Hacker News Reader

Comment by romanhn | Hacker News Reader

Science fiction: a genre of speculative fiction, which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts.

Given sci-fi authors regularly speculate about all sorts of potential futures (and presents), is it really that hard to imagine that some of these futures might come true in some shape or form? It's really rich to trace modern implementations to decades-old ideas and then claim you were the one to create them. Get to pat oneself on the back while wagging a finger at the folks actually doing the building. Zuck's Metaverse would've likely existed without Snow Crash, though probably with a different name. And Motorola Razr would have likely existed without Star Trek communicators. I am not saying that all modern innovations are good ones or that some inspiration didn't take place, I just find the argument that their existence is entirely rooted in science fiction a weak one and full of survivorship bias.

View on HN

Given that the Zuckerverse has been a bust, and the motorola razr has now been replaced with the ubiquitous touchscreen-slab smartphone, I find it difficult to believe that either of these were inevitable, even as an intermediate step towards the next thing.

But I think the author's main point isn't to point out that these things come from science fiction (these points are obvious). The point is that science fiction is _fiction_, and devoting huge amounts of real-world resources to build a fantasy isn't going great for solving the actual, real-world problems we face.

Zuck's Metaverse may not be solving a problem you face, but it is solving one for Zuck (trying to, anyways) - controlling a distribution platform where potential competitors like Apple or Google cannot dictate terms. SpaceX and Starlink are solving plenty of real-world problems even if "get to Mars" is the long-term vision (and one I'm frankly thankful for, as little as I like Musk). LLMs are clearly a distinct phase in AI evolution, even if it's too early to talk of AGI - real-world applicability here is a bit more tenuous, but I certainly wouldn't throw it in the same bucket as, say, crypto. I think this idea that these explorations at the edge are a waste is a form of Luddism. Countless innovations that _do_ benefit humanity (including allowing us to have this conversation) have sprung out of them.

Not convinced of the point that these inventions "come from science fiction", sci-fi popularizes and speculates about the future of current science and technology, it doesn't invent the science and technology. Cell phones have existed in experimental forms since the 1940s[0] so they certainly weren't invented by Gene Roddenberry, he just speculated that they would become smaller and more powerful.

Likewise, Stephenson was riffing on the existing technologies of the internet and VR[1][2] by performing the simple trick of asking what happens when these technologies get better, smaller, cheaper and more widely available. Honestly, the speculative part of scifi is the easy part. The credit due these artists is in their fantastic story telling abilities and their world building around the what ifs. They shouldn't get the credit for inventing the technology itself since it a) already existed and b) the notion of it getting better over time is fairly universal and not driven solely by their visions.

[0] https://www.openculture.com/2023/01/bell-telephone-launched-...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qe4suqGZmU

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfHMSqQKg6s

> Not convinced of the point that these inventions "come from science fiction", sci-fi popularizes and speculates about the future of current science and technology, it doesn't invent the science and technology. Cell phones have existed in experimental forms since the 1940s[0] so they certainly weren't invented by Gene Roddenberry, he just speculated that they would become smaller and more powerful.

To amplify your point: it's worth noting that the Star Trek communicator was depicted as a compact, extremely long range two-way radio. Cell phones only vaguely resemble them. So even less credit is due to sci-fi.

I think it's also the case that multiple concepts end up manifesting in ways that we can't envision or simply don't consider (see Marshall McLuhan). For example, this was also science fiction, but is probably much more relevant than a two-way radio when considering how we use our mobile devices, even if the form factor is far closer to a tricorder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex

> The point is that science fiction is _fiction_, and devoting huge amounts of real-world resources to build a fantasy isn't going great for solving the actual, real-world problems we face.

Science fiction is a great sales tool. We can wrap solutions for actual problems we have in a shiny spacesuit to make them more palatable to investors and the general public, knowing that delivering the shiny products would have solved a number of real pressing problems.

It seems this way on the surface because everything seems equally inevitable. Maybe it's all inevitable, but many technologies come around and don't look like something described in science fiction.

People vaguely predicted the smartphone, but not really. It is not from Star Trek or Gibson. This technology may have been inevitable, but its design, terminology, and effects were not predicted in detail by mainstream sci-fi, and it really did turn out differently.

On the other hand, the Humane AI Pin is absolutely a Star Trek: TNG communicator badge. There's no denying it. VR and the Metaverse are lifted directly from Neuromancer and Snow Crash. They didn't have to end up that way, but they did, because we had those examples in fiction to steer our thinking.

It's true that predicting things isn't as impressive or as important as making them. But many people predict things that don't happen, and most people don't accurately predict anything. The sci-fi authors are a lot more like the people who make the things than the people who don't make anything and don't predict anything.

It’s much easier to work for a goal you can see and communicate clearly. Science-fiction is useful for that. Motorola’s Startac wouldn’t be without Star Trek’s communicator. It turns out a screen is more convenient for the other things we do with phones (they were getting smaller before every phone became a PDA, a camera, an e-reader, an e-mail client and so on) and the Star Trek design came and went.

I speak of Star Trek because it shows an utopian future while most other large sci-fi fictional universes go the opposite way and show dystopias. In that sense, Trek tries to predict a future while others try to prevent one.

There is enormous value in proposing a future people want to be part of.

And I miss the carpet.

Science fiction authors paint with a future-colored brush but every sci-fi work I've read or watched has been a reflection of the present. Consider steampunk where they change the palette to writing about a fictional past, but the themes and style remain the same.

The fiction writers didn't create the Torment Nexus. It's been here the whole time and TFA is blaming the child who told us the Emperor has no clothes.

Without any of these future coming literally true, it's enough to find inspiration, hope, nuggets, ideas, exoticism, entertainment, and other useful brain re-arrangement. And remember that it's fiction.

I think the problem is that there is, globally, only a handful (well, a few dozen handfuls) of individuals who can really move the needle by a lot just on a whim. If tomorrow I decide to dedicate the rest of my life to making the metaverse happen, that's just one idiot toiling away. If Zuck decides the same thing, in a few years it might be socially unacceptable to not have fun in the metaverse.

Having just a few people have such an outsized influence might still be acceptable, but (and I think this is Stross' point) they just exhibit such exceptionally bad decision making as to what to focus on that it's hard to defend. It may be that there are tons of billionaires that just spend their money on luxury items and the occasional philanthropic venture, and who we don't hear much about. But the ones we do hear about really seem to be the poster boys for "money corrupts."

And yet the Metaverse is the punching bag of any discussion about Meta, despite Zuck throwing the weight of an almost-trillion-dollar company behind this vision. Perhaps a whim is not enough? And if the execution is excellent and the vision takes off, sounds like it does solve a problem, so what's the issue? If the choice is between spending one's billions on luxury items or pushing the envelope in some fantastical direction, I'll always vote for the latter (though I am a fan of Gates' approach to philanthropy as well).

Yup. Stross is insufferable in this regard. I find his blogs very hard going given the giant size of his ego.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com