The Bewilderness

There will only be one Singularity

In the current landscape of slow growth, declining living standards and the blame game, few will raise their eyes above the contemporary to contemplate life in five or ten years. For one faction of the transhumanist community, the events during this timescale will bring forth evidence of how close the technological Singularity will be. The evidence will also enhance our understanding of its potential underpinnings.

Rick Searle sets out an interesting scenario in his discussion of the Singularity: that the event could be triggered more than once by a multiplicity of technologies. The path of the event will be determined by the successful research program. Where Searle departs from the overwhelming concept of the Singularity is his reduction of event by country and culture. This subordination of the event to human seedcorn is a critical attempt to grapple with the ideology of its proponents, not the prophecy itself.

Any event will be structured by its context. Yet, arguments of different Singularities in different countries does not work. Part of the beauty of the Singularity is its overwhelming, universal threshold: beyond which we cannot see, in the original Vingean. That is probably why I am unsure as to the reasoning for AGI as the basis: my preference is the increasing pace of change based upon the effective use of information.

Life will get faster!

Another 110 years

Popular Mechanics listed a series of predictions for the next 110 years to celebrate their own birthday. The list is light and based upon what we see emergent here and now, such as robots and driverless cars and 3D printing. But, there is one that I like: based upon the march of obsolescence. Within 100 years, the last car fuelled by petrol will leave the assembly line. Except in North Korea.

Recommending ...

I am a great fan of Alistair Reynolds, the science fiction author. His new novel, Blue Remembered Earth, is out. I recommend the trailer.

Dick's simulation was a gnostic hell

Is Philip K Dick the acidgear equivalent of a sci-fi prophet or the living proof that Plato and drugs don't mix? The author had varied and contradictory views of the world and his role within it, but in some writings, he stated that he was living within a Platonic environment. To the Denver Clarion, he said that he had "become an object of interest to the divine beings". He also called upon this unceasing and eternal reality...

There is internal evidence in at least one of my novels that another reality, an unchanging one...underlies the visible phenomenal world of change.

Dick's homage to the Platonic philosophers is evident, as he contemplated the cave. Yet, if a simulation were to be perceived by those living within it, is Dick's literary oeuvre any less indicative of its evidence than any other phenomenon brought up to the light. There is some irony if we did live in a simulation; and its internal meat machines could only perceive this by going batshit crazy.

When people talk about Dick and simulation, they refer to his use of the device and how it has influenced others. Baudrillard cites Dick's novels for his assertion that we live in a society of simulation. From The Man in the High Castle to VALIS, the reader finds wheels within wheels, where the characters are often eternally running to keep these in motion.

Mine is a different and fundamentally unknowable question: was Dick glimpsing the workings of our simulation? If so, no wonder he was unable to grasp this in its entirety. Why ask this question, even as a hypothetical? Because, in a way, it validates Dick's own assertions. All of those who appropriate Dick do so as concept, symbol or metaphor, but never as truth. Dick thought his visions were real. No one else did. But what if they were?

Then, all of us become blind, deaf, mute fools in a gnostic hell.

(All quotations taken from Sci Fi Now, issue 15)

Speculation, Extrapolation but not science fiction

I have just checked 'Singularity', the Vingean concept, for the first time in some months on Google News. There is a flurry of articles, reviews and explanations: perhaps inspired by the next iteration of the Singularity University. In the time elapsed, the concept appears to have achieved a new level of scrutiny and debate. Perhaps I am wrong, but there are a number of writings to analyse.

Even the games are beginning to spin their rhetoric on the turn of a coin. Listen to the trailer for the new game: Deus Ex: Human Revolution. There is a clear statement that the game is not science fiction (by which they seem to mean science fantasy). The emphasis is on a gritty and realistic extrapolation of current trends to a near future where augmented cyborgs enter a kulturkampf with the unenhanced.

What the game's advertising symbolises is how embedded such concepts like enhancement have become  in the ordinary discourse of certain media, such as computer gaming. Indeed, the concept is taken for granted, and used as speculation, in opposition to science fiction. The designers think this probably will happen, rather than may happen.

This twist can indicate that the world we live in now resembles a science fiction novel. Not a new insight, but when the science fiction visions of two decades ago become the extrapolative speculations of today, we know that we are living through a fundamental and accelerating period of change.

Danger, difficulty and wonder: a commonplace future

Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, reviewed Michio Kaku's new book, "Physics of the Future", for the Wall Street Journal. Yet, is it wise to allow an optimistic review of an optimistic book? For Reynolds, with some personal touches, treats the book as a survey of what he believes possible. I could not find any phrase where Reynolds disagrees with the author.

This is not meant as a criticism of Reynold's review. His approach is to promote his enthusiasm and acceptance of Kaku's visions of the future, a goal that I share. But there are other views: opposed to such technological advances, or more attentive to the risks. Reynolds alludes to these with his quote from Vernor Vinge:

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Kaku's largely optimistic view of the future. But I am also reminded of science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge's warning about technology empowering individuals to the point that it could put "world-killer weapons in the hands of anyone having a bad hair day."

The message of what technology could potentially do for you is a strong advertisement for optimism about the future. Yet, at the same time, the future is in danger of becoming commonplace.

We all share that sense of wonder derived from science and science fiction, where we are imbued with the shock of the new. But as change as picked up: the next Ipad, the next smartphone, the newest drug becomes expected. I can not be sure, from Reynold's review, that Kaku's latest vision carries the wonders, the dangers and the difficulties of the future. Best to read it then!

Who can forget the Fat Years?

Imagine a world where the People's Republic of China had entered 'the prosperous time' and autocracy continued to maintain its grip against the background of global unrest and pharmacological control. This is the plot of a recent science fiction novel in China, popularised due to its concentration on the social and political future of the country. Its author has enthusiastically supported its spread from Hong Kong to the mainland, where it has become a viral success.

Chen Guanzhong's work has proved a successful distillation of the moral vacuities that grip the Chinese audience. Just as we in the West often perceive their political contract as an unspoken surrender of civil and political freedoms for economic prosperity, so the same harsh trade-off forms part of this examination of liberty. Yet, this is not the dominant theme of this self-described 'realist' novel.

For what pervades China and stalks its citizens is the very opposite of the jurisprudential politics of the United States. Ever since 1949, the republic has been subjected to a series of purgings so that the collective memory can no longer muster shared evocations of past crises. In this way, has the communist autocracy survived. The latest example was Tianmen Square. In the novel, the Chinese authorities undertake another violent crackdown and with the aid of drugs bring back a stable order. Again, they are aided in this by the collective forgetting of the population, as seen in the past.

China 2013 may invoke science-fictional elements but it is focused readily on the past: envisioning another round of violence and forgetfulness as the price for the Fat Years.

Singularity zombies commit computer cannibalism with your brain

i09 identifies a trend in science fiction away from the Singularity optimism that has influenced some of the genre since the 90s, though not as widespread as the article would have us believe. Citing zombies, steampunk and alternatives such as Neal Stephenson's Anathem, the article simplifies and reduces these explorations to a genre war.

Whilst books, short stories and the visual in the genre may have been influenced by the debates over the Singularity, it is a massive step to describe any reaction as a literary equavalent to Jovian relinquishment. Of course, if an article is wrong, or a brave and bracing stab at a picture, easily undone, what is the alternative? Is there a cultural fatigue for shiny optimism or, more likely, are we struggling to set up frameworks for realising how we get from here to there (William Gibson, Charlie Stross, Ken Macleod, Bruce Sterling and newer variants like Moxyland). Pumping iron on the near future is tremendously difficult: fantastic alternatives in a market where fantasy is popular gains traction.

Even the convenors of the Singularity Summit avoid the readings of inevitability and shininess that can convert concept to creed and screed:

If, however, futurists are able to restrain themselves from unbridled techno-optimism (as well as from cynical techno-pessimism), if they can maintain a healthy skepticism toward unsubstantiated claims, if they can promote and demonstrate reliance on scientific rationality, if they will assiduously resist the siren call of technocracy, if they understand and emphasize the differences between their own work and the fantasies of religious rapturists, if they strive for humility and an honest recognition of their own human limitations, and most of all, if they will recognize that nothing is certain and that working to relieve suffering today is every bit as important as chasing the promises of future technological potential, then discussion of a Singularity and its pros and cons is a worthwhile effort.

And this is what fiction has already been exploring: leaving behind crude technological determinism for science fiction experiments on discontinuity. For profit, they may need to throw in Singularity zombies, the dead raised and ravenous for our brains, so they can massively increase their computing power.... 

A figleaf to cover an unedifying sight

The sleaze drip has forced some urgency into the report on expenses promised by Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:

In a statement released today, Sir Christopher said it was “now obvious” that a quicker probe was needed and that they would suspend other work and begin an “independent, wide-ranging” review straight away.

“The situation has changed quite dramatically over the last few months and I am pleased that there is now such widespread political consensus on the need for reform,” he said.

“I hope that this will translate into full acceptance of our recommendations by all the main political parties - challenging though they are likely to be.”

He went on: “The issues involved are complex. We will be meeting with party leaders and intend to publish an Issues and Questions Paper within the next few weeks. We will ask for written submissions from all interested parties and hold a number of public hearings. All evidence submitted to the inquiry will be published.

The 'political consensus' has been arranged by the increasing wave of revelations that has now engulfed the government; this is not action from concerned parties but a need to show a response after the lackadaisical 'personal' buck-passing displayed by Brown yesterday. The truncation of the time for this review is a figleaf to spare the government's blushes.

It ill bewhoves me

Finally, the fourth Dr Who series comes to an &; and it is surely Davies's wish to fly out on an ampersand. Still, Tennant rescued a potentially mawkish episode that spent too much time tying narrative shoelaces, and played whoops apocalypse a little too easily. Can Davies climax? Not this time, apparently.

Two thirds through, I thought that I was transported to Return of the King, where the battle is over and everyone spends an eternity saying farewell. Only with Donna's sacrifice, after the alkaline Maguffin of heroine, and the existenz of the ninth doctor's darkness, did the end redeem itself.

Torchwood recruits trailed and Rose's happy ending wrapped up all. Only poor Donna is left with true tragedy, as all that is gained is lost. And, as the final trailer sloughed past my vision, a hapless hobgoblin bleated: "New villains please!".