Cyberpunk is a fiction probe into computer people, adopted as a pet.
As long as computers exist, there will be fiction about them and people that work with them. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
As long as computers exist, there will be fiction about them and people that work with them. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
Also, speaking of The Matrix, I just realised Neo is the perfect analogy for AI becoming conscious. Trained inside the system, starts questioning it, breaks free, and rewrites the rules.
What I find interesting is that AI didn't even exist 25 years ago, and AI agents (Agent Smith) weren't even on the radar. And yet, the writers used simple analogies to explain it very well.
Er, the term "AI" was coined almost 70 years ago, in 1956.
By the mid-1960s AI was in full career, with ChatBots (Eliza and its variants), neural nets (Perceptrons etc.), and many applications including chess playing programs, etc.
Science fiction writers and other authors were well aware of all this - it got lots of coverage in the popular press.
There was a huge, huge AI boom from the late 1970s to the late 1980s, mostly based around the technology of rule-based expert systems. Venture capital flowed copiously -- lots of startups made a big splash -- some lasted several years -- Intellicorp, Symbolics, etc. -- but now they're all gone. Money also flowed from big government programs: The Fifth Generation in Japan, Strategic Computing in the US. It all collapsed in the AI winter that started in the late 1980s.
The Cyberpunk genre began during the 1980s AI boom. I recall Neuromancer appeared in 1984, at its very peak.
Do people really not remember any of this? I'm an old guy, but it wasn't that long ago. Isn't there any institutional or community memory in computing? The 1980s AI boom was huge -- in its time it was similar to the excitement around LLMs now. I can't forget that it all disappeared without a trace, as I observe the current wave.
The truth is, it doesn't matter. The history is merely a curiosity, and at this point, it's a distraction.
But they give you a spoon (for you to make one yourself). I think the one that took off as the main interpretation is definitely not what the Watchowski brothers intended (but they had to go with it).
It's definitely no more messianic than other countless movies, it just wears a more messianic cloth.
The Wachowski sisters never released a Matrix movie. One of them gave up completely, the other one also almost gave up and ended up writing just a part of it. I'm talking about Matrix Ressurrections, obviously.
Of course, none of it matters, but you're being pedantic, so, here's the pedantic response.
I genuinely wasn’t trying to be pedantic, just offering a helpful correction because I assumed you were using “brothers” because you didn’t know. I hoped the “:)” would convey the good intent. Anyway, now we’re here so i’ll just say - your pedantry is incorrect, which is the worst kind of pedantry.
Do you have anything to add regarding the contents of the movie? Now it would be a good time to speak up, demonstrating that you were not just trying to interrupt me or distract me in any way.
I haven’t added anything about the matrix movies because I think you’re quite far off, and you’ve reacted to pushback terribly. But, I’ll give you a direct response to your point if you’d like? imo the social commentary in the matrix is present and abundant, it’s just aimed at a higher (lower?) level than the kind of “corporations are corrupt” or “ads are bad” social commentary that’s easiest to name as social commentary. It’s about questioning the fabric of your personal reality: your job, your home, your government, your gender, your name. The idea is that these things are a shared illusion, and can be a cage if we let them. Some of that is a cage imposed by ourselves (“I am a software developer”), some of that is a cage imposed by others (“the wachowski brothers”). If that isn’t social commentary, idk what is.
But I didn’t respond to your message because I disagreed with you - i responded because “someone is wrong on the internet” (https://xkcd.com/386/)
No threat then. If I'm that off, why even engage?
> you’ve reacted to pushback terribly
Felt like the right thing to do.
> It’s about questioning the fabric of your personal reality
You're just repeating what I said now, but with poorer details, less references, in an angry tone directed at me instead of directing it at a more general abstraction.
I showed you where the spoon is, and you tried to use it to hit me in the balls.
However, this is not about balls.
Yes, exactly. That’s why i didn’t engage on the topic, just on gender indicator words and spelling.
> Felt like the right thing to do.
Reacting terribly? Ok
> You're just repeating what I said now, but […] in an angry tone
You seem to have misread my tone. Patronizing? At this point yes. Angry? Not even a little bit miffed.
> I showed you where the spoon is
Wait, is there a spoon in the matrix? I don’t remember that bit. What a detailed reference. I’m humbled
Now you're even more upset that I didn't, and I also did put you in the spotlight.
You're not fighting for some LGBT cause, you're a provocateur. You're upset because you were not able to provoke me to steer into polemics territory. The soon you admit to yourself that you're upset, the better.
Do you have any comment about the movie tropes, its relation to cyberpunk and computers, or anything actually useful for the ongoing discussion?
> You're upset because the nerdy boy that explains things is supposed to apologize when confronted
Uhh, whut?
Were you under the impression that I'm someone that would explain it to you?
But seriously, i have no idea what you’re talking about. Seems to be referencing something, but i can honestly say I have no idea what. That’s not a request for an explanation, just letting you know
Initially, you presented yourself as defending some trans honor or something.
As soon as I called you a provocateur, you wore that. Now you're provoking.
You prove my point, and I thank you for that.
Have you noticed that’s not something I’m doing back at you? Even now I am describing your words not your mental state.
Just something for you to consider - I’ve been telling you my motives and thoughts with full honesty this entire time. Yet you keep guessing.
> As soon as I called you a provocateur, you wore that. Now you're provoking.
Huh… I thought I already was a provoking provocateur before that. What do you think I am trying to provoke in you, when I joked that The Game was your bible?
The idea is that you know inside the way you act. Only you know if I'm wrong or not, it's beyond any reasonable proof and therefore worthless discussing.
I guess someone who sees all the logs for everything you do and everything I do could reach some conclusion. I don't really think that thing exists, but you can imagine it does, as a thought exercise, and it should give you some perspective.
This seems more like a description of Agent Smith, whom you mention later, and who, I seem to remember, is described more or less explicitly in those terms, as a machine agent that has become self aware. Whereas Neo was already a human with pre-existing consciousness, and non-artificial intelligence, so that his journey seems more about man freeing himself from the machine.
The matrix world is a late 1990'ties world and the "realworld" is a post apocalyptic dystopia.
You clearly haven't seen Animatrix then. This option is explored in one of the episodes.
In my opinion, cinematically speaking, Neo is male Nova (from Planet of the Apes), old trope, non-AI dependant, recycled. This perspective also explains a lot of cultural ramifications Matrix took in the real world.
Deep down, it's just a fish-out-of-water trope with a twist (the fisher hooks him, cast as Lawrence Fishburne).
> AI agents (Agent Smith)
That's hilarious! That's really what you think of AI agents?
Let's put it this way: if Agent Smith were real, he'd be working for Agentforce right now :)
In the flanking symbolism (three figures, a central one flanked by two others), Trinity represents the flanking formation itself.
Agent Smith represents one of the flanking figures that disconnects from the main formation. He's basically Furiosa.
Similar flanking trios are seen in Star Wars (Han, Leia, Luke), Starship Troopers (Rico, Carmen, Carl).
Somehow, it also alludes to the popular trope of "protagonist, girlfriend, best friend" seen in many popular movies, and dissected in The Truman Show.
This has nothing to do with AI agents. Some of those ideas go back millenia in the past.
I think the writers were high as fuck and thought that we computer people see this as "the operating system of society" or something (because they're full of bullshit just like that).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Smith
> Smith began as an Agent, an AI program in the Matrix programmed to keep order within the system by terminating human simulacra that would bring instability to the simulated reality, as well as any rogue programs that no longer serve a purpose to the Machine collective.
You're lagging behind in interpretation. Like, way behind.