10 ms·

William Gibson Predicts in 1997 How the Internet Will Change Our World (2019)

88 points by DanBC 6y ago

justicezyx 6y ago
Mostly true, but was legalized gradually in the process. That's how things have always been.
bradbeattie 6y ago
Gibson also wrote on how our abilities to predict the future are superbly limited in his 2003 essay In The Visegrips Of Dr Satan: http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com/2003/01/?m=1#90248174 http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com/2003/01/?m=1#90248174
- Metacelsus 6y ago
  I started reading that essay, and then ran into two back-to-back howlers: >The electrons streaming into a child’s eye from the screen of the wooden television are as physical as anything else. As physical as the neurons subsequently moving along that child’s optic nerves.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    Gibson doesn't know anything about technology. He's from the school of American SF writing that Stanisław Lem criticised (Lem wrote actual criticism as well as his SF that's in the form of criticism of works that don't actually exist, which was translated as "A Perfect Vacuum"). I don't have much time for this myself, preferring writers to speculate about things they actually know something about - but he's been very successful.
    - 0_____0 6y ago
      It tickles me to know that, for all the future-gazing technology-laden stories he spun, that his seminal novel Neuromancer was composed on a typewriter
    - staticman2 6y ago
      So-called hard science fiction writers do not seem to make more plausible predictions about the future. It's not clear they are even trying to, since plausibility doesn't necessarily mean entertaining. The so called hard science fiction writer just throws some references to math or physics among the implausible world building.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Not sure what's wrong with that sentence. A CRT screen works via an electron gun (cathode) literally shooting an electron beam at the screen; then the screen emits even more electrons towards the viewer and the typical glow is experienced as a side effect of that. The cells that "move along" nerves in the PNS to support neural development are Schwann cells that would not be considered "neurons", but that's a minor slip in terminology. The basics is entirely correct.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      The things streaming into the child's eyes are photons. If the electrons from the cathode stream into the child's eyes you're charging the child up with electricity and it'll get a nasty shock when subsequently grounded. So now you've learned what was wrong with that sentence.
  - antonvs 6y ago
    His point is still valid, he just used the wrong technical terms. He's a writer, not a scientist. He's writing about how these things impact human life, and details like this don't really matter at that level.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
It might all still go the way of the TV [0]. We've been seeing the demise of general computing in real time. The current generation may be the last that got to pop the hood on the internal workings of the Internet, from inspecting HTML source of a web-page to disassembly of whatever was running it, if source code was not available (or at least port scanning and possible stack bashing). With corporations doing their best to remove that ability, and consumers gladly buying curated experience boxes, it all might culminate with an encapsulated silo park selling all you can eat broadcasting (think one-way directed stream, with consumer only getting to send back analytics). So in a way, Gibson got very many things right, maybe even the core thing. I remember thinking in the 90's "Oh, he got it so wrong, the Internet changes everything". Hah. Alan Kay's "the computer revolution has not happened yet" is more relevant today than ever [1]. It's up to us to change that. [0]I think JWZ (Jaimie Zawinski) spoke about that in "Coders at work", can't find the exact source. [1]PDF: http://worrydream.com/refs/Kay%20-%20The%20Real%20Computer%20Revolution%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Happened%20Yet.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Kay%20-%20The%20Real%20Computer%2... There's also a youtube video of his presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYT2se94eU0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYT2se94eU0
- tshaddox 6y ago
  I don’t really understand. In your TV analogy, what is analogous to looking at HTML source code? Looking at composite video on an oscilloscope? You seem to imply that at one time we had a more open age of TV, but now TV is all locked down, and you’re worried that the same might happen to the Internet and/or computing?
  - jhbadger 6y ago
    Well, there used to be "cable access" shows where you could apply to broadcast your own program to a local audience. People today may be familiar with the concept as a plot point in the movie "Wayne's World". Of course having a Youtube channel in the modern era is a similar concept which can reach a much larger audience.
    - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
ChrisArchitect 6y ago
Blah, might as well mark this (1997). not even the original article from bigthink.com. He's shared many more follow up comments about those predictions and how things are shaping up differently since
- ChrisArchitect 6y ago
  William Gibson says today’s internet is nothing like what he envisioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22861129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22861129

88 points by DanBC 6y ago

Mostly true, but was legalized gradually in the process. That's how things have always been.

Gibson also wrote on how our abilities to predict the future are superbly limited in his 2003 essay In The Visegrips Of Dr Satan: http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com/2003/01/?m=1#90248174 http://williamgibsonblog.blogspot.com/2003/01/?m=1#90248174

Metacelsus 6y ago
I started reading that essay, and then ran into two back-to-back howlers: >The electrons streaming into a child’s eye from the screen of the wooden television are as physical as anything else. As physical as the neurons subsequently moving along that child’s optic nerves.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Gibson doesn't know anything about technology. He's from the school of American SF writing that Stanisław Lem criticised (Lem wrote actual criticism as well as his SF that's in the form of criticism of works that don't actually exist, which was translated as "A Perfect Vacuum"). I don't have much time for this myself, preferring writers to speculate about things they actually know something about - but he's been very successful.
  - 0_____0 6y ago
    It tickles me to know that, for all the future-gazing technology-laden stories he spun, that his seminal novel Neuromancer was composed on a typewriter
  - staticman2 6y ago
    So-called hard science fiction writers do not seem to make more plausible predictions about the future. It's not clear they are even trying to, since plausibility doesn't necessarily mean entertaining. The so called hard science fiction writer just throws some references to math or physics among the implausible world building.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Not sure what's wrong with that sentence. A CRT screen works via an electron gun (cathode) literally shooting an electron beam at the screen; then the screen emits even more electrons towards the viewer and the typical glow is experienced as a side effect of that. The cells that "move along" nerves in the PNS to support neural development are Schwann cells that would not be considered "neurons", but that's a minor slip in terminology. The basics is entirely correct.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The things streaming into the child's eyes are photons. If the electrons from the cathode stream into the child's eyes you're charging the child up with electricity and it'll get a nasty shock when subsequently grounded. So now you've learned what was wrong with that sentence.
- antonvs 6y ago
  His point is still valid, he just used the wrong technical terms. He's a writer, not a scientist. He's writing about how these things impact human life, and details like this don't really matter at that level.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago

It might all still go the way of the TV [0]. We've been seeing the demise of general computing in real time. The current generation may be the last that got to pop the hood on the internal workings of the Internet, from inspecting HTML source of a web-page to disassembly of whatever was running it, if source code was not available (or at least port scanning and possible stack bashing). With corporations doing their best to remove that ability, and consumers gladly buying curated experience boxes, it all might culminate with an encapsulated silo park selling all you can eat broadcasting (think one-way directed stream, with consumer only getting to send back analytics). So in a way, Gibson got very many things right, maybe even the core thing. I remember thinking in the 90's "Oh, he got it so wrong, the Internet changes everything". Hah. Alan Kay's "the computer revolution has not happened yet" is more relevant today than ever [1]. It's up to us to change that. [0]I think JWZ (Jaimie Zawinski) spoke about that in "Coders at work", can't find the exact source. [1]PDF: http://worrydream.com/refs/Kay%20-%20The%20Real%20Computer%20Revolution%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Happened%20Yet.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Kay%20-%20The%20Real%20Computer%2... There's also a youtube video of his presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYT2se94eU0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYT2se94eU0

tshaddox 6y ago
I don’t really understand. In your TV analogy, what is analogous to looking at HTML source code? Looking at composite video on an oscilloscope? You seem to imply that at one time we had a more open age of TV, but now TV is all locked down, and you’re worried that the same might happen to the Internet and/or computing?
- jhbadger 6y ago
  Well, there used to be "cable access" shows where you could apply to broadcast your own program to a local audience. People today may be familiar with the concept as a plot point in the movie "Wayne's World". Of course having a Youtube channel in the modern era is a similar concept which can reach a much larger audience.
  - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago

ChrisArchitect 6y ago

Blah, might as well mark this (1997). not even the original article from bigthink.com. He's shared many more follow up comments about those predictions and how things are shaping up differently since

ChrisArchitect 6y ago
William Gibson says today’s internet is nothing like what he envisioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22861129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22861129