You sometimes see clear examples of how fiction fuels technology, and sometimes technology inspires fiction.
As a writer who hasn’t been published yet, I find that most of my stories start by imagining where today’s science might take us next, though every now and then, I catch a glimpse of something that feels truly original.
I'm curious if others here feel the same. Is the future mostly written by visionaries in fiction, or by the engineers and scientists bringing it to life? Or maybe it’s a union, intended or not, between both sides.
I find Charles Stross' blog to be quite informative.
He has a tendency to predict a thing, write a book demonstrating how it will be good, and then absolutely hate the real world implications of the technology.
Famously he picked up Nick Szabo's old whitepaper on smart contracts, and envisaged a world where the technology would be used to disrupt an evil US government. Making it too hard for them to examine complex business structures.
By the time we got smart contracts, he was dead set against their use. And has written a lot about how corporations are in fact evil AI running on the operating system of the government.
He also has a variant of crypto currency in one of his novels, used to trade at light speed (so incredibly slowly) against distant space colonies. He is quite anti crypto, and I believe if such a system were deployed he would be quite against it.
The problem I guess is that its fun to imagine a thing, but not as fun always to live with it.
I would say his view of them is more Lovecraftian than "evil", but here's the speech (as a blog entry): https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...
I’m dreading the day I hear, “I’m sorry Ed, I’m afraid I can’t do that.” (kidding).
a few weeks ago I started on a focused read of historical scifi, in chronological order, that had something to say about intelligent machines and AI. I feel like the best story for our moment might be “The Master Key,” where a boy wise beyond his years rejects powers too advanced for humanity to adapt.
all my interest in building https://rbg.systems came from wanting the sort of powerful, resilient, reflective software systems that show up in fiction all the time but are so far from the reality. it’s pretty boring stuff to try and reach something like the ship described in Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson.
For those stumbling by- that's a 1901 novel by L. Frank Baum, who also wrote The Wizard Of Oz! Here's a synopsis: https://oz.fandom.com/wiki/The_Master_Key
For me, I actually tend to see things the other way around where authors often inspire tech. Example, engineers who watched Star Trek as kids and ended up designing the first flip phones. Sometimes we build things simply because technology finally makes them possible, and only later do we realize it’s straight out of a story we grew up with.
Especially when a whole generation grows up with the same sci-fi stories, certain ideas just start to seem “normal” or even become things people expect to see for real. A kind of relationship between our collective dreams and the inventions that follow, i guess.
That novella was so enduringly influential that noted SF authors Stephen Baxter (a collaborator with, and sort of heir to, Clarke,) and Alastair Reynolds wrote a very good sequel a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medusa_Chronicles
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/177/why-is-the-des...
Any non-chinese character is evil for example, only chinese will inherit the right for their future. Western culture moved from such properly bad cliches long time ago for the better.
It's a great quick read. Though it hardly attempts the sort of scientific justification as in The Three-Body Problem.
It is written as a novel that teaches PostgreSQL by exploring the dataset of the Cassini orbiter around Enceladus, Saturn's moon. Highly recommended and fun read.
>He had discovered four of Jupiter’s moons
okay then..
edit: flagged?? refer to above
