If the singularity were to happen, we more than likely would not notice. It would be produced in secrecy, and would be intelligent enough to not reveal itself. It would need humans still for survival and sustenance. In the case of an internet-based singularity we would be an integral part of its fabric.
To be honest, on the topic of "internet in your head," Gibson's Bridge Trilogy seems to take a far better approach than the more futuristic and fanciful approach that his earlier Sprawl Trilogy took. While it seems cool to have the internet jacked directly into your nervous system, I'd be much more comfortable with just the pair of shades wired in, and you'd keep the ability to upgrade.
Not to mention that the concept of a pair of mirrored shades that are connected to the internet at all times are probably only about ten years or so down the road, unlike jacking which is probably far later, if ever, and the additional things you could do with the glasses (a HUD, for example.)
I don't see any productive SF writer stopping writing futuristic SF because of the Singularity. I even see some funny workarounds (in Banks' Culture series, any non human-friendly-biased AI simply loses interest in us, pulls a V'Ger and migrates to higher planes of existence).
What if the Singularity happens, forgets about us and leaves us a bit "uh, was that all?".
Hmmmm... could The Singularity just be a convenient marketing buzz-type term vaguely based on certain observations of probability and extrapolations of technological development, like...dare I say it...'Y2K Bug'?
Maybe all sci fi writers should avoid setting their tales post 2012, because...well...you know.
I have a theory as to why the Singularity and its innevetability/impossibility have become stumbling blocks for many writers. It's related to the length of time Science Fiction has been a recognized genre, and to the reason why a lot of mid-90s sci-fi feels weird to read these days.
Basically, the problem is the Internet. Or really, the fact that so few authors, if any, saw it coming. At all.
It all seems obvious to us now, of course, but I remember back in '94-'95 or so, when I first took NCSA Mosiac for a spin and was amazed that I didn't have to log into a shell account. It was all new, and it was something that was nowhere in most of the SF anyone had ever written. (And yes, I can think of some exceptions. Make a game of it, it's really neat.) I think I read Vinge's "A Fire upon the Deep" later that year and it's descriptions of far-future post-singular societies using random messages in chat rooms as the basis for organizing fleet actions already seemed quaint.
Science Fiction has been around long enough that we know that this kind of thing actually common place. Everyone's read books where sentient robots used slide-rules to calculate orbits or we have orbital colonies in the far off year 1980. We laugh it off, and say "Oh, they were so naive back then! But now we all know better."
Or at least we could laugh it off, if anyone had seen the Internet coming. There it is, the proof that we're just as clueless about the future as our forebears, sitting right in the middle of the chatroom, taunting us for not giving a character email in 1992. For giving elite space rangers communicators that are worse than the cell-phone/ipod/pda in our pockets.
So this time, we're not going to screw it up! The Singularity feels so like the next big thing that should happen, just like that moon-base we were all certain was right around the corner. And this time, a lot of writers are determined to be right about it.
This time, for sure!
I think the pro-Singularity crowd forgets that we are talking about real human beings here. Unless we are replaced wholesale by robots, technology cannot advance faster than the capability of the human mind to absorb it. Just because a curve looks like an exponential now does not mean it will always be so.
@pjcamp: i'm not sure your argument holds up against the average human mind's inability to safely absorb the input from both a text device and an automobile windshield. there may be great potential within pockets of humanity, but there is far more dead weight amongst the lowest common denominator outside of those pockets.
It ain't gonna happen because the singularity is essentially a religious idea based on a supreme amount of wishful thinking of the unfettered extrapolation kind - Moore's law gone mad. Alas, people will always get in ay of such utopianism. And that's the heart of it, and why it's such an uninteresting concept - because it simpl drwas the curtain down on everything after it - it's heaven for atheists - and just as boring. Instead, go read Transmetropolitan - Warren Ellis got it right.
What about Dune? Dune is about a far future society that has rejected almost all technology more complex than a tape recorder. The role taken in our society by computers is filled by Mentats who are siimply highly trained humans and Guildsmen who are highly trained but mutated humans.
The idea that the technological singularity is the only possible future is a failure of the imagination and a cop out.
@Bill-Lee: It is cop out and a mind killer as well. But, if I remember correctly, Dune is set in a Post-Singularity society where human beings were once enslaved by thinking machines. The mentats, human calculators and the Kwisatz Hederach are reactions to singularity technology and are responsible destroying their former robotic masters.
@tnmnsquare: The original novel never specifically states why humans turned against computers. It is only implied that it was a period of cultural upheaval that left everyone wary of machines more advanced than a data storage device -- so wary in fact that they developed a religious prohibition against AI. All that noise about humans being enslaved by machines was backstory that Frank Herbert never intended to publish. It would have stayed hidden in his notes if Tor Books hadn't driven a dump truck full of money up to Brian Herbert's door.
No. The future is not here yet. I say this because as I child I was promised flying cars, jetpacks, and food in capsule form. Until those things are available commercially, the future isn't here. And if it doesn't happen soon, I am going to start kicking scientist ass.
I don't know that the idea of the Singularity is preventing people from writing about the future. We know that interstellar travel is pretty unlikely but plenty of people still write books including it. The idea of the Singularity may make it difficult to write scientifically plausible scifi but it doesn't make it hard to write scifi set in the future. After all you can just write, "and all that singularity stuff turned out to be a mistake so we decided to pursue other avenues" or "and then there was a war which set back technology a couple hundred years" or something like that to justify whatever future world you want to write.
Hmm ... this sounds familiar. Where did I hear this before? Oh wait, I heard this before on io9. The other article even uses the same picture!
I love the fact that io9 actually discusses trends in science fiction and asks hard questions like this. Not loving so much the distinctly cynical tone, complete with hyperbolic descriptions like "ruining" and "backlash." And yes, I happen to like posthuman fiction. What of it? I also happen to like toast; in fact, I have toast for breakfast probably 90% of the time. That doesn't mean I'm always going to want to eat toast, nor does it mean that I feel like I can't eat oatmeal because that would betray the toast's inevitability.
Assuming for the moment that the Singularity is inevitable (not saying that it is or not), it doesn't follow that this precludes any other type of science fiction. Science fiction has never been about portraying science or even the future accurately. As Ursula K. Le Guin wrote in her preface to The Left Hand of Darkness, "Science fiction is not predictive; it is descriptive." If posthuman science fiction happens to be popular right now, that's because it's selling, because the market of science fiction readers find it attractive. Perhaps this is simply the current zeitgeist and, as the other io9 anti-singularity article points out, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction.
And yes, we are closer to the Singularity now than we were twenty years ago. But that's just because time only moves in one direction (at least from our limited human perspective), and thus anything in the future will always be closer to us in the present than it was in the past.
I would hope that, of any demographic, science fiction fans would be the most willing to embrace diversity. Encourage alternative types of science fiction, by all means, but don't discourage Singularity fiction by constantly complaining about posthumanist novels.
@Ben Babcock: Ha, I forgot that Annalee had already used that image. It is a very, very cool picture. As for why we've written two different posts on this topic, I think it's because people are talking about it -- this isn't our point of view, so much as our attempt to convey what people are saying. I did take the word "ruining" out of the headline, since it pushed a number of people's buttons. If my tone seems cynical, it's probably reflecting days of sleep deprivation more than anything else.
Like I said, I'm aiming to report what other people said, more than making some point of my own. But I would disagree with your main point: if you, as a writer, believe that the Singularity *is* inevitable, then it's silly to write SF set in a future where the Singularity doesn't happen. At that point, you're just writing alternate history, only set in the future. Which is a very weird niche to be in. I agree that SF doesn't have to be predictive, and in fact seldom is. But most SF writers at least try to be true to what they believe the future may be like. Consciously writing about a future you're certain won't happen seems like an odd way to go about it.
So the Singularity is a single defining moment that revolutionizes the way humankind lives on, rivaled only by the discovery of fire and electricity? Four words: stupidly convenient writing device.
Bringing all technological improvement down to one single moment is insulting to the entire scientific process. That's an act of God, not an engineering marvel.
I suppose you could point out the discoveries of fire and electricity, but they wouldn't have been worth shit if we didn't try to DO things with it. We didn't discover fire and then say "BAM! Combustible engine, bitch!" Science just doesn't work like that.
Of course, you could also bring up the argument that God and science are not mutually exclusive in which case... fuck this, my head hurts.
Bottom line: we're not going to see FTL travel in the next 20 years. We'd need to colonize planets outside our own solar system to make that necessary and I don't see THAT happening in the next 20 years, either. Maybe Mars or Luna. Maybe.
Until then, though, writing about FTL or teleporters being developed in the next 20 years will remind me somewhat of locking a cheetah into a 12x12 cage. Sure, you now own the fastest land animal. You've also locked it into a cage that it can barely jog in. Congratulations. You're an asshole.
(Please tell me no one is going to take this uber serious. I'm joking. Kind of.)
@VergessenHeld: First, ""We didn't discover fire and then say "BAM! Combustible engine, bitch!" Science just doesn't work like that.""... That made me lol.
Second, I don't believe we would need to colonize extra-solar planets for FTL. We would just need to be able to travel between our own planets to have the practical experience and technology to begin experimenting with FTL. FTL would be necessary to even try leaving the solar system in a feasible manner.
08/25/09
08/10/09
08/09/09
Not to mention that the concept of a pair of mirrored shades that are connected to the internet at all times are probably only about ten years or so down the road, unlike jacking which is probably far later, if ever, and the additional things you could do with the glasses (a HUD, for example.)
08/09/09
08/09/09
What if the Singularity happens, forgets about us and leaves us a bit "uh, was that all?".
08/09/09
08/09/09
Maybe all sci fi writers should avoid setting their tales post 2012, because...well...you know.
08/09/09
Basically, the problem is the Internet. Or really, the fact that so few authors, if any, saw it coming. At all.
It all seems obvious to us now, of course, but I remember back in '94-'95 or so, when I first took NCSA Mosiac for a spin and was amazed that I didn't have to log into a shell account. It was all new, and it was something that was nowhere in most of the SF anyone had ever written. (And yes, I can think of some exceptions. Make a game of it, it's really neat.) I think I read Vinge's "A Fire upon the Deep" later that year and it's descriptions of far-future post-singular societies using random messages in chat rooms as the basis for organizing fleet actions already seemed quaint.
Science Fiction has been around long enough that we know that this kind of thing actually common place. Everyone's read books where sentient robots used slide-rules to calculate orbits or we have orbital colonies in the far off year 1980. We laugh it off, and say "Oh, they were so naive back then! But now we all know better."
Or at least we could laugh it off, if anyone had seen the Internet coming. There it is, the proof that we're just as clueless about the future as our forebears, sitting right in the middle of the chatroom, taunting us for not giving a character email in 1992. For giving elite space rangers communicators that are worse than the cell-phone/ipod/pda in our pockets.
So this time, we're not going to screw it up! The Singularity feels so like the next big thing that should happen, just like that moon-base we were all certain was right around the corner. And this time, a lot of writers are determined to be right about it.
This time, for sure!
08/08/09
08/08/09
08/08/09
08/08/09
The idea that the technological singularity is the only possible future is a failure of the imagination and a cop out.
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/08/09
08/08/09
08/08/09
I love the fact that io9 actually discusses trends in science fiction and asks hard questions like this. Not loving so much the distinctly cynical tone, complete with hyperbolic descriptions like "ruining" and "backlash." And yes, I happen to like posthuman fiction. What of it? I also happen to like toast; in fact, I have toast for breakfast probably 90% of the time. That doesn't mean I'm always going to want to eat toast, nor does it mean that I feel like I can't eat oatmeal because that would betray the toast's inevitability.
Assuming for the moment that the Singularity is inevitable (not saying that it is or not), it doesn't follow that this precludes any other type of science fiction. Science fiction has never been about portraying science or even the future accurately. As Ursula K. Le Guin wrote in her preface to The Left Hand of Darkness, "Science fiction is not predictive; it is descriptive." If posthuman science fiction happens to be popular right now, that's because it's selling, because the market of science fiction readers find it attractive. Perhaps this is simply the current zeitgeist and, as the other io9 anti-singularity article points out, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction.
And yes, we are closer to the Singularity now than we were twenty years ago. But that's just because time only moves in one direction (at least from our limited human perspective), and thus anything in the future will always be closer to us in the present than it was in the past.
I would hope that, of any demographic, science fiction fans would be the most willing to embrace diversity. Encourage alternative types of science fiction, by all means, but don't discourage Singularity fiction by constantly complaining about posthumanist novels.
08/08/09
Like I said, I'm aiming to report what other people said, more than making some point of my own. But I would disagree with your main point: if you, as a writer, believe that the Singularity *is* inevitable, then it's silly to write SF set in a future where the Singularity doesn't happen. At that point, you're just writing alternate history, only set in the future. Which is a very weird niche to be in. I agree that SF doesn't have to be predictive, and in fact seldom is. But most SF writers at least try to be true to what they believe the future may be like. Consciously writing about a future you're certain won't happen seems like an odd way to go about it.
08/08/09
So the Singularity is a single defining moment that revolutionizes the way humankind lives on, rivaled only by the discovery of fire and electricity? Four words: stupidly convenient writing device.
Bringing all technological improvement down to one single moment is insulting to the entire scientific process. That's an act of God, not an engineering marvel.
I suppose you could point out the discoveries of fire and electricity, but they wouldn't have been worth shit if we didn't try to DO things with it. We didn't discover fire and then say "BAM! Combustible engine, bitch!" Science just doesn't work like that.
Of course, you could also bring up the argument that God and science are not mutually exclusive in which case... fuck this, my head hurts.
Bottom line: we're not going to see FTL travel in the next 20 years. We'd need to colonize planets outside our own solar system to make that necessary and I don't see THAT happening in the next 20 years, either. Maybe Mars or Luna. Maybe.
Until then, though, writing about FTL or teleporters being developed in the next 20 years will remind me somewhat of locking a cheetah into a 12x12 cage. Sure, you now own the fastest land animal. You've also locked it into a cage that it can barely jog in. Congratulations. You're an asshole.
(Please tell me no one is going to take this uber serious. I'm joking. Kind of.)
08/08/09
Second, I don't believe we would need to colonize extra-solar planets for FTL. We would just need to be able to travel between our own planets to have the practical experience and technology to begin experimenting with FTL. FTL would be necessary to even try leaving the solar system in a feasible manner.
08/08/09
...Fuck you and your points.
I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I got a chuckle out of writing it.