Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
Last week's thread
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)
Oh man where to begin. For starters:
It just feeds right into all of the TESCREAL nonsense, particularly those parts that devalue the human part of humanity.
Not sentience, self awareness, and not in a parτicularly prescriptive way.
Blindsight is pretty rough and probably Watt's worst book that I've read but it's original, ambitious and mostly worth it as an introduction to thinking about selfhood in a certain way, even if this type of scifi isn't one's cup of tea.
It's a book that makes more sense after the fact, i.e. after reading the appendix on phenomenal self-model hypothesis. Which is no excuse -- cardboard characters that are that way because the author is struggling to make a point about how intelligence being at odds with self awareness would lead to individuals with nonexistent self-reflection that more or less coast as an extension of their (ultrafuturistic) functionality, are still cardboard characters that you have to spend a whole book with.
I remember he handwaves a lot of stuff regarding intelligence, like at some point straight up writing that what you are reading isn't really what's being said, it's just the jargonaut pov character dumbing it way down for you, which is to say he doesn't try that hard for hyperintelligence show-don't-tell. Echopraxia is better in that regard.
Not really, there are some common ideas mostly because tesrealism already is scifi tropes awkwardly cobbled together, but usually what tescreals think is awesome is presented in a cautionary light or as straight up dystopian.
Like, there's some really bleak transhumanism in this book, and the view that human cognition is already starting to become alien in the one hour into the future setting is kind of anti-longtermist, at least in the sense that the utilitarian calculus turns way messed up.
And also I bet there's nothing in The Sequences about Captain Space Dracula.
I hear you. I should clarify, because I didn't do a good job of saying why those things bothered me and nerd-vented instead. I understand that an author doesn't necessarily believe the things used as plot devices in their books. Blindsight a horror/speculative fiction book that asks "what if these horrible things were true" and works out the consequences in an entertaining way. And, no doubt there's absolutely a place for horror in spec fic, but Blindsight just feels off. I think @Soyweiser explained the vibes better than I did. Watts isn't a bad guy. Maybe it's just me. To me, it feels less Hellraiser and more Human Centipede i.e. here's a lurid idea that would be tremendously awful in reality, now buckle up and let's see how it goes to an uncomfortable extent. That's probably just a matter of taste, though.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who read these books don't get that, because media literacy is dead. Everyone I've heard from (online) seems to think that it is saying big deep things that should be taken seriously. It surfaces in discussions about whether or not ChatGPT is "alive" and how it might be alive in a way different from us. Eric Schmidt's recent insane ramblings about LLMs being an "alien intelligence," which don't call Blindsight out directly, certainly resonate the same way.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but it all just goes right up my back.
I, too, have done the “all communication is manipulative”, but in the same way as one would do a bar trick:
it’s a handy stunt with which to drive an argument about a few parts of communication, rhetoric, etc. because it gives a kinda good handle on some meta without getting too deep into things
(although there was one of my friends who really, really hated the framing)
Explaining in detail is kind of a huge end-of-book spoiler, but "All communication is manipulative" leaves out a lot of context and personally I wouldn't consider how it's handled a mark against Blindsight.