3 ms·
> Not many people have Eliot down as an influential player in the history of AI — and they would be right. Her contribution has been for most part overlooked, e
by gwern 2y ago
> Not many people have Eliot down as an influential player in the history of AI — and they would be right. Her contribution has been for most part overlooked, even as folks begin to unpick the role of fiction shaping the trajectory of the AI industry.
It's because it reads mostly as a retread of the far-better known Samuel Butler pieces like _Erewhon_ years before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines was 1863), and which Eliot likely read given her lifestyle & how closely she echoes him. Surprising to see no mention of Butler at all in OP, given what critical context it is - she was not writing in a vacuum.
Some earlier discussion: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/goANJNFBZrgE9PFNk/shadows-of-the-coming-race-1879 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/goANJNFBZrgE9PFNk/shadows-of...
- setgree 2y agoI learned about Butler and his letter from George Dyson's book, "Darwin among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence" -- it's a very entertaining account. Butler was quite a character. (If I recall correctly I learned about Dyson's book from a postscript to Neal Stephenson's "Quicksilver.")
- MichaelZuo 2y agoIt does seem a bit suspicious given the context, as if the author intentionally omitted the background.
- hiatus 2y ago"Good artists copy, great artists steal." -- hiatus
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHow does this relate to the presence or absence of ulterior motives…?