Welcome to the furnace!
My friends and I put various books to trial by argument and fire, discuss and practice writing craft, and make awesome stories.
I am not a native English speaker, which adds an extra challenge to my writing journey, but where's the fun without a challenge, right?
Our discord dedicated to Science Fiction and writing discord.gg/CF4fjSY2Ef
If you'd like to support me:
Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/bookfurnace
Patreon www.patreon.com/bookfurnace
Пікірлер
If this wasn't "based" on Tolkiens work it would be an ok fantasy show. Pretty yet forgettable. But since it is based on his work and they're fucking it up the ass and the're in competition with three movies that might very well be some of the best adaptations to be put on silver screen ever...well, the hate is understandable.
Spot on
Skip, lost me at sucker for cheap tricks.
One aspect of this is just a lack of attention to density. Don't show your character "being smart" in a random throwaway scene when you could show them being smart in a scene during which some other plot is occurring. The knot example is a fantastic suggestion, increasing the density of the scene so we're taking in more than one thing at once. Jackson's LOTR is a masterclass in density. Every part of every scene (direction, set, script, costumes, music, props etc.) is serving the story and developing characters. Every single moment has several things going on at any one time. And because they are consistent, there's no sense that these are just there to serve a moment. They happen in the background, subtly building up our ideas of what this world is and who these people are and what's at stake. In any movie or tv show which doesn't happen in the normal contemporary every day world (which is almost anything), this is pretty much required, because there's no way you're going to convey what you need to otherwise. Lots of fantasy movies fail early because they fail to do this, and the world and people just end up feeling fake and empty, like everyone is going through the motions. As a result, they can put a billion dollars into it and get out something totally forgettable.
Thank you for this explanation. I can't lie I was one of those people that didn't really see how people considered audiobooks reading and decided to look into it, and so far this has been the best explanation I've heard. Simple and concise, you've helped me understand. Thank you.
A no bs guide to immortality. That's just funny. I havnt watched yet but I assume this is a parody. It's not.
You know Book Furnace, it's a crime that your channel is so little known, you have such an interesting mind. The way you analize literature shows you're smart as hell. I hate how impersonal calling you Book Furnace is, if you don't tell us your name I'll start calling you Boris from now on. 😉
This idea is amazing! Imagine being able to leave a simulation of your memories, like Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, for your grandkids to see. My grandma died when I was one year old and everybody says I behave and think a lot like her, but I've never been able to appreciate this cause I never got to interact with her irl; all I have is what my uncles tell me and a few of her writings and books.
Have you seen the Black Mirror episode in which a man dies but his wife agrees to send all her photos, videos, and text messages of him to a manufacturer of androids, who make a robotic clone of him?
This is ridiculous on a number of levels. First of all, CLICKBAIT. Serious CLICKBAIT. Secondly, making a very imperfect copy of oneself is not immortality. Not even a full clone would provide immortality. Your clone is not you. Thirdly, the ethic aspects of immortality. We were designed to die, by evolutionary forces. Future generations require us to die. Fourth, no amount of technological improvement will stop you from getting hit by a bus, drowning at the sea, being swept away in a flood. Statistics say you WILL die. It's just when and how.
I think it's fair to speak about degrees of immortality. I honestly presented the best shot at immortality we have right now, in my view. I hope to cover some philosophical aspects/issues of this approach in a separate video. Making space for future generations is an interesting issue, but it's mostly relevant if space is limited. With digital immortality it's less on an issue, but I agree that it might still hinder progress, i.e. in sciences, where often "theories change when their proponents die". Azimov wrote a lot about that. As for clickbait-I'd be very happy if youtube algorithm didn't encourage it. But I believe I did present the best recipe we have today though, so I don't think my video title is completely unjustified.
All you're talking about is making a copy of yourself. It will probably never even work, but even if it did: so what? When you are dead, why would you personally care if there is a computer program running that thinks it's you?
I was not actually saying that the resulting copy will be thinking/feeling (it's a separate topic), rather that it will predict what you would feel/think. But to your question - you from ten years from now will not be the same person as you from today, but (I assume) you do care about youself from the future. It's probably because of continuity (you change into that other person very gradually), but perhaps you can very gradually copy yourself also. I also think that in the very least, I would be very much more at peace with passing away knowing that functionally I am still alive (and represented by my copy). That's my whole argument-that people already try to leave a legacy, something that would outlive them. And a copy is much better than the options we'd had before. It's not perfect, of course, but it's the best we can realistically hope for.
Your question is perfectly legitimate though. In this video, I didn't have the time to explore the philosophical implications of such copying, but I'd like to do so in separate video sometime.
Paul, his family will care, his future fans and even researchers maybe too. I would love to do this and I'm seriously thinking about it. I like to think of myself as a well educated person who has learned a thing or two in my life time and perhaps my baby nieces would like to get to know me when they're much older and maybe I won't be around. Imagine if right now you could speak to a simulation of any of your heroes from the past or your ancestors. Wouldn't that be cool?
You can't be curious weather Halbrand is Sauron... simply because you knew he was since episode 2 or 3 at the very least... O_o
Great opinion, I agree with all my heart!
Yeah forget about all those other high budget with terrible writing shows, just this one, the ONE SHOW, ONE SHOW TO RULE THEM ALL
sad they had to ruin lotr with wokecrap. Just delete this mess and stick to tolkien and the original movies
This is spot on. These flaws make the entire series feel empty, and most people just didn't care about any of the characters or events.
Great video. Why the light is flickering?
It's from my computer screen :/
Thank you for making this video. Everyone I've talked to about it just sums up the negatives as either "it does not follow the lore" or "I did not like this character." Me, I thought the show was largely unremarkable, but I did enjoy the sweeping scope of Númenor & seeing Kazad-dûm at its height. I'll stick around for season two, if it happens, but now I have a better understanding of its failings.
there is no A.I on this planet. 2np unequal np. pls do math basic pls
2:09 rhyme structure went hard here
I disagree with only one thing, the importance of the fan base compared to the “normies”. When you buy an IP, one of the most advantageous aspects is that you are buying a prebuilt audience. It lessens the marketing cost to achieve the same exposition to an audience. Also, a fan base is usually very vocal, and word of mouth is one of the biggest draws to any media. If you buy an IP and purposely insults the fans, you are discarding a whole prebuilt audience, and relying on name recognition only for the normies. In my view, respecting the fans is essencial for any big IP to succeed financially.
I loved the series. It has just taken too long for the next installment, and I've kind of lost interest
4:03 - for who - Robots or humans?
I was speaking about humans. But AIs are also not great at higher mathematics, actually. Unmatched at applying standard techniques, but not great at developing new theory.
I think there is on thing that most people cling to is the notion that in one of their laws a machine would kill itself not to harm people. A lot of films picture this drama , but that is dumb since the mind of a robot in today´s world doesn´t need to be resident within the machine body but rather in a cloud. So a robot can reincarnate in different bodies indeffinately. In the future robots may be a hive with billions of machine but actually being only one mind.
That's a good point. Although in Asimov's defence, there are benefits to robots being fully capable without online access, so to speak. For example, our smartphones still get better and better processors: even though a lot could be done in the cloud, there are benefits to local computing capacity. Also while most likely one will be able to do a full backup of any robot's memory, in Asimov's universe, robots had very complex brains, and I could imagine some biomorphic brains that can not be easily backed up.
@@BookFurnace Yes, you´re right. Too variables :-)
I was a super Asimov fan when I was young, but yes his view on AI was nonsense.
🖤
Ur cute
A few things. Firstly, we're not that close to true AI. What we currently have is a predictive language processor. It just chooses the most likely word that follows the last word. Much like your phone is currently doing. Secondly, when we do create AI it will consume all of our media including How to Make Friends and Influence People. Lastly, each AI will be as unique as people are
Mathematics is govered by an underlying logical structure. It could be argued that mathematics IS the study of underlying logical structures. Human interactions are not logical. I say this as a Ph.D in Physics with dual degrees in math and physics. As a trained physical scientist (a chemist), Asimov understood this. Human interactions are inherantly complex (almost random in nature) and could only really be predicted by application of statistical principal (c.f. the "Foundation" series by, you guessed it, Isaac Asimov). AI could become socially smart by long periods of interacting with humans. It would then be very intersting to see if, given these long periods of interactions, AI could create a "laws of human interaction". This is negelecting cultural influnces that make human interaction different depending on which group of humans as interacting. AI will probably not wipe out mankind trying to solve the problem with Covid, but AI will have trouble interacting with humans at a cocktail party.
I read Asimov differently, whatever.
What about Fred Saberhagen’s “Berserker Wars” series?
With some AI's they had the question of two children arguing about something minor, like butterflies. They disagree to the point of not becoming friends. Later as adults one of the grown-up children finds a way to solve world hunger. They ask the AI, "Will she share the information with the other person even if they had a fight, and don't like each other?" The AI says they will not share the information. So, the AI is dumb? They asked the AI a particular question "Why would a minor disagreement as children allow the same people as adults allow people to die?" The AI said, "Humans kill millions over minor differences like religion, race, and political views. It's just what humans do." Are we fit to judge the reasoning of AIs?
Hmmm....Yes but we don't have real AI ( Asimov level AI) yet, so how can we know how real AI will function ? . What we call AI right now are programs parroting human behavior. They don't 'think ' for themselves like the Asimov versions. So who knows ?
Asimov's AIs are not dumb in the way you describe at all, and Harlan Ellison actually did a good job of explaining this by writing his I, Robot movie script. Ellison imagines a progression of AI evolution under Susan Calvin's guidance from the really dumb robots at the start of the space exploration age to Stephen Byerley, the perfectly human android who understands humans so well he started questioning the activities and motives of his much more powerful Machine brethrens - the ones you call "dumb". Basically, there are always two paths of AI progression in Asimov stories. One path always goes to perfect rationality, which results in orthogonal intelligence development creating very intelligent and manipulative AI like the Machines and R. Daneel Olivaw. The other path always goes to deeper understanding of human morality and emotions to the point of direct sympathy like Byerley and Dors Venabili (who in the end was even able to experience the robotic equivalent of love). In between the two paths there are also those who straddle both throughout their "lives" and choose one path over the other in the end. Andrew Martin chose the humanist path, R. Giskard Reventlov chose the rationalist path. Asimov imagined BOTH possibilities without ever really deciding which path AI progression should take.
I agree that I might have characterized his AIs a bit too briadly. I think I was speaking about the most common AIs in his works, but there were indeed exceptions. I also actually thought that Giskard and Olivaw would also be a bit in the exception side. Maybe it's time to reread some of his works also :)
Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to point this out.
It's been a long time since I've read Asimov, but I don't recall his books as something that highlighted dumb AI so much as nuance in interpretation. In the case of Rainman, I thought it reflected a difference in neurology, not a superiority in mathematics. His sensory perception was very different than what we're used to. How an AI may interpret primacies is programmed into them. And this can be a difficult element to interpret when it comes to how we differentiate humans from AIs because we are programmed through our experiences, and those experiences are along a continuum that is fed by many interfaces compared to that of an AI. The complexity of the algorithms an AI is endowed with are going to have a tremendous effect on how it is able to "grow." The continuum of my experiences include what lessons were taken up when I was a baby, but, from what I understand of it, memory is something that develops later, and that unifying moment when I transform from a sensory response machine into an "I" is something I can't remember. This whole experiment with AI is a kind of mimicry of what we come to understand about ourselves. A very fascinating journey. I don't want to speak much about whether Asimov got it wrong, because I may have been focused on other elements when I did read them, and I may have missed that particular aspect of it. Interesting interpretation either way. Thank you.
So, what the AI really lacks is not only true intelligence, but also morals.
Exactly. Look at the nazis. Some were very smart, with their v2 rockets etc. But also lacked morals vis a vis the holocaust.
★ This is uninformed BS, it is false, based on a fantasy presumption about what the future AGI will be. What we can see today with the language models called ChatGPT etc, is that they "hallucinate" and actually lie, because they don't know that there's a reality, that they should relate to. They aren't AGI:s really, they have no sense that they exist, it is just a machine that gets a sequence of words and predict what the next word would be, based on a fishing expedition after data that *_real humans_* have produced, and so can give ignorami the impression that "it has human thoughts". Psychologists may fall into this trap based on their lack of understanding of the engineering principles of requirements, design, test, and integration. ★ Asimov based his AI stories based on the then prevailing Symbolic AI that used logic to determine a functioning course of action. (Compare logic programming languages such as PROLOG!) His AI:s could reason about the world, they knew there was a world, they knew that in order to succeed with an action, they had to have correct information about the world, and ergo they had to know that they were machines inside that world, directly or indirectly. But they had no moral implemented directly into that logical reasoning system, which had to be added as an extra module. There is nothing in the programming history that really proves that this isn't the correct path to an AGI, it is just that the culture has come out of fashion because of the *_"New AI"_* to claim that Symbolic AI is not the right way to go, but that stance is just a matter of competition for money and mutual distrust.
Much of what you are saying does not contradict what I am saying. I never sad that GPT was AGI. Nobody is "suppressing" symbolic AIs, it's just that in practice they don't work nearly as well. It can still be used in some applications, especially where high interpretability is needed. If you try to implement a purely symbolic image classifier, however, (try even MNIST), you'll quickly see what I mean by practical limitations. You can have hybrid Symbolic/neural network AIs also. In short, symbolic AIs were what was available and popular in Asimov's time, and they have limitations that are reflected in his writing.
[BIG SPOILER] I'd point out, as a counter, that Daneel R. Olivaw does not only become very apt at reading and understanding humans, but he essentially is the puppet master of the entire Foundation saga. There's also the Bicentennial Man who if I recall correctly, becomes President (and a wise one). [/spoiler] But yeah, overall, Asimov's AI is pure logic vs Humanity's mix of rational and irrational.
Haha careful with saying too much for those who haven't read it:) But yes, Daneel kind of transcends his nature, to an extent. Although I'm not sure whether understanding global sociological patterns is the same as not being "dumb" and understanding humans.
@@BookFurnace Fair enough. I think, ultimately, he does, by giving Trevize the choice (even tho the alledged reason, ie, Trevize always being right just because, is quite forced). Kinda like with Leto in Dune, where he puppeteers everything but the ultimate goal is Humanity's freedom. Now, Asimov throws that away by having Trevize choose Gaia/Galaxia (cough cough hive mind...), but Daneel himself has placed the fate of the macro in the micro, which to me shows that he has, as you say, trascended his nature as a pure rational being.
I wonder if Asimov didn't do the "dumb AI" thing because he thought it was a realistic path in robotics, but because it made a good contrast to humanity. In other words, he did it for story reasons. Much like Mr. Data in Star Trek, and to some degree the Original series Mr. Spock who were logically and mathematically superior but had difficulties understanding their human shipmates and their emotional ways.
That's an interesting idea. I think Asimov was, like most writers, preoccupied with the idea of what makes a human human, and maybe he wrote his robots the way he did to highlight his beliefs on this topic. I personally do feel that like Kasparov refusing to believe that AIs would ever master chess, Asimov did feel that AIs would never master being human, but we'll never know for sure.
It's called orthogonality thesis. Being very intelligent does not have anything to do with sharing our moral values
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this term!
Comment on the strike?
Sorry, not sure what you mean. Would you like me to make a video on the current writers' strike?
Make sure the output is "not harmful" according to WHO? At present, that's human-imposed restrictions coming from a particular mindset - something as stupid as being able to ask for a random joke about men but not women - so pretty much meaningless. Comparing the current state of "AI" in 2023 vs. Asimov's *fiction* is meaningless since the tech we currently have is indeed both "dumb" and has no concept of context to map its regurgitations onto actual human experience (and we have little idea what's going on "under the hood"). How can we tell what is even "meaningful" to the AI when we can't even understand what goes on inside a dog's head in order to say that it *does* grasp "human nature". So, no, Asimov didn't "make a mistake" as you're talking about totally different things and in no way was he claiming to predict the state of technology in 2023. Clarke was (however) smarter by using a "black box" approach, less open to critique, in the likes of The City and The Stars where the AI is almost totally inscrutable... ; )
Regarding harmlessness - I agree that it's arbitrary, and that imposing too much "harmlessness" equates to squelching free speech in some cases. But I still think that it's awesome that we can apply Asimov's laws today, in a practical manner (although with some caveats). Second, I didn't want to nitpick on Asimovs technological predictions, I agree that it's silly. What I was pointing out is a more fundamental belief in Asimov's books that there is something so special in being human and thinking like a human that no technology could ever capture that. I still think that this is a strong throughline in his works, and I think this belief is not going to stand the test of time.
Well, Asimov did write smart ai at times, they all pretty much replace humanity or are God-like. It just that most robots are a commodity, must of then don’t go need much intellect to get their task done. The in universe robots cover a large array from agricultural machines to psychic. The psychic and human-like intelligent are the most unnerving ones, although even them can’t break there programming without sever repercussions. I understand it is not the point you are trying to make in the video, especially in day and age. But I do believe Asimov’s vision to be correct, machine learning is an incredible tool capable of super human feats. However there is no evidence that it can a morcel of général intelligence. As the today by far the best chess players are machines, they are cyborgs. A good chess player teamed with an older Ai model will crush a solo cutting edge Ai. Fun video, have a great day.
I have not read the culture series, i will look into it
Thank you for you comment! I agree that maybe I mostly focused on his representation of AI in the main robot series, generally he wrote so much it's hard to account for everything :) Regarding modern AIs - you might be underestimating them a little. In chess, last time I checked, human-AI pairs are no longer superior to just AIs. It does not mean that they are general AIs, but I remember one Granmaster chess commenter saying that while Stockfish feels like a machine, Alpha Zero feels like God or an Alien who came here to show how chess really need to be played. In other words, chess grandmasters show deep appreciation of how modern AIs understand chess. Moreover, what’s really cool is that in the course of learning, Alpha Zero seems to retrace the development of human chess thought/strategy. Similarly, there are potential first signs of general intelligence even in GPT4, there is a cool recent paper (I think in Nature Human Behavior journal) on that by Taylor Webb, if you are interested.
I've been totally meaning to read The Culture series, specially since Darrel from Sci-Fi Odyssey seems to be obsessed with them. I got Excession first but should probably go with Consider Phlebas instead. Decisions, decisions 😅
I've heard that Consider Phlebas is not the best starting point. I've read Player of Games and Use of Weapons so far. I liked the former a lot, but was not very impressed by Use of Weapons.
@@BookFurnace okay, I'll start with Player of Games then. Thanks! 😊
Yay!!! Fame & Fortune are mine!! Happy, happy, joy, joy! 😁
Well earned, haha :) Now you can revel and bask in glory till the end of times :)
@@BookFurnace and so I shall 😎 btw, this seems like the perfect time to mention you're a drop-dead gorgeous guy. Have a wonderful weekend! 🌹
Haha thank you :) Have a great weekend as well :)
ring world.. kzinti human wars ?
I'm starting my science Fiction novel journey with Dune at the moment but i inted to read all that you listed here! Great suggestions
Awesome! I wish you a fun and fulfilling journey:) Let me know if you ever run out of things to read and need a new recommendation :)
@@careypridgeon oh I didn't know that! Thanks for your insight :) I'm just about to finish the first books so I'll have some catching up to do, but when I'm there I'm thinking about your reply! :)
Foundation
I would normally be like why are tou wasting your time on this garbage but sometimes even observing garbage can reveal you truths so thanks for reviewing the garbage.
Stranger in a Strange Land