Monday, July 30, 2018

Books (#13)

Two thumbs up to artificial intelligence (AI) invading our laundry rooms: there are now “smart” washing machines that scan the labels on your clothes and automatically select the ideal setting for washing them in the least damaging way possible (does the machine emit a piercing shriek if one tries to sneak a “dry clean only” item into the wash, I wonder?).

Two thumbs down to the idea of a robot pet, although the idea of not having to constantly deal with dog or cat hair is appealing. But that task can be taken care of by your robot vacuum (and hopefully a robot pooper scooper is in the works). Another two thumbs down to robot caregivers. And to robot partners (although possibly an exception can be made in the case of a ménage à trois where deux humans are present)

I’m not sure which way my thumbs are pointing in the case of AI and the arts. Recently, a story titled “Twinkle Twinkle” was published in Wired. The author, Stephen Marché, prefaced the story with this statement: “I enlisted an algorithm to help me write the perfect piece of science fiction. This is our story.” Two editors, blinded to the premise behind the story, were asked to comment on it, and they found it less than perfect. Stupid algorithm.

______“Full of unnecessary detail, wooden, implausible dialog (Who talks like this?), and sentences that don’t actually hold up when you read them carefully. They seem like they hold up, but they don’t. It’s aimless. It uses language to describe things rather than reveal them (flowing “brightly and glamorously,” etc.). That stuff doesn’t sound human—or, better, doesn’t sound writerly. Feels like words on a page.”
ANDY WARD, EDITOR IN CHIEF, RANDOM HOUSE

______“This seems to come from a writer who has an interesting, if still undeveloped, idea and a strong sense of his/her fictional landscape but who hasn’t quite put enough thought into the narrative trajectory of the story or the details of the language, which, line by line, can feel a little pedestrian. There isn’t quite enough character development or narrative movement for this to sustain my interest as a reader. Then again, perhaps this is all setup for a longer story or a novel?”

DEBORAH TREISMAN, FICTION EDITOR, THE NEW YORKER

3 comments:

  1. I love the way your mind works. The author needed to consult you when designing the algorithm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You always bring me totally new knowledge, often that I have no idea how I can possibly use, but for which I am grateful!

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's a Love and Sex with Robots Conference. Hunh.

    ReplyDelete