Avery
I found myself marking many passages in this book. Some were just clean articulations of things I came in believing, but many pushed me a little further, or helped focus on the important things.
This book does a solid job giving hard truths about responsibility for middle and upper class families who might think themselves progressive.
That said, it really wasn't all negativity. There's a strong emphasis on hope and positivity, and advice to build real relationships with people in need. Desmond says cynicism is “the most conservative of all belief systems” and that has really stuck with me.
Note: My first draft of this review was a fair bit longer but I felt that it was repeating things said better in the book. It's short, just go read it!
I found myself marking many passages in this book. Some were just clean articulations of things I came in believing, but many pushed me a little further, or helped focus on the important things.
This book does a solid job giving hard truths about responsibility for middle and upper class families who might think themselves progressive.
That said, it really wasn't all negativity. There's a strong emphasis on hope and positivity, and advice to build real relationships with people in need. Desmond says cynicism is “the most conservative of all belief systems” and that has really stuck with me.
Note: My first draft of this review was a fair bit longer but I felt that it was repeating things said better in the book. It's short, just go read it!
Added to listOwnedwith 20 books.
This book (really the two books taken together) is such a bizarre piece of art. Following (very) directly from Hyperion, it weaves together a series of baffling opposites into a narrative that somehow makes them feel necessary.
Slow, then fast. Vulgar, while surprisingly religious. Deeply poetic but truly science fiction. Literally mixing the historical and futuristic.
It's impossible to say much about the second half of the book without spoiler. The themes of sacrifice and love carry through from the first in a way that still has me thinking about them. There's stuff in here that feels incredibly relevant to our current societal struggles with AI.
Was it flawless? Not for me. Thankfully there were fewer tacky descriptions of women's bodies -- my main gripe with the prequel. In Fall of Hyperion, I was quite frustrated at times, as it dragged occasionally and rehashed plot points from the first book. I wish they had been combined, and about 10% shorter, trusting the reader to remember the core events for themselves.
This book (really the two books taken together) is such a bizarre piece of art. Following (very) directly from Hyperion, it weaves together a series of baffling opposites into a narrative that somehow makes them feel necessary.
Slow, then fast. Vulgar, while surprisingly religious. Deeply poetic but truly science fiction. Literally mixing the historical and futuristic.
It's impossible to say much about the second half of the book without spoiler. The themes of sacrifice and love carry through from the first in a way that still has me thinking about them. There's stuff in here that feels incredibly relevant to our current societal struggles with AI.
Was it flawless? Not for me. Thankfully there were fewer tacky descriptions of women's bodies -- my main gripe with the prequel. In Fall of Hyperion, I was quite frustrated at times, as it dragged occasionally and rehashed plot points from the first book. I wish they had been combined, and about 10% shorter, trusting the reader to remember the core events for themselves.
Disclaimer- most of this book makes the assumption that (super)human-level artificial intelligence is not possible within the near future. In this framing, most conversation about it doing so exists to serve solely to further the interests of those invested in the AI bubble. I don’t know that this assumption is as obvious to me as it is to Doctorow, and if you strongly disagree with it, then there’s probably not much in this book for you.
I don’t think I’d have enough patience to work at the EFF, and I’m grateful that there are people like Doctorow who can push on these issues. The legal distinctions made in the book frequently felt inconsistent to me, but I think it’s possible that this is more of a me problem than the book being inaccurate. I just can’t get over “code is speech” being a better reason than “secure crypto is secure” for the government to allow the use of cryptography.
There's a bit that I might need to reread that explains how, while the training inputs may have been stolen, and that theft is bad, the results derived from the theft are fine. This is sort of weird to me. I guess code/creative works are protected, but not “objective facts”, where all of those terms are super vague. I feel like it would follow that if I could get my hands on the model weights (complex but objective statistical facts about the inputs) for Mythos/Opus/etc then I should be able to legally publish them in the public domain? An avenue left unexplored by this book.
One of the book’s ideas for a path through the AI morass is that copyright only applies to works of *human* creativity, and so the result of a prompt should automatically be in the public domain.
This is pretty compelling for stopping the reverse-centaurization of the workforce, but some of the analogies given didn’t resonate with me. Some amateur human taking literally whatever photograph automatically gets copyright for it, but someone who decides to train a monkey to take a selfie doesn’t? The monkey selfie is clearly still an intentional piece of art made by the human who decided to get it to press the button. It's literally a creative human work.
It seems like it’s hard enough to draw a line here that it would be relatively unlikely, without an enormous effort, to draw the line that the prompted input isn’t enough to qualify the result as art. After all, the photographer didn’t place all the pixels, they just pointed their lens at something and pressed “submit” on the camera. Barring that, we might still end up with reverse-centaur employees tasked with tweaking just enough pictures on the outputs to qualify it as human.
Still, I think it’s a valuable endeavor to attempt to develop the conversation here past “pro” or “anti” AI into something a little more nuanced. We can admit that the recent AI developments can be useful for some things some times without saying that all of the ways they can be used would be good for humans. We can think about how to think about their usage such that they don’t destroy society. It’s hard to maintain enough hope that any of this will be possible, given the incredible resources on the side of the tech companies and investors here, but thank you to Doctorow for tirelessly pushing.
Disclaimer- most of this book makes the assumption that (super)human-level artificial intelligence is not possible within the near future. In this framing, most conversation about it doing so exists to serve solely to further the interests of those invested in the AI bubble. I don’t know that this assumption is as obvious to me as it is to Doctorow, and if you strongly disagree with it, then there’s probably not much in this book for you.
I don’t think I’d have enough patience to work at the EFF, and I’m grateful that there are people like Doctorow who can push on these issues. The legal distinctions made in the book frequently felt inconsistent to me, but I think it’s possible that this is more of a me problem than the book being inaccurate. I just can’t get over “code is speech” being a better reason than “secure crypto is secure” for the government to allow the use of cryptography.
There's a bit that I might need to reread that explains how, while the training inputs may have been stolen, and that theft is bad, the results derived from the theft are fine. This is sort of weird to me. I guess code/creative works are protected, but not “objective facts”, where all of those terms are super vague. I feel like it would follow that if I could get my hands on the model weights (complex but objective statistical facts about the inputs) for Mythos/Opus/etc then I should be able to legally publish them in the public domain? An avenue left unexplored by this book.
One of the book’s ideas for a path through the AI morass is that copyright only applies to works of *human* creativity, and so the result of a prompt should automatically be in the public domain.
This is pretty compelling for stopping the reverse-centaurization of the workforce, but some of the analogies given didn’t resonate with me. Some amateur human taking literally whatever photograph automatically gets copyright for it, but someone who decides to train a monkey to take a selfie doesn’t? The monkey selfie is clearly still an intentional piece of art made by the human who decided to get it to press the button. It's literally a creative human work.
It seems like it’s hard enough to draw a line here that it would be relatively unlikely, without an enormous effort, to draw the line that the prompted input isn’t enough to qualify the result as art. After all, the photographer didn’t place all the pixels, they just pointed their lens at something and pressed “submit” on the camera. Barring that, we might still end up with reverse-centaur employees tasked with tweaking just enough pictures on the outputs to qualify it as human.
Still, I think it’s a valuable endeavor to attempt to develop the conversation here past “pro” or “anti” AI into something a little more nuanced. We can admit that the recent AI developments can be useful for some things some times without saying that all of the ways they can be used would be good for humans. We can think about how to think about their usage such that they don’t destroy society. It’s hard to maintain enough hope that any of this will be possible, given the incredible resources on the side of the tech companies and investors here, but thank you to Doctorow for tirelessly pushing.
Tyron feels too powerful compared to other slayers. Even ignoring his explicitly overpowered ability for magical invention, he has all sorts of feats, abilities, spells. The most other people usually have is high strength or speed.
In fact, Tyron’s status rituals are getting a little out of hand. Concentrating all the decisions together makes them all feel way less important, and combining the new options with the old ones makes it hard to see what has changed. It also starts to feel convenient that his number of selections usually matches the number of attractive options.
That said, it still manages to be a fun ride.
Tyron feels too powerful compared to other slayers. Even ignoring his explicitly overpowered ability for magical invention, he has all sorts of feats, abilities, spells. The most other people usually have is high strength or speed.
In fact, Tyron’s status rituals are getting a little out of hand. Concentrating all the decisions together makes them all feel way less important, and combining the new options with the old ones makes it hard to see what has changed. It also starts to feel convenient that his number of selections usually matches the number of attractive options.
That said, it still manages to be a fun ride.
Like Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, it does decent job of arguing a few points while having some room for improvement.
The main flaw for me was the easy assumption Bregman makes that the reader is infinitely qualified to solve the most important problems. I guess it’s a call to arms for the most skilled members of the population to solve the hard problems, but I think it’s an easy out to say “well I’m just regular-skilled”. At least that’s usually the temptation in my case. The book spends a lot of time convincing you that you should help solve the world’s problems without being much of a guide on how to get started, especially if you’re not ready to throw away the other responsibilities in your life.
How do you know whether it’s worth it to re-skill into a domain that might be more useful to society? How best to meet up with other like-minded people so that everyone isn’t just working on the same problems in isolation? How to navigate the tendency for many companies to “green-wash” their business in self-congratulatory language about making a difference and caring about people. I find it easy to get jaded reading company mission statements, and, as pointed out in the book, it’s not nearly enough to simply be a non-profit.
If there was a book that had the same argument as Moral Ambition, but with more clear advice on how to put it into action, I think that would be more effective. As it is, if you agree off the bat, the rest of the book mostly just reinforces that.
I found his treatment of the effective altruist movement somewhat reasonable. Clearly their main philosophy is in line with the message of the book, but the issue is that it’s easy to lose sight of reality when you’re fixated on simple metrics and surround yourself (at an investment bank, say) with people who don’t value the same things. The concept of scamming “regular” people out of their money in order to solve the worlds’ most pressing problems is ridiculed as a failure of this movement, but that actually seemed a little unfair to me. I think it probably deserves a slightly more charitable interpretation, given the priorities in the book. Obviously it’s a pretty risky strategy that does more harm than good if it fails (also true of many humanitarian efforts!). As quoted by Bregman: “We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers.”
Like Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, it does decent job of arguing a few points while having some room for improvement.
The main flaw for me was the easy assumption Bregman makes that the reader is infinitely qualified to solve the most important problems. I guess it’s a call to arms for the most skilled members of the population to solve the hard problems, but I think it’s an easy out to say “well I’m just regular-skilled”. At least that’s usually the temptation in my case. The book spends a lot of time convincing you that you should help solve the world’s problems without being much of a guide on how to get started, especially if you’re not ready to throw away the other responsibilities in your life.
How do you know whether it’s worth it to re-skill into a domain that might be more useful to society? How best to meet up with other like-minded people so that everyone isn’t just working on the same problems in isolation? How to navigate the tendency for many companies to “green-wash” their business in self-congratulatory language about making a difference and caring about people. I find it easy to get jaded reading company mission statements, and, as pointed out in the book, it’s not nearly enough to simply be a non-profit.
If there was a book that had the same argument as Moral Ambition, but with more clear advice on how to put it into action, I think that would be more effective. As it is, if you agree off the bat, the rest of the book mostly just reinforces that.
I found his treatment of the effective altruist movement somewhat reasonable. Clearly their main philosophy is in line with the message of the book, but the issue is that it’s easy to lose sight of reality when you’re fixated on simple metrics and surround yourself (at an investment bank, say) with people who don’t value the same things. The concept of scamming “regular” people out of their money in order to solve the worlds’ most pressing problems is ridiculed as a failure of this movement, but that actually seemed a little unfair to me. I think it probably deserves a slightly more charitable interpretation, given the priorities in the book. Obviously it’s a pretty risky strategy that does more harm than good if it fails (also true of many humanitarian efforts!). As quoted by Bregman: “We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers.”
The first few times I considered reading Hyperion I saw it described as a science fictional take on the Canterbury Tales. Me, being an uncultured lump, took that as meaning it would be too sophisticated for me to enjoy it.
Luckily, I eventually dipped my toe into reading the book, and was soon pulled in the rest of the way. Hyperion ended up being a series of short stories from different perspectives, all tied together in a way that gradually develops both the characters and the world. I was impressed by the ability for each individual story to draw me in quickly.
Several sequences describe women mainly in terms of their pale ripe globes and raised nipples, which got kind of repetitive and was hard to take seriously. Other than that though, the stories felt unique in interesting ways and many were emotional. I'm sure there are literary references I missed (might have to go read some Keats now) but I'd recommend it regardless!
The first few times I considered reading Hyperion I saw it described as a science fictional take on the Canterbury Tales. Me, being an uncultured lump, took that as meaning it would be too sophisticated for me to enjoy it.
Luckily, I eventually dipped my toe into reading the book, and was soon pulled in the rest of the way. Hyperion ended up being a series of short stories from different perspectives, all tied together in a way that gradually develops both the characters and the world. I was impressed by the ability for each individual story to draw me in quickly.
Several sequences describe women mainly in terms of their pale ripe globes and raised nipples, which got kind of repetitive and was hard to take seriously. Other than that though, the stories felt unique in interesting ways and many were emotional. I'm sure there are literary references I missed (might have to go read some Keats now) but I'd recommend it regardless!
Quite fun. It turns out all I need to enjoy a litrpg is some tolerable characters and (more importantly) lists of upgrade choices where all the options sound cool. This had both!
Quite fun. It turns out all I need to enjoy a litrpg is some tolerable characters and (more importantly) lists of upgrade choices where all the options sound cool. This had both!
I wasn't totally drawn in by the first half. As Carl says at least once, the floor’s premise is kind of on rails. There are some hilarious character moments but not a ton of agency initially. The last 10% or so made it all worth it though -- I think this ending ranks among the best in the series.
I wasn't totally drawn in by the first half. As Carl says at least once, the floor’s premise is kind of on rails. There are some hilarious character moments but not a ton of agency initially. The last 10% or so made it all worth it though -- I think this ending ranks among the best in the series.
Took me a while to get through this one. I was really drawn in by the first book in the series, but had a hard time staying invested in this one.
Maybe there was too much I had forgotten about the first, combined with a feeling that this was all setting up for the next book. It ended up feeling very much like a middle book, stuff happening but nothing resolving.
The constantly switching viewpoints also multiply the number of characters and concepts to the point that they became hard to keep track of. It felt like the minute I was getting into it, the perspective would swap and I'd be dumped back at square one.
The new worlds and concepts are interesting, and some stuff does happen, but at this point I’m not sure that I'll continue when the next book comes out.
Took me a while to get through this one. I was really drawn in by the first book in the series, but had a hard time staying invested in this one.
Maybe there was too much I had forgotten about the first, combined with a feeling that this was all setting up for the next book. It ended up feeling very much like a middle book, stuff happening but nothing resolving.
The constantly switching viewpoints also multiply the number of characters and concepts to the point that they became hard to keep track of. It felt like the minute I was getting into it, the perspective would swap and I'd be dumped back at square one.
The new worlds and concepts are interesting, and some stuff does happen, but at this point I’m not sure that I'll continue when the next book comes out.
*FINALLY* back in Pallimustus! Good to have the buds all back together, but it felt like kind of an in between book. Pretty sure I'll continue with the series but felt like some filler at times. I do appreciate that we don't have to enumerate every status effect progression every time it happens anymore.
*FINALLY* back in Pallimustus! Good to have the buds all back together, but it felt like kind of an in between book. Pretty sure I'll continue with the series but felt like some filler at times. I do appreciate that we don't have to enumerate every status effect progression every time it happens anymore.
Took a minute to remember what was going on, but the recap at the beginning helped, and soon I was enjoying being back in this world. Easy enjoyable read like the others. I always enjoy the “back to basics” trope that we get a bit of in this one. The Earth arc is what made me drop this series initially, so I’m excited to see what happens next.
Took a minute to remember what was going on, but the recap at the beginning helped, and soon I was enjoying being back in this world. Easy enjoyable read like the others. I always enjoy the “back to basics” trope that we get a bit of in this one. The Earth arc is what made me drop this series initially, so I’m excited to see what happens next.