Anyone who likes Tech yet NOT into Sci-Fi here?

[agkm800]

It seems like almost all people I see online are very much into sci-fi -- movies, tv shows, comics, cartoons, toys, etc.

I am generally interested in tech but I am not really into sci-fi... never have been.... and I often feel like I am the only one who is not into sci-fi in tech boards and communities.

I've never actually asked this anywhere before, so I wonder if anyone here in macrumors likes tech yet not into sci-fi?

 

[Jessica Lares]

Yeah, I feel the same way too. I've always been into tech, but not the other stuff that usually gets labeled onto the crowd.

No, I'm not into science fiction either.

 

[JackieInCo]

I like tech stuff but as for sci fi, I've never even seen Star Wars and never wanted to. No comics or anything else. I do like the X-Files.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I like tech stuff but as for sci fi, I've never even seen Star Wars and never wanted to. No comics or anything else. I do like the X-Files.

Well, as a child, I was very into science fact; stuff such as space exploration genuinely fascinated me, and I thought everything I could read about science (dinosaurs, planets) and the history of scientific discovery an amazing tale.

Therefore, science fiction - especially the imaginative stuff, such as Star Trek - initially, was really just another way of looking at all this, to my mind. Then, it became a mean sod relaxation, because so much of what I read the rest of the time was (and is) so serious.

 

[lowendlinux]

No I don't like Sci-Fi, comics, games or anything else techy really.

 

[Huntn]

SciFi in many cases is a window into the future.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

SciFi in many cases is a window into the future.

Ah, but which particular future?

One of the things I liked about Star Trek (and STNG) was the optimism and positive outlook - informed by a genuine moral and philosophical core - to the ideas behind each series.

 

[zhenya]

Extremely interested in tech. Sci-fi has never interested me.

 

[Huntn]

Ah, but which particular future?

One of the things I liked about Star Trek (and STNG) was the optimism and positive outlook - informed by a genuine moral and philosophical core - to the ideas behind each series.

None, in particular as far as morality, just tech devices, like a portable communicator that fits into your pocket. I'm wondering how far into the future before we see human like androids keeping people company.

Twilight Zone- Lonely Heart (1959)

Revisited several times over the decades​

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

I wouldn't say I'm particularly drawn to sci-fi. There are a couple of movies that I've enjoyed, but most of them I could take or leave. I've never been into a television series of the genre. I don't read sci-fi books regularly.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

None, in particular as far as morality, just tech devices, like a portable communicator that fits into your pocket. I'm wondering how far into the future before we see human like androids keeping people company.

Twilight Zone- Lonely Heart (1959)

Revisited several times over the decades​

Ah.

"Human androids keeping people company?" What is really being thought about (or dreamed about) here?

Why is it that scifi writers tend to assume that what they think are 'human androids' will inevitably and automatically assume the appearance and proportions of a male [sexual] fantasy and wish fulfilment fantasy?

Even in STNG, we saw female androids as wish fulfilment (even for Jean-Luc Picard, and Will Riker) but never for someone who might not be a white heterosexual male.

At the risk of trespassing a toe into PRSI territory, I'd venture that male scifi writers have more than mere 'company keeping' in mind when they write, or dream, or speak of 'androids keeping people company', unless, by this term they mean what religious bodies who disdained and despised 'company-keeping' (seeing it as a euphemism for something else entirely) used to mean.

Women and others might be less interested in the 'company keeping' aspects that 'human androids' might be able to offer, and may place more emphasis on other capabilities that they may have, such as labour saving features to their design.

Indeed, on that very topic, I have been struck by the emphasis placed on the development of labour saving devices and entities in the workplace, reducing the need to employ traditional manual labourers, and depriving traditional unskilled labour of jobs, while serving to maximise profits, while, on the other hand, the development of labour saving devices in the domestic arena could do with maybe a bit more - if not a lot more - R&D.

 

[rdowns]

Love technology, not a sci-fi fan. I've never seen an episode of Star Trek or any ST movie.

 

[dotnet]

Well, methinks the term requires some narrowing down. Some (a lot of?) people think Guardians of the Galaxy is science fiction.

There is a lot of SciFi trash, which may put people off. Genuine (IMHO) SciFi is demanding, engaging, provocative and not easy fare. As such it mostly lives in books and can be hard to pull off on screen, although there has occasionally been spectacular success doing that.

 

[dotnet]

I've never seen an episode of Star Trek or any ST movie.

You say that like it's a good thing

 

[keysofanxiety]

but as for sci fi, I've never even seen Star Wars and never wanted to.

This, to me, is inconceivable.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This, to me, is inconceivable.

Actually, perhaps strange to relate, I've never seen Star Wars, either.

 

[sdilley14]

Yes, I'm into tech but not really into Sci-Fi. Well, there is some Sci-Fi that I like...Fifth Element, Independence Day, "mainstream" stuff like that. But I'm guessing true Sci-Fi fans would be appalled that I lumped movies like that into the Sci-Fi genre.

 

[RossMak]

Yeah I am into Tech and not into Sci Fi, also put my down as someone who has never seen Star Wars.

 

[Huntn]

Ah.

"Human androids keeping people company?" What is really being thought about (or dreamed about) here?

Why is it that scifi writers tend to assume that what they think are 'human androids' will inevitably and automatically assume the appearance and proportions of a male [sexual] fantasy and wish fulfilment fantasy?

Even in STNG, we saw male androids as wish fulfilment (even for Jean-Luc Picard, and Will Riker) but never for someone who might not be a white heterosexual male.

At the risk of trespassing a toe into PRSI territory, I'd venture that male scifi writers have more than mere 'company keeping' in mind when they write, or dream, or speak of 'androids keeping people company', unless, by this term they mean what religious bodies who disdained and despised 'company-keeping' (seeing it as a euphemism for something else entirely).

Women and others might be less interested in the 'company keeping' aspects that 'human androids' might be able to offer, and may place more emphasis on other capabilities that they may have, such as labour saving features to their design.

Indeed, on that very topic, I have been struck by the emphasis placed on the development of labour saving devices and entities in the workplace, reducing the need to employ traditional manual labourers, and depriving traditional unskilled labour of jobs, while serving to maximise profits, while, on the other hand, the development of labour saving devices in the domestic arena could do with maybe a bit more R&D.

1. It's a common theme in science fiction.
2. It's particularly evident in the movie A.I.- Artificial Intelligence and kinda in Blade Runner. As I recall "replicants" were artificial biological entities?

My motivation for bringing it up is based on seeing this theme in SciFi all my life, and I think the point is, when it can be done, not only will be it be done, but people will be willing to accept artificial humans into their lives, and intimately. Much has to do with programing and realism. Any A.I. program would have to rival human intelligence and interaction. I think we have a very long way to go.

And I'll reemphasize this is not PRSI with the following comment, at some point I predict a dilemma will be reached when AI matches human intelligence and emotions and a debate will occur regarding the validity of artificial life as compared to biological based life just like in STNG when artifical life forms start considering their existence.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

1. It's a common theme in science fiction.
2. It's particularly evident in the movie A.I.- Artificial Intelligence and kinda in Blade Runner. As I recall "replicants" were artificial biological entities?

My motivation for bringing it up is based on seeing this theme in SciFi all my life, and I think the point is, when it can be done, not only will be it be done, but people will be willing to accept artificial humans into their lives, and intimately. Much has to do with programing and realism. Any A.I. program would have to rival human intelligence and interaction. I think we have a very long way to go.

And I'll reemphasize this is not PRSI with the following comment, at some point I predict a dilemma will be reached when AI matches human intelligence and emotions and a debate will occur regarding the validity of artificial life as compared to biological based life just like in STNG when artifical life forms start considering their existence.

Well, as long as they have Lieutenant-Commander Data to plead the case for the defence, the matter should be taken and treated seriously.

In fairness, STNG did explore the whole intellectual debate on this topic with a number of excellent and thought-provoking episodes which treated this topic intelligently. However, I was bristling at the whole 'I, Mudd' tone of much of the earlier male treatment of this topic.

 

[LizKat]

Well, methinks the term requires some narrowing down. Some (a lot of?) people think Guardians of the Galaxy is science fiction.

There is a lot of SciFi trash, which may put people off. Genuine (IMHO) SciFi is demanding, engaging, provocative and not easy fare. As such it mostly lives in books and can be hard to pull off on screen, although there has occasionally been spectacular success doing that.

Well said. I will sometimes read fiction in the post-apocalyptic category. It doesn't always seem like science fiction per se, but that's where that category has ended up as far as librarians classify such work: It's sometime in the future, something bad has happened before we arrive in the front of the book, and we go forward with the narrator, however reliable or unreliable, cynical or hopeful a guide he, she or it proves to be. I confess more often to reading a lot of reviews of some of these works (Theroux's Far North, some Atwood, etc.) and maybe "wanting to want to read" the actual works. I have that Theroux and I want ot read it, I just don't make the time.

As far as space journeys go, I used to watch some Star Trek episodes in rerun, but they were watched to unwind from work so they could have been almost anything else too, although some held my attention more than others. I thought the episodes and seasons very uneven.

I have not seen Star Wars. I thought Dr. Strangelove was pretty amazing but I guess that doesn't count as "traditional science fiction" any more than War Games, which i also liked, simply because you could amost see how either of those could have become a current situation without too much extra tech and just a little suspension of disbelief. The space and computer-driven future scenarios mostly interest me in theory, more so than in discovery of actual books or movies along those lines, so far. I love the real science, it blows my mind that "we" just drove by Pluto and send pics home.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Well said. I will sometimes read fiction in the post-apocalyptic category. It doesn't always seem like science fiction per se, but that's where that category has ended up as far as librarians classify such work: It's sometime in the future, something bad has happened before we arrive in the front of the book, and we go forward with the narrator, however reliable or unreliable, cynical or hopeful a guide he, she or it proves to be. I confess more often to reading a lot of reviews of some of these works (Theroux's Far North, some Atwood, etc.) and maybe "wanting to want to read" the actual works. I have that Theroux and I want ot read it, I just don't make the time.

As far as space journeys go, I used to watch some Star Trek episodes in rerun, but they were watched to unwind from work so they could have been almost anything else too, although some held my attention more than others. I thought the episodes and seasons very uneven.

I have not seen Star Wars. I thought Dr. Strangelove was pretty amazing but I guess that doesn't count as "traditional science fiction" any more than War Games, which i also liked, simply because you could amost see how either of those could have become a current situation without too much extra tech and just a little suspension of disbelief. The space and computer-driven future scenarios mostly interest me in theory, more so than in discovery of actual books or movies along those lines, so far. I love the real science, it blows my mind that "we" just drove by Pluto and send pics home.

Ah, yes, agree completely re the utterly fascinating stuff of real science, science fact, in other words, and the recent drive by of Pluto.

Both Star Trek and (somewhat less so) STNG were uneven. Some episodes were utterly forgettable. However, sometimes, they produced a superb episode, which - using the format of a one hour science fiction show - addressed profound philosophical and ethical issues and often delivered an excellent story at the same time.

I liked the idealistic and optimistic perspective that underpinned both shows. While there were dark administrations and dreadful situations and governments in that world, they didn't define it, and the show's ethos was one where progress was possible and tolerance promoted.

 

[S.B.G]

Earlier this week I watched the movie Ex Machina (2015) and I found certain aspects of the premise intriguing regarding AI. Overall the movie was good, not great, and one of those that I probably will watch only once, maybe twice.

Spoiler

There were some scenes where the main character was snooping on the computer security camera system and observing the various AI models through the testing phases. The AI was so advanced that some of the machines appeared to be real, as in real like a human as far as being sentient and knowing that they were imprisoned and wanted freedom. One machine was pounding on the walls so much until it's hands were demolished in a bid for freedom - just like a human would do who's mind broke after being in solitary confinement.

It was things like that which provoked me to think about the future of AI and when or if we ever achieve that level of sophistication and how we would deal with it as a society. If they could interact and present themselves so well that a real human couldn't tell the difference, would they deserve the same rights and freedoms as humans? What if the AI is so advanced, that humans and machines could actually fall in love with each other and hold relationships just like two humans can?

At what point do we find the line between the definition of "life" and "machine"? Does "life" have to be a biological organism or can other things that can be created which have or develop the ability to have independent thought, rational, reason, feelings (physical & emotional) be classified as life?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Earlier this week I watched the movie Ex Machina (2015) and I found certain aspects of the premise intriguing regarding AI. Overall the movie was good, not great and one of those that I probably will watch only once, maybe twice.

Spoiler

There were some scenes where the main character was snooping on the computer security camera system and observing the various AI models through the testing phases. The AI was so advanced that some of the machines appeared to be real, as in real like a human as far as being sentient and knowing that they were imprisoned and wanted freedom. One machine was pounding on the walls so much until it's hands were demolished in a bid for freedom - just like a human would do who's mind broke after being in solitary confinement.

It was things like that which provoked me to think about the future of AI and when or if we ever achieve that level of sophistication and how we would deal with it as a society. If they could interact and present themselves so well that a real human couldn't tell the difference, would they deserve the same rights and freedoms humans? What if the AI is so advanced, that humans and machines could actually fall in love with each other and hold relationships just like two humans can?

At what point do we find the line between the definition of "life" and "machine"? Does "life" have to be a biological organism or can other things that can be created which have or develop the ability to have independent thought, rational, reason, feelings (physical & emotional) be classified as life?

Some of those very themes were touched upon in 'Blade Runner' (an excellent movie) if I recall rightly.

In any case, I cannot envisage artificial life-forms being allowed to develop to that level without some sort of control, or inhibitions, or limitations being written into their commands, perhaps something on the lines of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

In the absence of such controls, or inbuilt limitations, I would be surprised if sentient machines were simply developed into a clichéd male wish fulfilment fantasy (though some movies and ST - including a few STNG - episodes might lead one to that conclusion); it is more likely that any such revenue as might be ear-marked for the development of such machines would be channelled into security and military, - and later - perhaps - commercial enterprises.

 

[S.B.G]

Some of those very themes were touched upon in 'Blade Runner' (an excellent movie) if I recall rightly.

Yes, you do recall correctly, and agreed, it is an excellent film.

In any case, I cannot envisage artificial life-forms being allowed to develop to that level without some sort of control, or inhibitions, or limitations being written into their commands, perhaps something on the lines of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

In the absence of such controls, or inbuilt limitations, I would be surprised if sentient machines were simply developed into a clichéd male wish fulfilment fantasy (though some movies and ST - including a few STNG - episodes might lead one to that conclusion); it is more likely that any such revenue as might be ear-marked for the development of such machines would be channelled into security and military, - and later - perhaps - commercial enterprises.

We recall the episode of STNG where Lt.Cmdr Data is on trial for his "life" and how they had to justify his existence and prove he was more than just a machine. Starfleet's position was that he was only a machine, a military tool, and could be decommissioned, destroyed, or turned off as the needs of the fleet required.

Data's comrades begged to differ and showed how he was just about as human as they were.

No doubt, government's would likely step in on private companies or universities that are working on AI when/if they get to a point depicted in many films. Perhaps they'ed implement the 3 robotics laws, or a variation of them.

If past practice is any indication of the future, the militarization and/or commercialization of AI will be inevitable.

But barring all of that, let's say AI is developed to a point that is better and more human that Mr. Data was depicted to be, how do we think society would handle it? I think, at first, that the AI would find it difficult to integrate into a human society and would have to endure, the unfortunate, and all-too-common, prejudices that humans have against things, peoples, cultures, that are different from them.

There would be a contingent of society that would embrace the AI and "fight for their rights" for equality in society. It could take many years and generations of people and time before, or if, AI could be fully integrated into a human society.