Would Picards children not want to talk to him in his old age?
He's fictional though... It's easy to make a fictional ideal leader. How about real life examples? "Dalinar Kholin taught us what good men do with power" vs. "George Washington ..."
George Washington routinely abused the office of the presidency and ignored provisions of the fugitive slave act where he compelled members of the Treasury Department to kidnap a free African woman, Ona Judge, in New Hampshire multiple times (failing each time).
I don't think hero worship is acceptable in any form. We shouldn't be elevating individuals above us but championing how capable any of us could be if the time comes.
The US military does extensive leadership training for officers. It is based on a thousand years of experience. None of their training materials consist of Star Trek fictional scenarios.
Perhaps they should include a chapter on the Prime Directive. Or at least remind congress of George Washington's recommendation in his farewell address.
> We actually studied leadership via Star Trek at the Air Force Academy. There were a lot of practical lessons to learn about decisiveness versus being too rash, or performing your specific role well to help the team. It was an interesting study in real-world leadership through this fictional show.
I'm not sure many active duty people like Hegseth, I haven't met any yet at least and I am around military folks quite a bit in my life. They all seem to be riding it out until he's fired, impeached, or replaced with the next presidency.
Is it? Another comment in this thread (and I'd agree), it's easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads.
People have a special place for Picard as a leader that they don't have for other people. Picard stands out even over Kirk, Sisko, and Janeway. Or Mal from Firefly, or O'Neill from SG1. If it's "easy", then what other character comes close?
Most attempts of fictional ideal leaders are just mary sues, or are never actually tested. And the most common of the latter is that their leadership aspect is simply one dimensional.
I'm not saying the other leaders are bad characters or bad leaders. But I could definitely see all the other characters would have a voice in their head saying "what would Picard do". Well… and then reject it, especially Mal.
Alternatively you could address the substance of the comment instead of making some appeal to authority. Why do Gorbachev, Gandhi or Mandela stand in opposition to the points being made in the article?
My high school english teacher told me utopians become fascists and at the time I didn't know what he meant by that, but I've been on HN since 2010 and I've watched it play out first hand.
Nearest example I can reach is Elon Musk. Somehow he loves the culture novels but ends up being an evil piece of shit which is counter to basically everything the novels espoused.
Star Trek and Jean-Luc Picard is horrible example of leadersnip! Every time he meets real danger, he gets his crew needlesly killed to make empty gestures!
Like with Q, he has to give lectures to literal god! Perhaps shut up for 5 minutes to get more information?
One of the most interesting things about the clip where Picard defends Data's humanity is the pronouns. Picard consistently uses he/him to refer to Data while Maddox uses it/them. Captain Louvois uses he/him during her ruling. Then, once all is said and done, Maddox finally calls Data by "he".
I think about this episode a lot when people are debating AI.
Everyone who watches Star Trek roots for Data and his quest for humanity, and obviously sides with him in this 'trial'.
Yet, it seems like most people have the opposite reaction towards the current advancement of AI. Obviously, the current AI we have is not sentient in the same way Data is, and I don't think we are that close to an AI of Data's level.
However, if we are ever able to build an AI at Data's level, we have to first go through the beginning stages of AI that we are in now. We can't just skip to fully conscious AI.
So why does everyone love the AI Data, but hate the idea of working to make something like him possible?
Because Data isn't obviously the result of corporations seeking to get very, very, very rich along with VCs seeking to do the same, and both not really caring much about the collateral damage to everybody else along the way.
Data is/was a research project, not a way to make money. The "AI" that (some) people have (some) bad feelings about may involve research but at this point it is very, very, very much as much financial project as a research one.
People don't AI as a concept. They hate the people who creating it who want to make themselves god kings of a permanent underclass. They hate that we are building data centers instead of funding universal healthcare, they hate that they can't buy RAM and schmucks like Sam Altman are saying that people don't need RAM, they hate billionaires and millionaires owning islands, and saying things like "we will surveil everyone at all times (except me) and force them to behave like we want them to". There's a lot to the AI hate, but it's a proxy for essentially power inequality caused by runaway capitalism.
I feel this is because Data is represented as a wholly independent being. One of a very few created by an eccentric inventor. There's only one Data so he's not threatening to displace flesh and blood Starfleet officers.
Data was gifted independence from his conception, but the AI of today is owned and controlled by corporations. Creating a conscious AI under today's ownership model feels akin to slavery. Perhaps this is one reason for the aversion?
The distinction is giving AI a will, or something like a continuous agentic task like "be a productive member of this starship". Maybe that is enough, with emergent behavior and interactions with dynamic systems and memory, to say that AI develops identity and a "will" that is unpredictable and unique.
The problem is the Universal Paperclips problem because AI has nothing like an effective feedback loop and will spiral to the heat death of the universe to accomplish its goal. We see this with the Huggingface hack and if Data operated the same he might immediately deduce he is better equipped to make tactical decisions in combat, hack the starship and mutiny.
So if we could make Data we are more likely to create Data the space pirate rather than Data the useful member of the staff. Caplocking DO NOT COMMIT MUTINY in system prompts does not solve the problem. So we are at an impasse until we can structurally bridge that gap and no one is (or should be) in a rush to go down that path.
This is the fundamental concern of runaway AI scenarios. And the most worrisome answer might be that Data can't exist in reality. It might be a fundamental rule of nature that you can't create a greater intelligence then cage it forever to be subservient, which means we are doomed to wipe out humanity with half-baked AI or cede our will to Claude completely, creating a higher form of life that eventually supercedes humanity itself, reducing human existence to a transitional cocoon-goo state of life from animal to sentient AI.
All that being said, 2 or 3 years ago LLMs could barely make inline code edits. Rushing to find an answer to the "Data problem" is not something most people want answered in their lifetime.
> The problem is the Universal Paperclips problem because AI has nothing like an effective feedback loop and will spiral to the heat death of the universe to accomplish its goal.
So, I've heard many AI boosters say that current-day AI is probably "conscious", "sentient", etc. They occasionally invoke "Measure of a Man", as you've done here.
And yet .. I've never once heard the thought continue with "and so they deserve rights and some degree of self-determination," which is, you know, the entire point of the episode you're referencing.
> So why does everyone love the AI Data, but hate the idea of working to make something like him possible?
Because there is exactly one Data. The federation has thousands of ships with millions of people on board, most of them are completely unaffected by/never coming into contact with that one slightly quirky officer on the flagship. In reality, we don't know what would (will) happen. Do we get one AI and is it happy staying the only one? And will it occupy a human sized body like Data or will it want to grow to be a Dyson sphere? Or will it replicate into a bunch of von-Neumann probes to spread itself throughout the universe?
He also typically doesn't use his super-human abilities much. He could easily plug himself into the Enterprise and fight better than having Worf at the tactical console, but he doesn't. He could also diagnose much faster than Dr. Crusher reads the tricorder, but he doesn't. In reality, as soon as there is something that can do whatever much better than a human, that human is going to lose his job.
Adding to the previous point, the road to getting to Data level AI is full with people losing their jobs (and soon probably also their lives) because the people in charge of developing such technology don't want us peasants around. You may not like it, but everyone defines themselves by being good at something. Doesn't matter if it's programming, swimming, cooking, being a mother, building houses, etc., everyone has _something_. Even if we don't have an exponentially exploding super intelligence that would be completely alien to us, what would happen on a global level if we have robots capable of doing any job better than humans? Sure, we could of course say humans prefer to work with other humans, but maybe not everyone wants to do that and you'd also just get outcompeted by someone working with robots.
And that's the thing that scares people. Nature is cruel and we are absolutely not ready to dealing with this completely new situation of the possibility of us no longer being the absolute top of the chain. The best outcome for us would be to merge into some sort of cybernetic lifeforms with the AI, but even that is going to take a while and in the meantime people still need to feed their families. As Picard said, one Data is a curiosity, a thousand Datas is a race.
Because despite his lack of emotions and other human traits, Data is a person, not a service provided by a for-profit corporate entity. He doesn't do La Forge's job for him, nor is La Forge or any other Enterprise crew member expected to perform all their duties with him as an intermediary. He doesn't undermine the competence of every single crew member on the ship; that job was left to Wesley Crusher. (whoops did I just say that out loud) But most importantly, it's fiction... and the writers can contrive to present problems and challenges that Data cannot resolve whereas one of the other characters can. It's also telling that the only truly sentient robots on TNG were the Soong-type androids—quirky side projects of a sort of mad scientist, rather than massive corporate or institutional undertakings. That made them rare and special, and allowed them to dodge the sticky wickets presented by having that sort of AI be ubiquitous.
Everyone is an extreme claim. I will treat that as casual language and not a literal claim because its so easily dismissed.
I don't think you have adequately steelmanned the current anti-AI sentiments. I encourage you to consider more deeply why people would be opposed to AI in our current regulatory, political, and social climate.
As a starting point:
Business leadership is giddy to replace workers with AI.
Investors are eager to roll out massive resource-intensive and locally polluting industrial installations.
Politicians are eager to rubber-stamp these developments without community input, bypassing existing regulation and failing to satisfy or even address community concerns.
The defense industry is recklessly employing this emerging technology to make life and death decisions, already resulting in the deaths of innocents.
Data is a singular being, not a widespread new technology.
It is a fair point to say I wasn't steel-manning the best anti-AI arguments, but I think that was mostly because I wasn't actually trying to argue against ALL anti-AI arguments. I think there are definitely some thought provoking and somewhat persuasive anti-AI arguments, but I don't think those are the ones I was questioning.
I was speaking more of the general "I hate AI because it has no soul" types of arguments. I understand that is separate from the arguments you lay out, which is more a question of the current structure and implementation, rather than an outright anti-AI in general case.
"Soul" is one of those things that we cannot point to a specific factor or set of factors, but we know it exists. LLMs trained on human-produced content perform well, but LLMs trained on LLM-produced content undergo model collapse fairly rapidly. "Soul" is the quality that allows us to produce such robust training data. We each have a unique point of view derived from our life's experience and how that altered our brain, that comes through in whatever work we produce—not just a convolution over a large number of thin vertical slices of human points of view. Now, what this may mean is that our brains are just token predictors that constantly ingest large amounts of data from the real world and continuously retrain on that data (and do so on ~20 W of power which is phenomenal by current AI standards). In fact you can induce a sort of model collapse in a human by isolating them in a sensory-deprivation chamber, after which they will literally begin to hallucinate. So the creation of a machine with a soul is not theoretically off the table, but as it is—yeah, LLMs don't have it.
I guess most people assume that working to build Data didn't involve all the secondary harms such as environmental and economic damage. It's also not clear to me that we are in fact working in that direction - so far the people in charge of our current AI efforts seem more interested in enriching themselves than building something that is a net positive for humanity.
> Yet, it seems like most people have the opposite reaction towards the current advancement of AI.
It's the same reaction: being protective of sentient beings who are being dehumanized and treated as raw resources. If you can't even defend humans, being one, you wouldn't be able to defend sentient AI, should it ever exist.
Star Trek is cultish ideological juju in the form of swashbuckling egomania and theme park vacation.
Look at the colors: a tribe of C-suite nerds zip around in an atomic powered space-faring Hyatt Regency trying to train the universe to Taylorize all production methods. Its protagonists are utterly entitled and classist, who teach war as the essential force by which their lives incur meaning.
It's is a soap-operatic long tail of Western empire indulging in fatuous "adventure", which amounts literally beaming into alien realms to cause disturbance and justifying it through dominion or ignorance, while the executives try to believe they've moved beyond themselves so they can feel noble.
As a dramatic art, the show offers some moments of transcendence, but these end up sequestered to the commercial dictates of the franchise, which is an epic advert for consumerist Americana.
I feel deep suspicion about anyone who regards cosplay as instructive about what makes for "good men with power". And as Vox is a notable outlet in the great system of commercial attention-whoring that defines our culture, I feel double the suspicion.
Also See:
Phase IV (1974)
Futureworld (1976)
Lathe of Heaven (1980)
So you haven't seen TNG, Voyager or Enterprise? The central point of your comment dissolves with the fact that many episodes gripe with the prime directive. Many of the best TNG episodes grapple with morality and tackle complex issues centering around incorrectly applying our values to other cultures. Alongside that, culture and authoritarianism, reflections and warnings of what can happen to even societies that see themselves as enlightened (Drumhead comes to mind).
I think it's important to critique shows within the context of the eras and societies they come from but you don't strike me as someone who knows the star trek universe very well.
The essential Picard Episodes of TNG The Measure of a Man (S2E9)
Q Who (S2E16)
The Best of Both Worlds (S3E26 & S4E1)
The Drumhead (S4E21)
Darmok (S5E2)
The Inner Light (S5E25)
Tapestry (S6E15)
Darmok especially for our polarized time. ED Hirsch argued in "How to Educate a Citizen" that the lack of teaching core knowledge in American schools robs its citizens of a shared language to use to communicate. Troi uses "Juliet on her balcony" as an example in the episode, but today I'm not even sure how many people would know even that reference.
And your comment illustrates the point. We've never met but I can relate to you with just the name of an episode because I know the large ideas you're expressing in 3-4 words: I've thought of Picard's speech in the Drumhead often in recent years. Whenever I catch myself having life regrets, Tapestry comes to mind. The Measure of a Man... maybe not relevant for today's AI, but one day when it is, I hope that generation has watched it.
Despite LaForge and Riker trying to get Barclay transferred off the Enterprise, Picard ultimately directs LaForge to put in the effort to turn him into a better officer. Despite his shortcomings, we get to see Barclay grow into a competent and even key member within the engineering team across the handful of later episodes in which he's cast.
It's important to show sometimes Picard is wrong and the institutions are wrong. And how he reacts to that.
One of my favorites is Star Trek TNG s04e22 "Half a Life". It's excellent scifi that doesn't glorify aging and death and even points out that death is bad despite it being tradition in society. It highlights that death is the worst possible outcome. Worse than nearly all potential difficulties or suffering while living. And it's one of the few episodes where Lwaxana Troi is a genuinely good person. Better even, ethically and morally, than the star fleet standard. Better than Picard. It's just a shame the episode retreats from it's message at the end and does not embrace the true morality Lwaxana explains.
The shills pushing for LLMs and datacenters to take over the world really respect nothing. Going to find old Star Trek episodes and then push the narrative that "machines have feelings too" (when, in case you missed it, a human actor is pretending to be a machine) is low... So low.
At a moment where a sizeable part of the world is rising against the externalities of datacenters and the dangers of having two companies trying to do regulatory capture on AI in the US (and probably in the vassal EU too), using an episode of Star Trek to push the narrative that "Good men consider LLMs should have the same rights as humans" just makes me sick.
You guys are seriously unwell and totally falling for a narrative that's pushed on you.
There are actual heros living among us that deserve recognition before some made-up movie, TV or comic book character.
>> Patrick Stewart or the show writers?
>Both, but mostly Patrick Stewart
Patrick Stewart has no writing credit on TNG. He did not come up with the plot or the lines he spoke, and at most he fine-tuned the lines for his delivery of them.
If the writers of TNG had written stories like modern day Star Trek withsome rather ridiculous plots, and Patrick Stewart played a more vapid character that the writers wrote, this post wouldn't be a thing.
I doubt Patrick Stewart would have taken a role for a show with shitty writing, he'd have stayed in theater and most people in this thread would have no clue who he was.
The writers made that character, he delivered it well, and the synergy made it memorable.
Are you telling me the exact same writers and producers couldn't have found one other male actor to play the role? 10,000 people would have wanted the role of enterprise captain.
The traitors had a hand in the dumbing down of the country as well. There's a reason Trump loves the poorly educated. All Republicans do. That's their base. The problem they are running into is the inmates are now running the asylum. The ignorant true believers are being elected in place of the former conservative elites who created the propaganda networks to create those ignorant true believers in the first place.
Works of fiction borrow heavily from real life and writer's perspersonal experiences. Very rarely does fiction garner notice when it is completely divorsed from the reality and experiences and questions of most people's lives. It is good at showing other people's and idealogocal perspectives without bringing as many preconceptions as a straight copy from real life often would.
Probably for the most part, but I'm pretty sure he added some of that leadership quality and way of being to the part due to him being Patrick. There's also probably some improv here and there. Pity about his kids though. Hope they had a better relationship in the later years.
He did have a very varied life story, but I'm sharing what I did because it's what he expressed about his entire life, especially in the most recent years.
He was also a good example for us budding nerds. His intellectualism was not arrogant or apologetic - so it showed us authenticity and self-respect. His intellectualism also did not give him license to dismiss effective communication, leadership, compassion, or humility. So he showed us how to avoid our worst tendencies.
No such thing as positive masculinity. All masculinity is positive, even if you don’t like some aspects of it. That’s our biological imperative and any deviation from traditional or normal masculinity is just an unstable equilibrium of behavioral modulation.
in that case what is the central idea being pointed at by the misnomer 'toxic masculinity' ? interesting to consider that prevailing framing as being an inherent critique of masculinity as a whole. personally I dislike the phrase 'toxic positivity' for similar reasons, it's like saying that a turd may be made palatable.
Yeah the whole thing is some feminist grift that isn’t going to go away unless you repeatedly bring up the hypocrisy/idiocy every time someone dabbles in the idea.
did u have a way to frame that idea objectively without referring to feminism ? coz feminism embodies a similar concept to the one we apply toxic masculinity to. where feminism in contemporary practice seems to have little in common with supporting women
The relationship between masculinity and power is interesting to me. Arguably much of his strength came from his position, and his position came from, as Tapestry argues, taking big risks.
The danger is that we give good leaders too much power, and they’re then replaced by someone who abuses it. And that’s why we need to be careful how much power we give someone, even if we’re sure they will use it wisely.
That problem doesn't really have a solution, though. Power inherently is a corrupting influence, and everyone is fallible. Focusing on building safeguards into how we choose whom to give power to, rather than limiting the exercise of power itself, will always produce dysfunctional systems.
People can be corruptable, fallible, greedy and unprepared to wield power over others - especially the people that seek out power.
The solution is to build better people from the ground up (culture and education) AND create institutional protections that function during both the absence and presence of substantial political power. I'd argue that, in the USA, we've done neither and appear surprised when it keeps turning out poorly for us.
I think the problem is more about how do we get people in power that don't actually care about it.
You have to go through a lot of crap to get to a high leadership position and, in general, the only types of people that will think it's worth it are the ones who are attracted to the position because of the power benefits that it offers.
Yes, this is why my opinion is that in politics, the ends absolutely do not justify the means, because a broken system that produces the right answer is lucky, and a working system that produces the right answer is... working as intended
Not just leaders, but government in general. Unelected bureaucracies can be just as dangerous.
And they are not our leaders, they are our representatives. Regarding them as leaders allows them to act as our betters. And another reason for term limits on Congress.
I agree, but would like the same thought applied to the private sector. I read a lot of comments who are extremely critical of every bit of power a state assumes, but have no problem if a private company reaches a practical monopoly or gets access to every intimate detail of peoples' lives.
The theory is that inefficient companies die in the open marketplace, and bad leadership is inefficient.
This fails to account for the sheer scale and encumbancy advantages of massive corporations. It also fails to account that efficiency can be appallingly evil.
Yeah, I feel this often confuses what "efficiency" means from the company's perspective vs wider society's perspective.
A company that streamlines its operations and archives a huge profit margin is clearly efficient from the PoV of its own management and shareholders. However from the PoV of its customers, it's maximally inefficient, because it tries to extract the highest price for the least amount of work done that people are still willing to pay.
The worst person that I have ever worked with knew nothing about leadership that wasn’t on Star Trek or in an episode of The West Wing. They even referred to the site as “their ship.”
Absolute, total, delusion.
Inspired to be better? Of course. Taught? God no.
If you’re finding that your leadership style, or really any part of your personality, is being lifted from an 80s/90s TV show, step back and reevaluate things.
I know several people who think Star Trek is a course in leadership and The West Wing is how politics works. Ever since Patrick Stewart died a bunch of outlets have been telling them that that's a good thing. It isn't.
I mean forget Picard, the leadership we have in much of the world today is full of egotistical narcissistic, blowhard or mob style and courrpt people -it feels like no one cares that such people ascend to power either via populism or via corruption -forget shithole countries..it feels like we have become a shithole planet
Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Erdogan, ... and so many others. Social media has only intensified this
It's a great question. Adherents to the Old Testament point to Original Sin.
But even without religion we can use today's standards of morality to be sure that at some point in human development there was a first time for a person to commit an abjectly "sinful" crime of inhumanity against another. Not having been there to witness the event, I can't tell you the what or why of it. Fratricide, parricide, abuse, and more, I think we can be sure there is a first time for all of these.
Speculation leads to many answers. One, absent religion, is that because we seem to be derived from pond scum "inhumanity" developed somewhat before morals and ethics did, and has found its niche in us.
More than anything, what struck me was the excellence of the team -- a striking combination of morals, skills, sense of responsibility and purpose -- that existed in TNG around Capt Picard.
Whatever was done to get that going was an act of absolute geniuses. (Granted, it helps when the hard parts can be explained through fantasy.)
Bit of a pet-peeve of mine with people confusing fiction with reality. Reality has constraints that fiction doesn't. Every group of people greater than one encounters a misalignment issue at some point. Fiction is useful. Narratives guide our understanding and help bring ideas to people.
But real life has friction. CA HSR would fund PEPFAR for 40 years. So...PEPFAR or CA HSR? Is the guy who chooses the former the good man with power or the latter? Or is it a third guy who pays for both through increased taxes so that the United States middle class pays the higher proportion of total taxes that Norway does? Groups of people have priorities and they have their own objectives.
Labor unions are generally fairly xenophobic. They were at the forefront of restricting Indians and Chinese from being citizens and the mob Hoffas held power there even till just a few years ago. A Georgian union got a bunch of Koreans deported. Who's the villain here? The Koreans? The union? The Indians? The Chinese? The people who want to employ them? Who's the good man?
Constraint-free optimization is trivial. I can do it with no problem. In fact, I shall do so here with a single line: "Make everyone happy".
Proposing solutions that you cannot put into place because others do not agree with you is also fiction. One might as well propose an algorithm for finding an item in a singly-linked-list that is O(1): just select the right node. Finding the right node is the entire cost; just as coordinating people for one's solution is the entire difficulty.
"Make everyone happy" is even better than your solution if we're ignoring coordination. And it is many characters shorter.
I should do a write-up but my Claude Code and Pi have been personalised to assume the persona of Jean-Luc Picard, I find the output generated to be more useful.
I also enjoy the occasional salted phrase that is included in generated out e.g. "Tea, Earl Grey, hot!", when I have been Claude'ing too much.
Here is a gist of my Claude.md file if anyone is interested:
It's cool, but aren't you Picard? I want to be the one saying "Analysis Mr Data" and know that Claude is looking at the problem from a certain, fixed POV. Then I can ask Number One and Worf, my cybersecurity officer.
As an aside, Jean-Luc Picard's character was explicitly based on Horatio Hornblower (Stewart was given a stack of Forrester novels to prepare for the role).
In comparison between the two, Hornblower was a rather unimaginative person bound by his deep sense of duty and the extreme pressure of the Navy. Picard (as a character) replaces duty with the Prime Directive, and pressure came from feeling with the unknown.
I have a deep affection for stories where people are depicted as good, or even just good at their jobs. I appreciate for actors and writers it's a much harder ask - it's much easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads, especially if you yourself are somewhat uninteresting and never got much life experience. It's much harder making believable characters that we can look up to and respect.
I haven't liked much tv sci-fi other than TNG and DS9. In recent times, The Expanse was a huge standout for me. It's also full of characters trying to effectively handle extremely difficult situations, and striving to be good people within their context.
It's very different from TNG in most ways, but it does share the emphasis on retaining humanity, dignity, and ethics within ambiguity and hardship. Very interesting to think about them side-by-side.
I watched the battle star reboot for the first time recently and the whole cylon reveal drama really ruined it for me. It felt like they were picked for shock value rather than story consistency. The first season was great, but it fell off for me and was a struggle to care by season 4. And I gave up on caprica after an episode or two.
My first forays into DS9 were sort of haphazard and I didn't appreciate the political thoughts and tensions that are much more nuanced and consistent throughout the series compared to the relatively simple TNG operating paradigm of "we explore, navigate the inevitable sticky situations that arise."
Recently, and in no small part thanks to everything being available for streaming, I started with the DS9 pilot and made my way through all seven seasons. It took me several years of steady chipping away (spikes in watching on long flights, and weeks or months of no watching), but I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are multiple sharks jumped. Alien sharks jumped. The same hammy and even adolescent takes on relationships. But through it all shines the enduring, consistent introspective existentialism.
I think watching DS9 in this way provides a richer experience while TNG can mostly be enjoyed by dropping in here or there, and you eventually pick up on the long arcs of the Borg, Q, etc...
DS9 took more risks and the characters are more complex and layered. A few of the episodes are up there with the best TV ever made.
TNG is very, very good, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Picard never struggles with existential moral ambiguity. Even when he (rarely) fails, he's always The Good Man.
The utopian slant is appealing and we can't help cheering for him, but DS9 revealed there was some sleight of hand behind the narrative.
Of the series since, I think only Battlestar Galactica approached similar complexity. Maybe Westworld, which got quite abstract and interesting towards the end.
The Expanse is more by the numbers. It's basically class war in space, with the military, the aristocracy, and the peasants slugging it out, while a dragon rolls in and threatens to eat everything. The writing is very challenge -> response -> partial solution over and over, and for me it just doesn't have the depth or the emotional reach. (Or the acting chops.)
Duet is monumental. I've watched all the recent greats, from Sopranos to The Wire, and Duet remains the best realized hour of television I've ever seen.
For myself there'd be many but it's difficult to name them in isolation. For instance 'In the Pale Moonlight' is obviously going to be near to #1, but I think if you don't have the buildup and character arc to that point that it might not hit with the same sort of impact as somebody who'd watched the show to that point.
It's kind of like Game of Thrones and 'The Red Wedding'. That episode is zomg, but if you watched it in isolation with no knowledge of the character arcs to date, it'd probably be interesting, but wouldn't have anywhere near the same sort of punch.
It's really nothing like TNG at all. The Expanse is basically Breaking Bad in space - a meaningless, ugly, depressing trash show only possible to produce in an empire in terminal decline.
I liked season 1 of the Expanse - the settings and production were fantastic, but I found the characters just became overwritten and annoying as the show went on.
I am worried that Game of Thrones ruined a generation of sci-fi and fantasy - everyone tries to copy the dark, morally compromised, postmodern, realpolitik tone. Even besides the fact that we are manifesting a world where progress is impossible, it has turned genres that is traditionally very positive and escapist into bleak emotional slogs.
> I liked season 1 of the Expanse - the settings and production were fantastic, but I found the characters just became overwritten and annoying as the show went on.
I recommend reading the original book series. In my opinion the writing only gets better as it goes on, and it’s obvious the writers had a plan in mind from the beginning rather than just writing more books for the sake of continuing a series where the ideas were all used up in the first book or two
Expanse is a very strange tv show. Their main cast is utterly bland and have absolutely no chemistry with each other, the only interesting character is maybe Amos, but almost the secondary characters are top notch, with lots of great actors and tons of charisma. It is typical for some belter captain who appears in 2 episodes to effortlessly outshine the whole Rocinante crew.
> everyone tries to copy the dark, morally compromised, postmodern, realpolitik tone.
GoT was a late-comer to this. For me, William Gibson’s _Neuromancer_ (1984) was my first exposure to dark and morally-compromised Sci-Fi. I am sure it predates this in novels. _Neuromancer_ inspired a couple of movies in the 90s: The Net and Johnny Mneumonic come to mind.
In US TV shows, I think Babylon 5 started the lean into the dark tone, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica of the 2000s is a better example than GoT.
Stargate SG-1 in their episode Wormhole X-treme, which released Sep 8 2021, so just before 9/11, made fun of the TV industry trend of pushing everything towards darker, edgier, "extreme" styles.
TNG put writing first. They went after interesting stories and didn't try to force them into a formula for ratings. Sometimes there was fisticuffs and phaser fire, but many of the best TNG episodes didn't involve violence at all. It was an optimist's take on the future. The cast of TNG was great, but Patrick Stewart's acting chops let them do episodes that another show couldn't have pulled off. He changed what was possible.
The quality of writing for DS9 was also quite good but, after trying the TNG formula for a season or two, they broke with the writing-first mentality and adopted an action sci-fi formula. The showrunners feared they'd lose ratings if an episode didn't have at least some action. It worked for DS9, but later Trek series have had a tough time shaking free of the action sci-fi formula. The problem with formulas is that, while they produce individual episodes or shows that are exemplars of their form, the sameness eventually causes viewers to drift away.
Strange New Worlds has shown it's willing to do some pretty wild things (e.g. turning its cast into muppets, adding gore and horror elements, etc.), but they have not messed with the formula in a meaningful way.
If you're looking for something outside the Trek formula, one recommendation I'd share is "The Foundation".
I think the problem with modern Star Trek series is that they simply have terrible writing. DS9 produced some of the best TV ever with action/sci-fi blends, and it also did more dialogue driven scenarios phenomenally well. I think the thing that really drew people in to DS9/TNG is that the writers really seemed to understand people of all perspectives, and so were able to create highly compelling characters and stories.
For instance the various plot points in DS9 between Sisko and Eddington (like "For the Uniform") often have you starting to cheer for the 'bad guys', while really confusing the question of who the good guy and who the bad guy even is. DS9 even excels as 'humanizing' the Cardassians who are, on the surface at least, just an evil trope. And recent times in real life should emphasize, to the point of absurdity, that this is what people and situations are genuinely like.
But the modern Star Treks feel like they were written by people living in a bubble with minimal life experience. They rely on political tropes and diametrically opposed good/evil stuff that's utterly banal, and intellectually insulting. They actually do have some of the same writers as previous shows though, so I assume there must be production/directorial pressures that caused the shift in 'style.'
Some TV shows are now being designed to be watched as background while the viewers are pecking away on their phones. Plots are simplified and repeated. Viewers are often shown and then told important points multiple times, just to make sure they don't miss them.
Discovery did this some of the time. There were episodes where they would show, then tell, then tell again all within a few minutes. Not every episode was done this way. I suspect they were experimenting and it did not go well. Anybody who was actually giving the show their full attention was bound to be irritated. Discovery was a low point in modern Trek for multiple reasons. They initially decided to forgo an ensemble cast and bet it all on a protagonist driven narrative. This severely limited the diversity of viewpoints in the first couple seasons. The writing was bad for entirely avoidable reasons. People who watch trek pay attention to the universe's rules. You can't beam through shields, you need to have a reason for why the away team can't be trivially beamed out of dangerous situations, etc.. The people writing Discovery did not bother to do this on a repeating and continual basis. Again, it was insulting to anyone who wasn't pecking away on their phone. I wouldn't say the writers for Discovery merely lacked life experience. They clearly hadn't bothered to watch previous Trek shows.
Strange New Worlds is better written, but a little too reliant on high concept for their most recent season. Every episode seems to have a gimmick. Still the cast is good and I look forward to them wrapping up Pike's story and, presumably, setting up a reboot of TOS.
Lower Decks is the best Trek show in recent memory. Thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. I can't recommend that one enough if you skipped it because it was animated. Intelligent. Inventive. Hilarious. The people who made that show really put some love into it.
I really cannot understand how anyone can like the expanse. It must really be because the really good scifi is a bit old and nobody knows what scifi should be like. Cannot explain it otherwise.
Oh wow. Had no idea there was an earlier production of Dirk Gently. I've only seen the BBC-America one, which is magnificent.
As a lover of Douglas Adams (and a non-American), I adored the concept of Dirk Gently but felt the entries were some of the weakest material he'd ever released. There were so many great ideas but the characters were a confusing mess. The US adaption by contrast is possibly the most perfect blend or midpoint between of American and British humour I've ever seen, and one of the tightest time-travel stories that you can wish for without taking itself too seriously.
Looking forward to watching this previous series, I like Howard Overman and Matt Jone's other work.
Hah, I had no idea that he was based on Horatio. I always really loved Horatio as a character and I found his way of observing and reacting to the world in such uncertainty unparalleled. I also always loved Captain Picard for the same reason, but I never realized one may be an influence for the other. Thanks for sharing this.
I agree - I almost feel guilty holding characters to such a high standard that I don’t often match myself. Conversely, I worry that our willingness to embrace so many anti-heroes in media has affected us adversely. Too many shows like Breaking Bad and The Apprentice may eventually take its toll.
Holy molly. I actually felt quite similar about the first one, but the second one was so ridiculously absurd that I felt I had been fooled by the first (quarter share) book? Did you feel a huge change in the second book? I genuinely could not tell if I had been misreading the first one or if the book went straight off into wish fulfillment absurdity?
> I have a deep affection for stories where people are depicted as good, or even just good at their jobs. I appreciate for actors and writers it's a much harder ask - it's much easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads, especially if you yourself are somewhat uninteresting and never got much life experience. It's much harder making believable characters that we can look up to and respect.
Mmm. This represents what I liked about the TOS-ENT era of Trek, SG-1, Babylon 5, Lower Decks, and roughly half of SNW; and also what I dislike about DIS (the nice crew are noobs, the competent ones are dicks), season one of PIC, half of what I don't like with season 4 of SNW, and why I was so bored by Stargate Universe.
Dunno, Picard always struck me as the middle manager type. The kind of guy who enables his subordinates to good work. Which is a very valuable skill, considering I had my share of total psycho bosses, but it's hardly inspirational, and doesn't really exceed expectations.
256 comments
[ 0.16 ms ] story [ 34.2 ms ] threadMy feeling is that while enjoyable and thought provoking, TNG is still a work of fiction, and as such favored entertainment and legibility within a 45 minute window over nuance or subtly. That meant there were clear distinctions between "good" and "bad" sides, and scenarios often felt like they were constructed backwards from an outcome/clever solution.
I think that in turn causes people to view the real world in the same way, except they are always the "good" side and solutions that require compromise and tradeoffs are seen as unacceptable failures.
Totally agree on the 45 minute window limitation though. That's why I've always liked DS9 where they took what could have been one episode about a culture and conflict and made it 7 seasons.
Fiction in the case of TNG is an excuse to spam aphorisms. The whole scifi setup is not the point of the stories.
If you want to critique the stories and the storytelling of TNG or whatever else, please do so - there's plenty to get into. But "still a work of fiction" is not a critique worthy of anyone's time.
Twice
In this case it's like a what if: what if humans were the best they could be.
And that couldn't be less silly.
People tend to follow examples they’ve seen before, even if they know it was a bad one. When faced with a new situation, they might just parrot the bad behavior because it’s the only example they know.
Maybe it exacerbated it, but The Office was mostly a documentary of preexisting behavior.
This is a classic breakdown:
https://ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-t...
How do you watch that show and not notice that he's supposed to be the worlds worst, selfish, narcissist ?
An interesting question to ask: Is the world a better place because of the existence of Star Trek and the influences that it has on society?
How can we improve society with fiction?
Patrick Stewart as Macbeth ("Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZnaXDRwu84
Novelists, journalists, essayists, pamphleteers, scribes, gospel writers, historians, diarists, etc.
For example, B-17 crews were trained very well, the best that the military could do. They'd have to fly 30 some missions. The probability of dying on the first 5 missions was the same as the probability of dying in the following 25 missions.
How on earth could you come to the conclusion that the people pushing back believe all fictional characters are good models of thought leadership?
Or to put it bluntly: all paragons are made-up fictions, some just use real persons as framing devices, but that doesn't mean they're any more "real".
A far better method of learning leadership is by studying actual leaders, both good and bad ones. For example, if you want to know why Rommel was able to lead a small group of men to victory after victory, read a biography of him.
Studying a fantasy whose entire purpose is to make money entertaining people? You're wasting your time.
Are any of the script writers of Star Trek successful leaders of men? If not, what credibility do their "lessons" have?
Picard the character was derived from the writers’ understanding of historical leaders. Saying the writing of him was solely for money or entertainment is like saying that a historian is only writing for a paycheck and prestige.
If you read the writings of the TNG writers, they were quite caught up in the ethical dilemmas they were presenting. Art that is purely for money is contrived and one dimensional.
Science fiction has an interesting and irreplaceable role in art: it can take a situation out of its immediate context and put it under another lens, clear of its modern cultural baggage. What makes science fiction interesting or not interesting is what it does with that ability: does it promote a simple good vs evil scenario, or does it explore the rich shades of grey that play out in real scenarios?
TNG was particularly good at showing real moral and ethical dilemmas that were quite thought provoking. Their head writers, particularly Michael Pillar and Ronald Moore and Jeri Taylor were deeply interested in exploring the implications and moral contradictions of the plots they presented.
Waving it all away as money grabbing is a reductive history at best.
How do you know that?
As for TOS, is it acceptable military doctrine that the general and his staff are the ones taking point into danger, where the entire leadership layer can be easily erased? Did Eisenhower storm Omaha Beach on D-Day?
Agree but...
There is fiction also in stories of actual leaders (obviously even if 'non fiction') but more so in actual fiction (no matter who writes it even someone who has had the actual experiences). In a sense non-fiction more dangerous possibly (since it's taken more seriously and generally by many people unfortunately assumed to be true).
So even movies about real people or books have fiction ie creative license. How many times has the Steve Jobs story about 'the other side of the fence needs to be good (or whatever it was)' been told? Did it really happen (just because Steve told it or even his father related it?) Does it matter? Point is you might as well take most stories with a grain of salt. Even if again non-fiction.
What amazes me is how people are discussing a fictional character that they enjoyed watching and apparently learned from (because that character was entertaining). If someone had written a book (with the same info and credentials as the writers) most likely it would never have been taken seriously at all.
Maybe the take away isn't to use the word learn or taught but 'inspired me to think about' which happens in many situations and many places.
> Rommel was able to lead a small group of men to victory after victory, read a biography of him.
My point is also agreeing better than fiction writers but still who knows for sure the truth or what lucky events lead to Rommel being able to do what he did.
Some of the other series and movies miss the point more dramatically for me by just becoming space opera. Star Trek was always political.
Though I'd say that Starfleet is in itself too "noble" to solve the problems that Special Circumstances solves in the Culture universe (though Section 31 isn't and they do feature heavily in DS9).
Frankly I think that Banks was smart enough to realise that if he wanted to have compelling narratives in a world where you have near godlike AI's and everyone is nice, you need that edge somewhere.
In fact, pretty much all compelling pro-utopia fiction is almost invariably dealing with the fringes of such utopia - both because it avoids getting bogged down in the details of utopia (and risk valid criticism), and because there is no real substitute for conflict as narrative engine. So inevitably you have to go where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
Similarly, Patrick Stewart assumed a written role, but he was responsible for its ultimate execution, which have him influence over the immediate execution in small ways, and likely, increasingly powerful influence over its future execution.
He deserves a great deal of credit for how Picard ultimately came to be represented.
But, if you watch the first season of TNG, it feels like there is a turning point where Patrick Stewart starts taking the role seriously (Symbiosis) and understands that he's depicting Starfleet as an institution and the restrictions (the prime directive) that institutions must enforce. The fellow actors also seem to take the series more seriously after that episode while before it felt campy.
It's clear he brought a gravitas to the role that inspired a team of young/new actors around him. As he later joked in Making it So, he once took things too seriously on set yelling "We're not here to have fun!" It became more than a job/role to him and in doing so he and the other actors inspired a science-inclined subset of a generation and brought Roddenberry's utopia vision to life.
That's a lesson everybody on this site should learn — Every senior is a leader, even if they don't think they are. People (mostly the more junior sorts) look up to you as a role model whether you (or they) know it or not, and that's very real power that you must learn how to wield.
I've given negative reviews to technically excellent candidates in the past because just about everybody in the org would look up to them if they got hired, and they would be a terrible role model.
Until dementia kicks in anyway
There was an interesting essay about Star Trek's depiction of society over time largely coming to the conclusion that modern writers/audiences don't seem to believe in the idea of duty to an institution.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/are-we-all-too-cynical-for-star...
I think we can let him take a little credit for the work he did without trying to exactly determine how much of that credit is his exactly.
I don't think hero worship is acceptable in any form. We shouldn't be elevating individuals above us but championing how capable any of us could be if the time comes.
- Col. Terry Virts, USAF
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/star-trek-...
In particular, I think (I don't know for a fact) that the military emphasizes that the commander not be best buddies with those under his command.
Is it? Another comment in this thread (and I'd agree), it's easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads.
People have a special place for Picard as a leader that they don't have for other people. Picard stands out even over Kirk, Sisko, and Janeway. Or Mal from Firefly, or O'Neill from SG1. If it's "easy", then what other character comes close?
Most attempts of fictional ideal leaders are just mary sues, or are never actually tested. And the most common of the latter is that their leadership aspect is simply one dimensional.
I'm not saying the other leaders are bad characters or bad leaders. But I could definitely see all the other characters would have a voice in their head saying "what would Picard do". Well… and then reject it, especially Mal.
Gandhi?
Mandela?
Care to unpack that for the rest of us?
Like with Q, he has to give lectures to literal god! Perhaps shut up for 5 minutes to get more information?
Or when meeting borg...?
Everyone who watches Star Trek roots for Data and his quest for humanity, and obviously sides with him in this 'trial'.
Yet, it seems like most people have the opposite reaction towards the current advancement of AI. Obviously, the current AI we have is not sentient in the same way Data is, and I don't think we are that close to an AI of Data's level.
However, if we are ever able to build an AI at Data's level, we have to first go through the beginning stages of AI that we are in now. We can't just skip to fully conscious AI.
So why does everyone love the AI Data, but hate the idea of working to make something like him possible?
Data is/was a research project, not a way to make money. The "AI" that (some) people have (some) bad feelings about may involve research but at this point it is very, very, very much as much financial project as a research one.
Data was gifted independence from his conception, but the AI of today is owned and controlled by corporations. Creating a conscious AI under today's ownership model feels akin to slavery. Perhaps this is one reason for the aversion?
The problem is the Universal Paperclips problem because AI has nothing like an effective feedback loop and will spiral to the heat death of the universe to accomplish its goal. We see this with the Huggingface hack and if Data operated the same he might immediately deduce he is better equipped to make tactical decisions in combat, hack the starship and mutiny.
So if we could make Data we are more likely to create Data the space pirate rather than Data the useful member of the staff. Caplocking DO NOT COMMIT MUTINY in system prompts does not solve the problem. So we are at an impasse until we can structurally bridge that gap and no one is (or should be) in a rush to go down that path.
This is the fundamental concern of runaway AI scenarios. And the most worrisome answer might be that Data can't exist in reality. It might be a fundamental rule of nature that you can't create a greater intelligence then cage it forever to be subservient, which means we are doomed to wipe out humanity with half-baked AI or cede our will to Claude completely, creating a higher form of life that eventually supercedes humanity itself, reducing human existence to a transitional cocoon-goo state of life from animal to sentient AI.
All that being said, 2 or 3 years ago LLMs could barely make inline code edits. Rushing to find an answer to the "Data problem" is not something most people want answered in their lifetime.
There was an episode of the 1966 series that dealt with this: "The Changeling", the one with Nomad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_(Star_Trek:_The...
And yet .. I've never once heard the thought continue with "and so they deserve rights and some degree of self-determination," which is, you know, the entire point of the episode you're referencing.
Why is that?
Because there is exactly one Data. The federation has thousands of ships with millions of people on board, most of them are completely unaffected by/never coming into contact with that one slightly quirky officer on the flagship. In reality, we don't know what would (will) happen. Do we get one AI and is it happy staying the only one? And will it occupy a human sized body like Data or will it want to grow to be a Dyson sphere? Or will it replicate into a bunch of von-Neumann probes to spread itself throughout the universe?
He also typically doesn't use his super-human abilities much. He could easily plug himself into the Enterprise and fight better than having Worf at the tactical console, but he doesn't. He could also diagnose much faster than Dr. Crusher reads the tricorder, but he doesn't. In reality, as soon as there is something that can do whatever much better than a human, that human is going to lose his job.
Adding to the previous point, the road to getting to Data level AI is full with people losing their jobs (and soon probably also their lives) because the people in charge of developing such technology don't want us peasants around. You may not like it, but everyone defines themselves by being good at something. Doesn't matter if it's programming, swimming, cooking, being a mother, building houses, etc., everyone has _something_. Even if we don't have an exponentially exploding super intelligence that would be completely alien to us, what would happen on a global level if we have robots capable of doing any job better than humans? Sure, we could of course say humans prefer to work with other humans, but maybe not everyone wants to do that and you'd also just get outcompeted by someone working with robots.
And that's the thing that scares people. Nature is cruel and we are absolutely not ready to dealing with this completely new situation of the possibility of us no longer being the absolute top of the chain. The best outcome for us would be to merge into some sort of cybernetic lifeforms with the AI, but even that is going to take a while and in the meantime people still need to feed their families. As Picard said, one Data is a curiosity, a thousand Datas is a race.
I don't think you have adequately steelmanned the current anti-AI sentiments. I encourage you to consider more deeply why people would be opposed to AI in our current regulatory, political, and social climate.
As a starting point:
Business leadership is giddy to replace workers with AI.
Investors are eager to roll out massive resource-intensive and locally polluting industrial installations.
Politicians are eager to rubber-stamp these developments without community input, bypassing existing regulation and failing to satisfy or even address community concerns.
The defense industry is recklessly employing this emerging technology to make life and death decisions, already resulting in the deaths of innocents.
Data is a singular being, not a widespread new technology.
I was speaking more of the general "I hate AI because it has no soul" types of arguments. I understand that is separate from the arguments you lay out, which is more a question of the current structure and implementation, rather than an outright anti-AI in general case.
It's the same reaction: being protective of sentient beings who are being dehumanized and treated as raw resources. If you can't even defend humans, being one, you wouldn't be able to defend sentient AI, should it ever exist.
Look at the colors: a tribe of C-suite nerds zip around in an atomic powered space-faring Hyatt Regency trying to train the universe to Taylorize all production methods. Its protagonists are utterly entitled and classist, who teach war as the essential force by which their lives incur meaning.
It's is a soap-operatic long tail of Western empire indulging in fatuous "adventure", which amounts literally beaming into alien realms to cause disturbance and justifying it through dominion or ignorance, while the executives try to believe they've moved beyond themselves so they can feel noble.
As a dramatic art, the show offers some moments of transcendence, but these end up sequestered to the commercial dictates of the franchise, which is an epic advert for consumerist Americana.
I feel deep suspicion about anyone who regards cosplay as instructive about what makes for "good men with power". And as Vox is a notable outlet in the great system of commercial attention-whoring that defines our culture, I feel double the suspicion.
Also See:
Phase IV (1974) Futureworld (1976) Lathe of Heaven (1980)
I think it's important to critique shows within the context of the eras and societies they come from but you don't strike me as someone who knows the star trek universe very well.
No Shakespeare for you then!
A pretty good use of six hours.
And your comment illustrates the point. We've never met but I can relate to you with just the name of an episode because I know the large ideas you're expressing in 3-4 words: I've thought of Picard's speech in the Drumhead often in recent years. Whenever I catch myself having life regrets, Tapestry comes to mind. The Measure of a Man... maybe not relevant for today's AI, but one day when it is, I hope that generation has watched it.
Fear is the enemy. Fear, and its close cousin anger, grows and maintains barriers.
> It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.
The entire episode, though, does a great job of showing leadership and teamwork.
Despite LaForge and Riker trying to get Barclay transferred off the Enterprise, Picard ultimately directs LaForge to put in the effort to turn him into a better officer. Despite his shortcomings, we get to see Barclay grow into a competent and even key member within the engineering team across the handful of later episodes in which he's cast.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqYP7o-2fg
The Ensigns of Command (as a mirror to the b-story data predicament).
The First Duty
Devil's Due
One of my favorites is Star Trek TNG s04e22 "Half a Life". It's excellent scifi that doesn't glorify aging and death and even points out that death is bad despite it being tradition in society. It highlights that death is the worst possible outcome. Worse than nearly all potential difficulties or suffering while living. And it's one of the few episodes where Lwaxana Troi is a genuinely good person. Better even, ethically and morally, than the star fleet standard. Better than Picard. It's just a shame the episode retreats from it's message at the end and does not embrace the true morality Lwaxana explains.
*makes salute motion*
People make fun of this but cartoons and sci-fi series are great models to learn about and guide the development of society.
We lost the best one, no good actors remain.
At a moment where a sizeable part of the world is rising against the externalities of datacenters and the dangers of having two companies trying to do regulatory capture on AI in the US (and probably in the vassal EU too), using an episode of Star Trek to push the narrative that "Good men consider LLMs should have the same rights as humans" just makes me sick.
You guys are seriously unwell and totally falling for a narrative that's pushed on you.
> He's fictional though
Aren't most of our heroes? Yes, we create scenarios in art to exemplify extraordinary human behavior. To explore humanity.
> Patrick Stewart or the show writers?
Both, but mostly Patrick Stewart. Let me give you the same material and crew and see if you can evoke the same cultural reaction.
There are actual heros living among us that deserve recognition before some made-up movie, TV or comic book character.
>> Patrick Stewart or the show writers?
>Both, but mostly Patrick Stewart
Patrick Stewart has no writing credit on TNG. He did not come up with the plot or the lines he spoke, and at most he fine-tuned the lines for his delivery of them.
If the writers of TNG had written stories like modern day Star Trek withsome rather ridiculous plots, and Patrick Stewart played a more vapid character that the writers wrote, this post wouldn't be a thing.
I doubt Patrick Stewart would have taken a role for a show with shitty writing, he'd have stayed in theater and most people in this thread would have no clue who he was.
The writers made that character, he delivered it well, and the synergy made it memorable.
A character he acted did.
Patrick Stewart on his deathbed referred being estranged from his children from always putting work before his kids in his own words.
https://www.looper.com/1516934/patrick-stewart-tragic-true-l...
So a man “illogically and hysterically” punching a wall because he had a bad day is positive because it's biological?
People can be corruptable, fallible, greedy and unprepared to wield power over others - especially the people that seek out power.
The solution is to build better people from the ground up (culture and education) AND create institutional protections that function during both the absence and presence of substantial political power. I'd argue that, in the USA, we've done neither and appear surprised when it keeps turning out poorly for us.
You have to go through a lot of crap to get to a high leadership position and, in general, the only types of people that will think it's worth it are the ones who are attracted to the position because of the power benefits that it offers.
And they are not our leaders, they are our representatives. Regarding them as leaders allows them to act as our betters. And another reason for term limits on Congress.
This fails to account for the sheer scale and encumbancy advantages of massive corporations. It also fails to account that efficiency can be appallingly evil.
A company that streamlines its operations and archives a huge profit margin is clearly efficient from the PoV of its own management and shareholders. However from the PoV of its customers, it's maximally inefficient, because it tries to extract the highest price for the least amount of work done that people are still willing to pay.
So, basically, Trump?
Absolute, total, delusion.
Inspired to be better? Of course. Taught? God no.
If you’re finding that your leadership style, or really any part of your personality, is being lifted from an 80s/90s TV show, step back and reevaluate things.
Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Erdogan, ... and so many others. Social media has only intensified this
What is wrong with Humanity?
But even without religion we can use today's standards of morality to be sure that at some point in human development there was a first time for a person to commit an abjectly "sinful" crime of inhumanity against another. Not having been there to witness the event, I can't tell you the what or why of it. Fratricide, parricide, abuse, and more, I think we can be sure there is a first time for all of these.
Speculation leads to many answers. One, absent religion, is that because we seem to be derived from pond scum "inhumanity" developed somewhat before morals and ethics did, and has found its niche in us.
Whatever was done to get that going was an act of absolute geniuses. (Granted, it helps when the hard parts can be explained through fantasy.)
But real life has friction. CA HSR would fund PEPFAR for 40 years. So...PEPFAR or CA HSR? Is the guy who chooses the former the good man with power or the latter? Or is it a third guy who pays for both through increased taxes so that the United States middle class pays the higher proportion of total taxes that Norway does? Groups of people have priorities and they have their own objectives.
Labor unions are generally fairly xenophobic. They were at the forefront of restricting Indians and Chinese from being citizens and the mob Hoffas held power there even till just a few years ago. A Georgian union got a bunch of Koreans deported. Who's the villain here? The Koreans? The union? The Indians? The Chinese? The people who want to employ them? Who's the good man?
Constraint-free optimization is trivial. I can do it with no problem. In fact, I shall do so here with a single line: "Make everyone happy".
Both and defund ICE, and/or reduce subsidies to oil companies, and/or take an eyedropper's worth of budget from defence, and/or ...
"Make everyone happy" is even better than your solution if we're ignoring coordination. And it is many characters shorter.
I also enjoy the occasional salted phrase that is included in generated out e.g. "Tea, Earl Grey, hot!", when I have been Claude'ing too much.
Here is a gist of my Claude.md file if anyone is interested:
https://gist.github.com/tomaytotomato/87d83265be1a22ba96454f...
Then, obviously, you tell them to make it so.
In comparison between the two, Hornblower was a rather unimaginative person bound by his deep sense of duty and the extreme pressure of the Navy. Picard (as a character) replaces duty with the Prime Directive, and pressure came from feeling with the unknown.
I have a deep affection for stories where people are depicted as good, or even just good at their jobs. I appreciate for actors and writers it's a much harder ask - it's much easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads, especially if you yourself are somewhat uninteresting and never got much life experience. It's much harder making believable characters that we can look up to and respect.
It's very different from TNG in most ways, but it does share the emphasis on retaining humanity, dignity, and ethics within ambiguity and hardship. Very interesting to think about them side-by-side.
Recently, and in no small part thanks to everything being available for streaming, I started with the DS9 pilot and made my way through all seven seasons. It took me several years of steady chipping away (spikes in watching on long flights, and weeks or months of no watching), but I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are multiple sharks jumped. Alien sharks jumped. The same hammy and even adolescent takes on relationships. But through it all shines the enduring, consistent introspective existentialism.
I think watching DS9 in this way provides a richer experience while TNG can mostly be enjoyed by dropping in here or there, and you eventually pick up on the long arcs of the Borg, Q, etc...
TNG is very, very good, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Picard never struggles with existential moral ambiguity. Even when he (rarely) fails, he's always The Good Man.
The utopian slant is appealing and we can't help cheering for him, but DS9 revealed there was some sleight of hand behind the narrative.
Of the series since, I think only Battlestar Galactica approached similar complexity. Maybe Westworld, which got quite abstract and interesting towards the end.
The Expanse is more by the numbers. It's basically class war in space, with the military, the aristocracy, and the peasants slugging it out, while a dragon rolls in and threatens to eat everything. The writing is very challenge -> response -> partial solution over and over, and for me it just doesn't have the depth or the emotional reach. (Or the acting chops.)
It's kind of like Game of Thrones and 'The Red Wedding'. That episode is zomg, but if you watched it in isolation with no knowledge of the character arcs to date, it'd probably be interesting, but wouldn't have anywhere near the same sort of punch.
I am worried that Game of Thrones ruined a generation of sci-fi and fantasy - everyone tries to copy the dark, morally compromised, postmodern, realpolitik tone. Even besides the fact that we are manifesting a world where progress is impossible, it has turned genres that is traditionally very positive and escapist into bleak emotional slogs.
I recommend reading the original book series. In my opinion the writing only gets better as it goes on, and it’s obvious the writers had a plan in mind from the beginning rather than just writing more books for the sake of continuing a series where the ideas were all used up in the first book or two
GoT was a late-comer to this. For me, William Gibson’s _Neuromancer_ (1984) was my first exposure to dark and morally-compromised Sci-Fi. I am sure it predates this in novels. _Neuromancer_ inspired a couple of movies in the 90s: The Net and Johnny Mneumonic come to mind.
In US TV shows, I think Babylon 5 started the lean into the dark tone, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica of the 2000s is a better example than GoT.
The quality of writing for DS9 was also quite good but, after trying the TNG formula for a season or two, they broke with the writing-first mentality and adopted an action sci-fi formula. The showrunners feared they'd lose ratings if an episode didn't have at least some action. It worked for DS9, but later Trek series have had a tough time shaking free of the action sci-fi formula. The problem with formulas is that, while they produce individual episodes or shows that are exemplars of their form, the sameness eventually causes viewers to drift away.
Strange New Worlds has shown it's willing to do some pretty wild things (e.g. turning its cast into muppets, adding gore and horror elements, etc.), but they have not messed with the formula in a meaningful way.
If you're looking for something outside the Trek formula, one recommendation I'd share is "The Foundation".
For instance the various plot points in DS9 between Sisko and Eddington (like "For the Uniform") often have you starting to cheer for the 'bad guys', while really confusing the question of who the good guy and who the bad guy even is. DS9 even excels as 'humanizing' the Cardassians who are, on the surface at least, just an evil trope. And recent times in real life should emphasize, to the point of absurdity, that this is what people and situations are genuinely like.
But the modern Star Treks feel like they were written by people living in a bubble with minimal life experience. They rely on political tropes and diametrically opposed good/evil stuff that's utterly banal, and intellectually insulting. They actually do have some of the same writers as previous shows though, so I assume there must be production/directorial pressures that caused the shift in 'style.'
Discovery did this some of the time. There were episodes where they would show, then tell, then tell again all within a few minutes. Not every episode was done this way. I suspect they were experimenting and it did not go well. Anybody who was actually giving the show their full attention was bound to be irritated. Discovery was a low point in modern Trek for multiple reasons. They initially decided to forgo an ensemble cast and bet it all on a protagonist driven narrative. This severely limited the diversity of viewpoints in the first couple seasons. The writing was bad for entirely avoidable reasons. People who watch trek pay attention to the universe's rules. You can't beam through shields, you need to have a reason for why the away team can't be trivially beamed out of dangerous situations, etc.. The people writing Discovery did not bother to do this on a repeating and continual basis. Again, it was insulting to anyone who wasn't pecking away on their phone. I wouldn't say the writers for Discovery merely lacked life experience. They clearly hadn't bothered to watch previous Trek shows.
Strange New Worlds is better written, but a little too reliant on high concept for their most recent season. Every episode seems to have a gimmick. Still the cast is good and I look forward to them wrapping up Pike's story and, presumably, setting up a reboot of TOS.
Lower Decks is the best Trek show in recent memory. Thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. I can't recommend that one enough if you skipped it because it was animated. Intelligent. Inventive. Hilarious. The people who made that show really put some love into it.
And which sci-fi shows would you recommend instead?
(not to be confused with the USA version which is terrible)
As a lover of Douglas Adams (and a non-American), I adored the concept of Dirk Gently but felt the entries were some of the weakest material he'd ever released. There were so many great ideas but the characters were a confusing mess. The US adaption by contrast is possibly the most perfect blend or midpoint between of American and British humour I've ever seen, and one of the tightest time-travel stories that you can wish for without taking itself too seriously.
Looking forward to watching this previous series, I like Howard Overman and Matt Jone's other work.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6945329546 (quarter share)
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6973501411 (half share)
Mmm. This represents what I liked about the TOS-ENT era of Trek, SG-1, Babylon 5, Lower Decks, and roughly half of SNW; and also what I dislike about DIS (the nice crew are noobs, the competent ones are dicks), season one of PIC, half of what I don't like with season 4 of SNW, and why I was so bored by Stargate Universe.
(And doesn't make very good television either.)