RSS

Category Archives: atsiko

The “Next Big Thing” Generation

So, a common topic in many of the writing communities I used to frequent was “the next big thing”.  Generally, what genre of book was going to be the next Twilight vampire romance or Hunger Games dystopia.  I had a lot of fun with those discussions, but only recently have I really stopped to consider how damaging the “next big thing” mindset is.  Not only to literature, but to any field and to our characters as people.

First, it’s damaging to the quality and diversity of books coming out.  If everyone is chasing the next “popular” genre, they aren’t writing, reading, or accepting for publication many good books who just happen to not be the next big thing or who are part of the last big thing.  Even though 90% of the books in the genre of the last big thing were crap, and 7% of the rest were mediocre.

Which ties into my next issue: This attitude creates a hunger for similar books, despite quality or whether the reader would like to try something else because it creates a comfort zone for the reader.  They know they like dystopia because they liked Hunger Games, so they’re more willing to take a chance on another dystopia than a high fantasy or Mundane SF.  (Mundane SF itself having once been the next big thing, thus the proper noun moniker.)

But this is a false comfort zone for many reasons.  The reader may not actually like dystopia, but just that one book.  They may like dystopia but ignore other things they would also really enjoy to keep from having to stray outside their comfort zone.  They may gorge on so many dystopias that they learn to see the flaws in the genre finally,  and therefore ignore a wonderful dystopia down the line, because they’ve moved onto their next big thing.

Or, if they’re jumping on the bandwagon, they may perceive all of YA, say, as mediocre dystopias or obsessed with love triangles.  Perhaps they think all epic fantasy is ASOIAF, which they disliked, and so they don’t take the chance on other works.  For example, maybe they watched the TV show, and aren’t fans of gratuitous sexposition, and so they don’t read the books or similar books because they don’t want to get buried in another avalanche of incest and prostitutes.

Many authors have stories of agents or publishers telling them they have a great book, but they missed the window, or it doesn’t fit with whatever the next big thing is, and so they can’t sell it.  Or they already have ten of these, and even though 8 of them are sub-par, they can’t cancel the contract and pick up this new book.

Or perhaps they like the book, but everyone acquiring fantasy stories right now wants ASOIAF, not comedic contemporary fantasies, or low-key urban fantasies in the original mode without kick-ass leather-wearing, tattoo-bearing heroines with troubled backstories and seriously poor taste in lovers.

And the same can be said for things besides commercial fiction.  Google+ was going to be the next big thing in social media.  Then it was Ello.  Tinder was the next big thing in online dating, and it spawned dozens of clones.  Social media itself is something of a successful next big thing in human interaction and the Internet.  Object-Oriented programming was the next big thing in software design, and yet now the backlash has been going on for years.

Sometimes a next big thing is a great thing.  But the mentality of always hunting for the next big thing is not.  And despite the pressure from our capitalist economy, it might be better in the long term to look for alternatives.  And it is capitalism that is a major driver of this obsession, because history shows even mediocre products can ride the wave of a predecessor to make big money.  Following a successful formula is a bit of a dream situation for many producers of entertainment or products.  That’s why Walmart and most other chains have their own brand version of most popular products, from medicine to housewares to groceries.  The next big thing trend might make some people a decent amount of money in the short-term, but it has long-term effects that have created a sort of creativity pit that we’ll have a hard time climbing out of any time in the near future.  And in the short term, the people who don’t manage to catch the wave, as wonderful as their contributions to literature or software or society may be, are left choking on the dust.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2017 in atsiko, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Hiatus: Again

So, as I hate my life and happiness and am currently in the process of working on a video game project, including the coding and a narrative arc that could probably be comfortably condensed into 47 fantasy trilogies, schedule posting on the Chimney will be on indefinite hiatus.  That does not mean I won’t be posting.  I probably will.  But it will be sporadic and all post series are on hiatus.

I’m having a hell of a fun time, so though I am a bit sad that I won’t be ramping back up my posting schedule, I’m not too sad.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 15, 2016 in atsiko, Blogging

 

Tags: , ,

AI and AlphaGo: Why It’s Not the Big Deal It’s Made Out to Be

I’d like to open this post by admitting I am not a Go master.  I’ve played a few times, watch Hikaru no GO when nothing else was on.  But that’s about it.  However, I don’t need to be an expert at the game to point out the flaw in some of the press coverage.  I suspect actual AI researchers already know what I mean.

The first thing to remember is that AlphaGo is a deep-learning program built on a neural network.  What that means is that rather than an artificial intelligence program, AlphaGo is an artificial learning program.  Public perception of AI is still focused on artificial intelligence, but the field has now expanded to cover many related or tangential or component areas of study.  AlphaGo also has some form of reasoning ability.  But this ability is solely related to Go.  You cannot generalize it’s algorithms to other tasks.  In fact, DeepMind even admits there are better programs out there to play Chess.  Chess and Go are both “perfect information”(PI) games.  You can if you so choose know everything about a given game of Chess or Go by looking at the board.  You know all the rules and the position of all the pieces.  PI games are a very popular area of AI research, because programs can do a lot with them.  The information can be reduced to a very small set of states and rules, which is ideal for computers to excel at.  The trick of course is to teach the computer the best set of tactics for taking those rules and the initial state of the game, and trading states with another player to get to the win state.  And yet, even in two PI games, the best AI solution to a player capable of competing with the best of humans is different for each game.

I like to call this specific intelligence, although the more popular terms are weak AI or narrow AI, a kind of non-sentient intelligence focused on solving one task or a narrow range of tasks. But even that is a bit of a misnomer.  After all, the machines aren’t truly smart, just impressively programmed dumb machines.

However, a learning program like AlphaGo comes a bit closer to true intelligence(though not sentience) by being able to take the initially programmed rules and knowledge and extrapolate from them on its own to do things it wasn’t explicitly hard-coded to do by the programmers.  It’s incredibly impressive.  But it’s not “AI” in the way most layfolk think of it.  It’s not general intelligence, even a crude version.  It’s a very sophisticated piece of specific intelligence.

 

 

But there’s a second flaw in the coverage.  Besides the great deal of mystique that’s built up around Go, which isn’t an issue of AI, although some of it is misplaced–for example, another lifeform does not “almost certainly play Go” whereas Chess is too human specific–there’s the issue that even as a powerful example of narrow AI, AlphaGo does not–as stated by some professional players–“play go just like a human but better”.  There has been much talk of its unorthodox tactics, or its algorithm’s focus on win-rate over all else.  Some have even said it made moves “only God could have made”–a common expression of a perfect move.

 

But the real truth is this: much like how genetic code, a style of coding in which a computer is given basic building blocks of code and tasked to mix them up until it finds a closer to optimal solution, AlphaGo has no idea it is playing go.  As far as AlphaGo knows, it’s just trading ones and zeroes around until it finds the desired sequence.  The ways in which a human player attempts to reach the winning board position are inherently different than the way a computer does, because they aren’t really pursuing the same goal.

 

We’re not particularly closer to strong or general AI than we were before.  Go isn’t truly so different from any other PI game.  AlphaGO has not learned intuition.  It’s merely played millions of games of Go subtly adjusting the value it places on a given set of stone positions on the board as it goes until more and more the win-rate increases to the point it wins the game.  Although the process is superficially similar to the way a human learns the game, the lack of framing devices such as vision used by humans has taught it to value entirely different things, and unlike a human, a computer has a perfect memory to go with the perfect information, and it is incapable of making an error.

After that, we can consider the psychological warfare aspect of multi-player games.  AlphaGo may be able to beat anyone Lee Se-dol could, but it cannot judge its opponents experience and thus alter its strategy to beat that player faster or more elegantly.  Instead, it will always play the same way every time, and react no differently to a master making three opening moves than to a novice making the same.  But where a human might see those moves and be able to make a variety of plays depending on their intuition of the players skill or likely next move, AlphaGo will continue to inexorably play exactly the move that will have the highest chance of victory against any and all players, rather than the one with the highest chance of victory against a specific individual.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2016 in atsiko, Science Fact

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Getting Your Priorities Straight

I’ve had a great time working on this blog.  It’s been loads of fun, I’ve learned a lot about myself, and I’ve met some great people.  I really appreciate everyone who’s read and commented here.

That may sound like a goodbye speech, but what it really means is that I’ll be posting less on here than I used to.  Probably once or twice a month at the most.

This is for several reasons:

  1. I made a commitment to my friends review blog, where I’ll be reviewing various speculative fictions books in many genres.  I’ve posted several reviews there already, and I encourage you to go check them out.  If you like Young Adult books, my two co-reviewers each review about the same number of those a month as I do spec fic books, so definitely check that out.  Most recently, I reviewed Scott Westerfeld’s Afterworlds with my co-reviewer Marisa Greene.  In about a week, you’ll be able to read my reviews of Richard K. Morgan’s The Dark Defiles, the third and final novel in his Steel Remains series.  Here’s the blog: http://notesfromthedarknet.wordpress.com/
  2. I’ve decided to spend more time actually writing books.  High/Epic fantasy has been becoming more popular in the YA field, and many of my projects fit that category, including my current WIP.  After that, you might get to see some reali, live chimney-punk! 😉
  3. I’ve found less and less to write about on here as time goes by.  Part of this is that I’ve said a lot of what I have to say on some subjects, such as world-building.  And part of it is that more general topics, such as genre and writing mechanics have already hit their third cycles on some of the blogs that started out around the same time I did.  Many of those blogs have even stopped posting at all.  I’ve been less active commenting on other blogs for that reason, which means a large decrease in traffic here, as well.

The Chimney is still my home on the web, and will be for the foreseeable future.  I’m not closing it down, and I hope I never do.  This change has already been occurring over the past year or so, it’s just not been official until now.  Once my schedule settles down, and I get into the groove of writing prose, I’ll probably be back to posting here more regularly, especially since writing actual manuscripts really gets my creative and research juices flowing.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 22, 2014 in atsiko, Blogging

 

Tags: , , , ,

Fool’s Assassin by Robin Hobb

You can read my review of Robin Hobb’s new Fitz/Farseer novel over on Notes from the Dark Net.

 

Spoliers:  It could have been better.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 7, 2014 in atsiko, Authors, Books, Fantasy, Reviews

 

Tags: ,

Now with Book Reviews! Sort of…

A friend of mine, Nick Morgan, has started a book review blog.  It’s mostly just for fun.  But he’s invited me to do the speculative fiction reviews, and I’m really looking forward to it.  I’ve always wanted to give book reviewing a try.  Also guest-blogging will be a mutual friend of ours Marisa Greene.

I may or may not be cross-posting the reviews to the Chimney.  I haven’t decided yet whether that would dilute the focus of this blog to much.  If I don’t cross-post, I probably will link to them on Twitter and at the bottom of whatever post I happen to be writing for the Chimney that week.

 

Keep an eye on Notes from The Dark Net for those reviews.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 18, 2014 in atsiko, Blogging, Books, Reviews

 

Tags: , , , ,

Boys Don’t Read: The Making of the Myth

Something I’ve always been interested in is what makes someone a reader.  In general.  But something much more personal to me is the issue of reading and boys and why boys don’t read.  That’s the conventional wisdom.  But I only started hearing it after I was already a rabid reader myself.

(A quick note: I’m a guy.)

And I found it incredibly frustrating, because it didn’t match up with my personal experience.  More than that, it didn’t match up with what I saw of my friends, either.  And I think that’s an issue that has to be addressed.

I’m writing this post after having stumbled across a book blog called Stacked.  Specifically, a series of posts they had about boys reading.  As I read this series of posts, written primarily by adult women, and often citing Michael Sullivan, I became increasingly frustrated.  The posts were full of claims that boys don’t read, boys do read, but they read thus, boys’ brains work like this which is why they read this.  Not a single one of these claims matched my experiences as a young reader.  And I admit, I may have been an outlier.  (It’s useful for understanding my comments here to actually spend the ten or twenty minutes to read those posts first.)

But I have no reason to believe it’s anymore likely that I was the outlier and Sullivan the average male reader than the other way around.  It’s a common problem in scientific research to take your personal opinions and experiences as the norm.  Anyone who’s taken a serious class on research or statistics will have heard about anecdotal evidence–essentially, here’s how it was for me, that must be representative of the wider reality.  I have been guilty of relying on anecdotal evidence myself many times.  But in this case, I don’t believe I am the only one.

One of the primary claims made in the posts is that boys have a “rules and tools” thought process.  The common cliche about asking for directions gets cited.  And much is made of this being an inherent cognitive attribute of men vs. women.  Personally, I think it’s more of a cultural imposition.  We tell boys what the proper male behavior is, and punish them for not modeling it, and then we claim it’s an inherent biological trait.  It’s not.  What really bothered me about these posts was that they spoke as if all boys ever followed these specific in-built patterns.  That’s a pile of crap.  I have no doubt that these are trends among large cross-sections of the men and boys in Western society–whatever their supposed basis.  But they are not the only trends, and I’m not even convinced they’re the most common trends.  But they offer a simple way to view the differences between girls and boys in terms of behavior and educational performance, and so people desperate for an explanation glom onto them.

And I want to suggest that for that reason, they may be doing more harm than good.  If you tell boys this is how they are, full stop, then anyone who hasn’t yet been inculcated with these patterns is forced t re-evaluate themselves.  Are they doing something wrong?  Are they weird?  Should they be acting differently?  And that more than anything, pushes more and more boys and men into these patterns of thinking.  It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The short version here is that people need to learn to acknowledge that the world is complicated and cannot be reduced to simple binary patterns.  It sucks, and it’s frustrating, but it’s true.  And trying to force the world into those patterns, especially as concerns cultural, societal, or any human sphere can lead to exactly the harm you hope to counteract.

 

 

As a result of these issues, I don’t often share my reading with my friends and family offline, because I’ve been told that that’s not proper behavior.  And if boys tend to engage in reading in isolation, then it’s only these false dichotomies we have to blame, and nothing inherent in their make-up.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 16, 2014 in atsiko, Gender Issues

 

Tags: , ,