Yeah, I'm not sure if the best response from society is to simply stop appreciating an entire genre of human art. I mean, I get it, but like... we can't just keep giving up more and more lovely things forever, right? We shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense, and snarkily clocking out doesn't seem like the answer. Some of us want to continue to have a rich variety of movies and TV shows, and we shouldn't let a very wealthy few control that.
Or maybe we shouldn't put art as a concept on a pedestal.
Why is it threatening that someone like me just walks away from it, or even (gasp) criticizes it? To me, media feels like something almost parasitic, exploiting FOMO and social status seeking (and yes, social media included).
Yes! This seems to be a really neat combination of 2010's Bayesian cleverness / Tenenbaumian program search approaches with the LLMs as merely sources of high-dim conditional distributions. I knew people were experimenting in this space (like https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7018f2ss) but didn't know it did so well wrt these new benchmarks.
There's this one GitS (SAC I think) UI thing that I think about pretty often: a bot needs to work faster so its fingers pop open revealing a huge number of additional cursed sub-fingers, such that it can type on a keyboard massively faster. I love thinking of this as such a wonderfully naive early 2000's view on HCI — there's no direct-access data API, the bot needs to use the keyboard so.... more actuators!! How much of technology has this same flavor?
This hands thing, there's a literal note in the manga about it.
The man is an old neuro-scientist, but new brain implants that allow for direct CPU connectivity is something that only young neuro-surgeons are familiar with.
For this reason, this man doesn'n't want a man who could be his child to operate direcly on his brain.
However, the productivity boost because of the brain implant creates a gap between humans and augmented humans, so this is the solution this man found to work around his refusal to get the brain implant, and so it is clear that it is a fairly bad solution that only exists because of this human "motivation". The two points are some of the major themes that are explored in depth.
I would recommend reading Masamune Shirow's original work (it's only 2 volumes!), as you could argue that the adaptations are merely shells of the original.
On the one hand, the Mamoru Oshii movie version is a 'best of' the cool moments from the original, but it bends the narrative very strongly to express Oshii's POV rather than Shirow's. It's not as bad as in people modernizing Tolkien for example, it's more in line with how Kubrick's version of "A Clockwork Orange" differs from Anthony Burgess' original (which I also recommmend reading).
On the other hand, the SAC (Stand Alone Complex) series more closely match Shirow's POV and ambience, it's not as deep, but it's really an impressive feat considering it's all original scenarii, and how entertaining it is.
Worth noting that it is way more horny than the anime
Also, love Kubricks adaptation of clockwork orange, but burgess hated it and caused him to hate his own original work later in life
He even made a play with him and Kubrick as characters to talk about how much he hated the whole experience
One major change was the ending, burgess’s original has 21 chapters, and in the 21st the main character rediscovers his humanity and seeks a life of creating art
Kubrick stops his adaptation at the conclusion of chapter 20
Hilariously, the publisher behind the first US print of A Clockwork Orange removed the 21st chapter to make the novel more controversial so it would sell more
If you read clockwork definitely make sure it is the full version with all 21 chapters!
imo the manga is often better the the anime adaption even if they replicate everything 1:1
A bit off topic but I found the text version of clockwork orange very hard to read and not nearly as entertaining as the movie - still an impressive piece of art.
> I love thinking of this as such a wonderfully naive early 2000's view on HCI — there's no direct-access data API
Even in original GitS, both cyborgs and bots have wired neck ports and can also communicate wirelessly, both subject to various kinds of attacks. Even if not intended, this typing may constitute a legit airgap defense.
Wow, that's an angle I had absolutely not thought of before. Of course they "could" just jack right in, but that's probably forbidden -- the only permitted interface is the keyboard? Maybe? That's pretty intriguing!
Worth a read, notably the estimated achieved speed in comparison with a human brain. I won't spoil you, but it allowing chords has... consequences.
The article also asks how a human brain could process such interaction so fast; well in GITS canon cybernetised brains are augmented/enhanced beyond normal human abilities.
The article also raises the question of why this and not a direct connection. I would yet again argue the possible security implications, notably in the context of the Puppet Master being around.
But it could also be a gracefully degrading interface, and a less cybernetised person may still be able to operate it with normal hands, or even a non cybenetised one, albeit of course at a massively reduced speed.
IOW ed is the standard text editor / it's a Unix system, I know this. After all, what better interface than text via stdin/out to scale from normal hands/eyeballs to max line rate?
EDIT: the first comment actually raises both interop and security concerns!
There was a nice reference to that scene in the Pantheon series: an “uploaded” human (basically an emulated brain with a software human-based avatar) learns he can interact with other pieces of software directly, but can't put his mind to it yet. He does modify his avatars’ fingers in a GitS-like fashion, though, to everyone’s amusement.
If you’re a fan of GitS and/or Pantheon, I encourage you and anyone else to check out Psycho-Pass. It really blew me away. It manages to be at once a more gripping police procedural, like GitS, and especially like the spin-off series Stand Alone Complex, and it tries pretty hard to match the philosophical prescience of Pantheon. It also has a lot more humanity, without shying away from the psychological and cybernetic related weirdness that those series share. It also shares a production company with GitS in Production I.G.
I think it recently came to Netflix, and quickly became extremely popular. Hopefully it won't be underrated for long!
Just be aware that Netflix has only the first season of that series which actually already has two seasons, so look for the second season of Pantheon if you enjoyed the first season :)
> I encourage you and anyone else to check out Psycho-Pass. It really blew me away.
I also really enjoyed the parts of Psycho-Pass that I did watch. Thanks for reminding me that exists :)
I enjoyed both seasons immensely. I think it’s actually on Amazon Prime in the US, as they acquired the rights to the first season and removed it from AMC+ and HIDIVE, and then produced the second season, iirc.
Make sure you get the watch order down for Psycho-Pass. If you’re able, watch the extended edition of season 1, as Crunchyroll makes it appear to simply be another season in their listings, if you use their platform.
I just found another similar series via Wikipedia:
> The inspiration for the organic machines and weapons in the film leads back to the director hearing that Google was working on technology for skin cells. This led to the idea that ultimately tech would complete a full circle back to organics, something "close to us, but at the same time, they are monsters." He also tied the replacement of the robots with organics to planned obsolescence, which he wanted to lampoon.
That looks pretty cool! The art on the poster reminds me of Mœbius aka Jean Giraud, which makes sense as they’re both French, and Mœbius is world-famous, besides. It’s a shame it’s only a film, though I won’t be too picky!
In minority report there's a scene (https://youtu.be/NwVBzx0LMNQ?t=43) in a forensic/detective office in which MC swipes data and info on the screen (hologram ?) with their hands. Then at some point another character moves a physical object (data drive ?) from one desk to another and at first I am thinking "yeah, right.. no network to move data from one screen to the other, uh ?".
But then I remind myself of this passage from Virtual lights (Gibson):
> Was it significant that Skinner shared his dwelling with one who earned her living at the archaic intersection of information and geography? The offices the girl rode between were electronically conterminous-in effect, a single desktop, the map of distances obliterated by the seamless and instantaneous nature of communication.
> Yet this very seamlessness, which had rendered physical mail an expensive novelty, might as easily be viewed as porosity, and as such created the need for the service the girl provided. Physically transporting bits of information about a grid that consisted of little else, she provided a degree of absolute security in the fluid universe of data.
> With your memo in the girl's bag, you knew precisely where it was; otherwise, your memo was nowhere, perhaps everywhere, in that instant of transit.
One of the key themes in GITS is the interaction between biological and computer systems. Those rapidly typing fingers are probably the perfect physical metaphor for exploring that idea: how one could maximize data transfer between a physical/biological input system and a computer one.
Moreover, this almost makes sense as a security mechanism. A keyboard is a one-way input device; You don't get feedback from it. A monitor provides feedback that's fuzzy - Harder to exploit via a visual image where you're expecting and parsing text than a direct digital link.
I've seen similar comments about that scene over the years but I don't get it.
How is it naive?
It's clearly creative license to be more interesting and provocative. They could have just made his eyes glow and stuff happen on screen, but that wouldn't have been as cool.
This is not an example of the "rule of cool", there's a human and technological point that is made by this scene.
However, because the movie drops most of the context from the original work, it is only something visually striking and impressive for most people.
In-universe, this is considered almost nonsensical technology (for the obvious reasons that are invoked here).
It doesn't really matter what it's an example of nor what the real motivation was. Your emphasis that it's deliberate only supports my point that it's not a naive vision of future HCI from the 90s.
Yeah I think that kind of thing isn't supposed to be "predictive". The "rules" in series aren't very clear, sometimes they type stuff out into a keyboard, sometimes they connect a cable from their head, sometimes they just pass stuff around/hack basically just just "telepathically" without even needing the wire, they do whatever seems cool for a scene. I think the "splitting fingers" thing happens in one of the movies but also in SAC, but I think the point is just that it looks interesting and seeing the fingers do that and start suddenly typing quickly gives a sense of tension/urgency that you wouldn't get if it was just the character sitting back and staring at the screen (even if "in universe" they're able to work just as effectively that way)
Agreed the main reason is the point of the show is to be entertaining and visually interesting, and that is entertaining and visually interesting. Why do the robots look like spiders without any of the features of spiders that would actually be useful in a robot but look scary instead of cute to humans? It's not because it's a naive idea of what robots would look like.
But even aside from the fact that visual style outweghs realism in this work, it's not weird or remarkable anyway.
The robot has to type sometimes for the same reason you sometimes have to manually type a password into a keypad or your food order into a pos terminal even though you have a password manager in a phone with a dozen kinds of connectivity in it. None of your dozen forms of connectivity is compatible or available with any of the terminals dozen forms of connectivity. Even if you both have something the same plug, it doesn't mean you can use it.
You may also choose to do your "adversarial interfacing" the manual way even if you had a direct option available and even if you desperately wanted speed, simply for safety.
> I love thinking of this as such a wonderfully naive early 2000's view on HCI
Not really so naive when you look into 'robotic process automation' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_process_automation . Huge industry, and can be just moving a mouse around on a screen and triggering keyboard inputs. If robot hands were cheap and dexterous enough...
I assume the naive part is that the keyboard polling interface probably doesn't allow that much input ?
Otherwise yes, we do this kind of approach so much irl. The most useful kind is the Switch it's button actuator, that will just push a button when making it "smart" is just impossible or not worth it.
The less useful kind is what the Rabbit R1 was trying to do, with website interaction automation in a full VM because each service wouldn't provide an API.
Think about it from an animator's point of view. What's more fun, plugging a cable in or typing your heart out? There's a whole dotted outline where I could put a plug for my indie game...
I'm sure there's something to be said for the visual appeal, but I think they actually did justify it in universe as an isolation mechanism; physically using a keyboard means no BadUSB or such.
The goal of interfaces in the real world is to help people perform tasks quickly/efficiently, without error (and to easily recover when errors are made).
The goal of interfaces depicted in movies/media is to look cool.
The line between “cool” and “ridiculous” isn’t always that broad.
In order to look at this and think “wow, that’s so cool, now it can type super fast” I do I agree that you need some nativity to not think “why not just plug in?”
Although, on second thought, maybe you need some pessimism and think “that’s a cool way to deal with incompatible ports and apis”
And that’s an inclusive “or”, mind you-- I remember an Al-Jazeera news story that opened with the line “Some say the new measures go too far… but do the new measures go far enough?”
It's annoying because the "Critics charge X but supporters say Y" is an easy template for lazy journalism, and you invariably end up just re-typing the press releases of two competing advocacy organizations.
If the Association of Umbrella Manufacturers says it's raining outside and the Organization of Sunscreen Bottlers says it's sunny, the reporter needs to open the window and look rather than just forwarding those statements; I can read them myself if I want to.
Exactly my grip with CNN and others news channel trying the 'middle ground' like BBC. I'd rather watch media with declared bias like Fox News than CNN/BBC where the bias is only visible in subject choices and editors/presentators are afraid to get wet. Upside : that's allow for a quick U-turn.
By the way, I know an independent journalist: the version you get on TV is often the editor's cut. Sometimes journalists are only reporters, but more often than not there is censorship (or self-censorship for non independent journalists) in the editor's room. That's why report from the same journalist can be used by 'liberal news' and ' conservative news' (not idea if that happens in the US, but in my country it does.)
Honestly, you'll be better served with local newspapers. Or independent local news.
This is a near-meaningless statistic for evaluating the health of the environment, obviously. Maximizing the coverage of intact ecologies supporting biodiversity should be the management objective. The problem here is that you can plant more trees, but the forest is monocropped and doesn't support the rich network of species it did previously. Hence, the importance of conservation (and corridors between protected lands) rather than restoration.
You've misunderstood his sentence then if you think the question mark is justifying the e-ink claim about patents. And if you look at my comment history, you'll see that this repeated claim/statement about patents vs electrophoretic products is unsubstantiated and no one has been able to provide any factual support for it. I stand by my claim that HN seems to have a lot of Dunningites when it comes to electrophoretics.
This sort of reminds me of what happened to the Slashdot... everyone was playing video games, hacking with Arduinos, doing silly things with homelabs, arguing about OS X vs. Linux, etc. and then suddenly so many people in the community moved up through the ranks and started to interface with politics, policy, and international business, just as those things started to really change with tech. So ya, tech overflows itself.
In light of this pretty natural scope creep, I agree with the above point that the moderation feels pretty consistent, and am, for one, extremely appreciative of Dang's work.
I think slashdot went down with users when they introduced the massively unpopular "web 2.0" redesign. It was unusable in that layout and they never reverted it back. I think the only users there are the ones using the old layout and know how to turn it on.
Shame really as it it was the best automoderated system I've ever seen.
If you broke from the narrative, you were massively attacked...
That said, I was a very early user in /. - so much so that some of the prominent users I hired as linux tech consultants prior to LinuxCare... (long story and ego-s begone)
/. waned in my regular internet consumption though...
