This tweet did numbers late last year (111,700 likes):
Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don’t Create The Torment Nexus
Which is (A) hilarious; and, (B) LET’S RECAP the backstory to this tweet, which is about the metaverse:
In 1992, Neal Stephenson writes Snow Crash set, as least in part, in a huge virtual reality world called the Metaverse… which is an unregulated corporate dystopia. (Here are some quotes from the book if you want a flavour.)
In October 2021, Facebook rebrands itself to Meta and announces that its new mission is to build the metaverse. Lol corporate dystopia etc.
And the thing is that the term “metaverse” is super handy to refer to the concept of: a persistent, social, non-game virtual reality.
Which may be awful (and yes has the potential of awfulness inherent in it) but - in the general sense and not The Corporation Formerly Known As Facebook sense - is pretty cool actually! (My own hope is for something more lo-fi.)
As told in Thomas Rid’s excellent history of cybernetics, Rise of the Machines (Amazon), the German V-1 pilotless rocket was the world’s first cruise missile, immediately dubbed the ‘robot bomb’ by the press.
In secret, anti-artillery guns were equipped with feedback-powered man-machine interfaces to allow for superhuman targeting, firing shells equipped with radar-triggered autonomous fuses, both brand new. It worked incredibly well, bringing down V-1 rockets in flight before they could reach London.
Rid relates this incredible quote, from General Sir Frederick Pile who was in charge of Anti-Aircraft Command, and therefore the V-1 defence:
“Now we saw the beginning of the first battle of the robots,” Pile observed at the time.
1944!
The modern sense of “robot” was at that time only 24 years old, from 1920. I’m amazed at the speed of adoption.
Though to begin with “robot” didn’t just refer to this new technology. There was a whole other layer of meaning… I’ve blogged about the history of “robot” before(2021) but in a nutshell it is this:
The 1920 Czech play Rossum’s Universal Robots is about a class of manufactured, artificial people used as factory workers, treated terribly. The play became hugely popular internationally.
The word “robot” was taken from the Czech robota meaning “forced labour”.
What the play is about, to me, is what happens to us when we have workers who we regard as non-human artefacts (whether they are artificial or not; the warning is general). We ignore their feelings; we behave as monsters; we are consumed by capitalism; we become, ourselves, inhuman.
So the word “robot” didn’t mean autonomous machine originally – or rather, yes, it did mean that but it ALSO meant: these autonomous machines will turn you into a rapacious uncaring capitalist incapable of basic humanity.
And now we use the word free of judgement or implication. A robot is a robot whether we mean a car factory robot arm or a Terminator or a Roomba.
So there’s a process, maybe, where a linguistically useful neologism shucks off any original valence and becomes a purely matter-of-fact signifier?
And this is fine? Or are words always haunted by their originating critiques and ugly origins? Possibly. Dunno.
It is still weird, however, that the all-in-one meal replacement Slimfast-for-bros food startup Soylent appropriated its name from the movie Soylent Green which is all about (SPOILERS) the titular food being made out of actual people.
CODA:
That tweet at the top? I couldn’t remember what it was this morning, so asked about it in vague terms on Twitter and a bunch of people came back to me. (Thanks!) A couple came back without a link but replied simply Torment Nexus.
…which indicates that the term has stuck in people’s heads. It has currency already!
I wonder whether it will end up being what we call this valence-flensing process of invention?
Like, something is invented in fiction which is awful and stupid and awful.
And then someone goes and makes it, and it’s maybe awful and maybe not, but it’s in the world now none-the-less.
And in the future, an observer may encounter a stupid and awful but somehow neat idea in a book and predict its coming, saying “Whoa yeah that cool concept is going to get totally torment-nexused,” with zero irony, for some reason speaking like a 90s tousled surfer dude with bleached blond hair, pale blue eyes half closed against the low evening sun.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it by email or on social media. Here’s the link. Thanks, —Matt.
‘Yes, we’ll see them together some Saturday afternoon then,’ she said. ‘I won’t have any hand in your not going to Cathedral on Sunday morning. I suppose we must be getting back. What time was it when you looked at your watch just now?’ "In China and some other countries it is not considered necessary to give the girls any education; but in Japan it is not so. The girls are educated here, though not so much as the boys; and of late years they have established schools where they receive what we call the higher branches of instruction. Every year new schools for girls are opened; and a great many of the Japanese who formerly would not be seen in public with their wives have adopted the Western idea, and bring their wives into society. The marriage laws have been arranged so as to allow the different classes to marry among[Pg 258] each other, and the government is doing all it can to improve the condition of the women. They were better off before than the women of any other Eastern country; and if things go on as they are now going, they will be still better in a few years. The world moves. "Frank and Fred." She whispered something to herself in horrified dismay; but then she looked at me with her eyes very blue and said "You'll see him about it, won't you? You must help unravel this tangle, Richard; and if you do I'll--I'll dance at your wedding; yours and--somebody's we know!" Her eyes began forewith. Lawrence laughed silently. He seemed to be intensely amused about something. He took a flat brown paper parcel from his pocket. making a notable addition to American literature. I did truly. "Surely," said the minister, "surely." There might have been men who would have remembered that Mrs. Lawton was a tough woman, even for a mining town, and who would in the names of their own wives have refused to let her cross the threshold of their homes. But he saw that she was ill, and he did not so much as hesitate. "I feel awful sorry for you sir," said the Lieutenant, much moved. "And if I had it in my power you should go. But I have got my orders, and I must obey them. I musn't allow anybody not actually be longing to the army to pass on across the river on the train." "Throw a piece o' that fat pine on the fire. Shorty," said the Deacon, "and let's see what I've got." "Further admonitions," continued the Lieutenant, "had the same result, and I was about to call a guard to put him under arrest, when I happened to notice a pair of field-glasses that the prisoner had picked up, and was evidently intending to appropriate to his own use, and not account for them. This was confirmed by his approaching me in a menacing manner, insolently demanding their return, and threatening me in a loud voice if I did not give them up, which I properly refused to do, and ordered a Sergeant who had come up to seize and buck-and-gag him. The Sergeant, against whom I shall appear later, did not obey my orders, but seemed to abet his companion's gross insubordination. The scene finally culminated, in the presence of a number of enlisted men, in the prisoner's wrenching the field-glasses away from me by main force, and would have struck me had not the Sergeant prevented this. It was such an act as in any other army in the world would have subjected the offender to instant execution. It was only possible in—" "Don't soft-soap me," the old woman snapped. "I'm too old for it and I'm too tough for it. I want to look at some facts, and I want you to look at them, too." She paused, and nobody said a word. "I want to start with a simple statement. We're in trouble." RE: Fruyling's World "MACDONALD'S GATE" "Read me some of it." "Well, I want something better than that." HoME大香蕉第一时间
ENTER NUMBET 0016jfljb.net.cn www.hyrlx.com.cn www.lianbangzg.com.cn www.iutyrk.com.cn lcchain.com.cn www.frchain.com.cn pwkutb.com.cn tonger.net.cn www.w88bet.com.cn nmgqzgwy.org.cn
This tweet did numbers late last year (111,700 likes):
Which is (A) hilarious; and, (B) LET’S RECAP the backstory to this tweet, which is about the metaverse:
And the thing is that the term “metaverse” is super handy to refer to the concept of: a persistent, social, non-game virtual reality.
Which may be awful (and yes has the potential of awfulness inherent in it) but - in the general sense and not The Corporation Formerly Known As Facebook sense - is pretty cool actually! (My own hope is for something more lo-fi.)
Linguistically useful, then.
Did “robot” go through the same curve?
ATMs were known back in 1967 as “robot cashiers” (mentioned earlier this week).
Back in 1944, more robots…
As told in Thomas Rid’s excellent history of cybernetics, Rise of the Machines (Amazon), the German V-1 pilotless rocket was the world’s first cruise missile,
In secret, anti-artillery guns were equipped with feedback-powered man-machine interfaces to allow for superhuman targeting, firing shells equipped with radar-triggered autonomous fuses, both brand new. It worked incredibly well, bringing down V-1 rockets in flight before they could reach London.
Rid relates this incredible quote, from General Sir Frederick Pile who was in charge of Anti-Aircraft Command, and therefore the V-1 defence:
1944!
The modern sense of “robot” was at that time only 24 years old, from 1920. I’m amazed at the speed of adoption.
Though to begin with “robot” didn’t just refer to this new technology. There was a whole other layer of meaning… I’ve blogged about the history of “robot” before (2021) but in a nutshell it is this:
What the play is about, to me, is what happens to us when we have workers who we regard as non-human artefacts (whether they are artificial or not; the warning is general). We ignore their feelings; we behave as monsters; we are consumed by capitalism; we become, ourselves, inhuman.
So the word “robot” didn’t mean autonomous machine originally – or rather, yes, it did mean that but it ALSO meant: these autonomous machines will turn you into a rapacious uncaring capitalist incapable of basic humanity.
And now we use the word free of judgement or implication. A robot is a robot whether we mean a car factory robot arm or a Terminator or a Roomba.
So there’s a process, maybe, where a linguistically useful neologism shucks off any original valence and becomes a purely matter-of-fact signifier?
And this is fine? Or are words always haunted by their originating critiques and ugly origins? Possibly. Dunno.
It is still weird, however, that the all-in-one meal replacement Slimfast-for-bros food startup Soylent appropriated its name from the movie Soylent Green which is all about (SPOILERS) the titular food being made out of actual people.
CODA:
That tweet at the top? I couldn’t remember what it was this morning, so asked about it in vague terms on Twitter and a bunch of people came back to me. (Thanks!) A couple came back without a link but replied simply
…which indicates that the term has stuck in people’s heads. It has currency already!
I wonder whether it will end up being what we call this valence-flensing process of invention?
Like, something is invented in fiction which is awful and stupid and awful.
And then someone goes and makes it, and it’s maybe awful and maybe not, but it’s in the world now none-the-less.
And in the future, an observer may encounter a stupid and awful but somehow neat idea in a book and predict its coming, saying “Whoa yeah that cool concept is going to get totally torment-nexused,” with zero irony, for some reason speaking like a 90s tousled surfer dude with bleached blond hair, pale blue eyes half closed against the low evening sun.