科幻故事對 AI 的預測有多準確？

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How accurately did science fiction stories predict AI? (jamesyu.org) 18 points by jamesjyu1 hour ago | hide | past | favorite | 21 comments help JuniperMesos0 minutes ago | next[–] The sci-fi story that I constantly find myself thinking about when I read about real-world AI developments is Ra, by qntm/Sam Hughes: https://qntm.org/ra reply joegibbs1 minute ago | prev | next[–] AI from the past seems more like it’s based on the computers of the time - the AIs seem to be very logical, never make mistakes and act like they’re an expertly programmed bunch of switch statements and ifs. Whereas modern AI is based on human text and so the models have human biases and do things like swear in their chain-of-thought and sometimes make errors for no reason at all. reply pugio12 minutes ago | prev | next[–] I have a hard time suspending disbelief with sci-fi these days. It's really hard to imagine any believable future along current trend lines; either you contrive a reason why AI didn't become a thing (1), or you have to explain why humans are doing anything - piloting a starship, science, exploration, etc. (2) (1) Butlerian Jihad. Sanderson's Skyward at least had a reason. (2) Banks's Culture had a possible future. I'm sure there are others, but not many. I think about this a lot, and while I have tons of near future sci-fi ideas (which probably would have seemed very far future, 10-20, years ago), I just can't conceive of anything much farther out. I guess that's why they call it the "singularity". reply nyc_data_geek0 minutes ago | parent | next[–] Give Accelerando by Charles Stross a read. The future isn't over yet. reply a_bonobo9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] I think you suffer from Fisher's 'capitalist realism': >the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it. Star Trek and Banks' are post-capitalist futures. reply pugio1 minute ago | root | parent | next[–] I'm saying that I haven't really seen (almost) anybody present a coherent future. Not just me. Star Trek, as much as I love it, does not really grapple with AI heavily, and I already mentioned Banks. reply gowld6 minutes ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Star Trek is easy to "imagine", but also easy to invalidate. The only slightly fleshed out bit of Star Trek is the military, not the planetary society. reply andrewflnr35 minutes ago | prev | next[–] Not mentioning Peter Watts here is criminal, because he came unnervingly close to nailing it. The voice of Rorschach in Blindsight is very similar to early LLMs. And, well, hopefully the dead internet of Starfish doesn't turn out to be a prophecy but I'm getting nervous. reply NitpickLawyer8 minutes ago | prev | next[–] I'm glad to see Aurora (by KSR) up there. It's a great sci-fi story overall, but for this topic the "waking up" of the AI and the entire evolution as we get to know it, and hear its voice is absolutely great. Highly recommend it, if you haven't read it. reply incognition9 minutes ago | prev | next[–] vernor vinge bubble in time series gives a lot of food for thought without overly patronizing or moralizing reply ajb24 minutes ago | prev | next[–] It's interesting how the Hard SF authors (at least, the ones I read) had poorer predictions than the more fantasy-like ones. Asimov, who was considered a giant of the field, thought that AI (robots) would have difficulty with ambiguity, creativity, and lying. This trend extends all the way to Star Trek's Data. Looking back on it, this view was probably based on Asimov consciously or unconsciously basing his robots on the more autistic of the scientists that he knew. Whereas fantasy authors write stuff like "a sufficiently large pile of books becomes an intelligence" (Pratchett) and that's pretty much what's happened... reply vlovich1239 minutes ago | parent | next[–] I think you’ve misread Asimov. Asimov highlighted the problem of alignment before it had a name and generated stories out of rule-based attempts to solve alignment. I don’t recall his robots having problems with creativity nor lying - precisely Daniel in the post-Foundation books was found to have developed a zeroth law which he used not only to lie but also to creatively get the universe back on Seldon’s plan after the Mule disrupted it. There were also stories in the robot/Spacer era pre-Foundation where robots lied precisely because they had to to save a human life or themselves. And the robots were creative - the human inspector those series followed relied on the creativity of his robot companion to help him. reply cowlevel16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] AI attempts at the time were based on modelling and logic, not machine learning. Whereas soft SF authors were just like "there are people made of computer chips". reply JuniperMesos7 minutes ago | root | parent | next[–] Mid-20th-century hard sci-fi authors were not sufficiently Bitter-Lesson-pilled. Which is unsurprising, that essay was written in 2019. reply parasti6 minutes ago | prev | next[–] This goes so hard with numbers without even a passing mention of how the author actually read the books. AI wrote this. reply chanakya29 minutes ago | prev | next[–] Iain M Banks' Culture series seem to have got a lot right. reply lincon1279 minutes ago | prev | next[–] What AI? reply scotty7924 minutes ago | prev | next[–] It's gonna be cool to reevaluate that in few years. Different stories might move to the top as real world AIs capabilities grow and new behaviors manifest. reply zahrevsky10 minutes ago | parent | next[–] Yeah, The Terminator scored low on this rating for now. reply eesmith5 minutes ago | prev | next[–] I think this quote is cherry-picked: > I agree with Ursula Le Guin that “Science fiction is not predictive; it is descriptive.” To me, the interesting parts of science fiction isn’t how accurately it extrapolates into the future, but rather, given a future circumstance, how might be? You can read her views at https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/342990/the-left-hand... . """Prediction is the business of prophets, clairvoyants, and futurologists. It is not the business of novelists. A novelist’s business is lying. The weather bureau will tell you what next Tuesday will be like, and the Rand Corporation will tell you what the twenty-first century will be like. I don’t recommend that you turn to the writers of fiction for such information. It’s none of their business. All they’re trying to do is tell you what they’re like, and what you’re like—what’s going on—what the weather is now, today, this moment, the rain, the sunlight, look!""" Science fiction is about the present, even when it describes the future. reply CamperBob21 hour ago | prev[–] Everybody needs to go read Asimov's Someday. Now's a good time, go do it. reply Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact Search: