LLMs are statistical models trained on human-generated text. They aren't the perfectly logical "machine brains" that Asimov and others imagined.
The upshot of this is that LLMs are quite good at the stuff that he thinks only humans will be able to do. What they aren't so good at (yet) is really rigorous reasoning, exactly the opposite of what 20th century people assumed.
I've only read the first Foundation novel by Asimov. But what you write applies equally well to many other Golden Age authors e.g. Heinlein and Bradbury, plus slightly later writers like Clarke. I doubt there was much in the way of autism awareness or diagnosis at the time, but it wouldn't be surprising if any of these landed somewhere on the spectrum.
Alfred Bester's "The stars my destination" stands out as a shining counterpoint in this era. You don't get much character development like that in other works until the sixties imo.
[The italics and punctuation suggest your comment is sarcastic, but I'm going to treat it as serious just in case.]
Yeah, I'd say characterisation is a weakness of his. I've read Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, and Double Star. Heinlein does explore characters more than, say, Clark, but he doesn't go much for internal change or emotional growth. His male characters typically fall into one of two cartoonish camps: either supremely confident, talented, intelligent and independent (e.g. Jubal, Bernardo, Mannie, Bonforte...) or vaguely pathetic and stupid (e.g. moon men). His female characters are submissive, clumsily sexualised objects who contribute very little to the plot. There are a few partial exceptions - e.g. Lorenzo in Double Star and female pilots in Starship Troopers - but the general atmosphere is one of teenage boy wish fulfilment.
Thank you for confirming, especially at such effort, when a simple "No, I haven't; I just spend too much time uncritically reading feminism Twitter," would have amply sufficed. There's an honesty to this response in spite of itself, and in spite of itself I respect that.
I sincerely have no idea if any of your comments in this thread are sarcastic or not. (This comment is also not sarcastic FYI).
Generally, I also agree that Heinlein's characters are one dimensional and could benefit from greater character growth, though that was a bit of a hallmark of Golden Age sci-fi.
Not sure if it will help me saying this, but that's a disappointingly dismissive and avoidant response well below HN standards. I'm very willing to engage with any counter-arguments in good faith. I don't use Twitter (or Mastodon, or BlueSky, or TikTok, or Facebook, or Threads etc...), but I do enjoy discussing sci fi of different periods on Goodreads groups.
It seems filthy rich of you to claim good faith at this time, but I have recently begun to gather that in some quarters lately, it is considered offensively unreasonable to expect working knowledge of any material as a prerequisite for participating competently in discussion thereof. So though your claim is facially false, I ironically can't fairly consider that it is other than honestly made. Your precepts are in any case your problem. Good luck with it, you Hacker News expert.
"Teenage boy wish fulfillment" is well beneath any reasonable standard of criticism, and I've addressed that with about as much respect as it deserves.
There is much worthy of critique in Heinlein, especially in his depiction of women. I've spent about a quarter century off and on both reading and formulating such critiques, much more recently than I've spent meaningful time with his fiction. I've also read what he had to say for himself before he died, and what Mrs. Heinlein - she kept the name - said about him after. If we want to talk about, for example, how the themes of maternal incest and specifically feminine embodiment of weakly superhuman AGI in his later work reflect a degree of senescence and the wish for a supercompetent maternal figure to whom to surrender the burden of responsibility, or if we want to talk about how Heinlein seems to spend an enormous amount of time just generally exploring stuff from female characters' perspectives that an honest modern inquiry would recognize as fumbling badly but earnestly in the direction of something like a contemporary understanding of gender, then we could talk about that.
No one wants to, though. You can't use anything like that as a stick to beat people with, so it never gets a look in, and those as here who care nothing for anything of the subject save if it looks serviceable as a weapon claim to be the only ones in the talk who are honest. They don't know the man's work well enough to talk about the years he spent selling stories that absolutely revolve around character development, which exist solely to exemplify it! Of course these are universally dismissed as his 'juveniles' - a few letters shy of 'juvenilia' - because science fiction superfans are all children and so are science fiction superhaters, neither of whom knows how to respond in any way better than a tantrum on the rare occasion of being told bluntly it's well past time they grew up.
But they're the honest ones. Why not? So it goes. It's a conversation I know better than to try to have, especially on Hacker News; if I don't care for how it's proceeding, I've no one but myself to blame.
Excuse me for giving the impression of a pedant, but do you mean Clarke, as in Arthur C., there? I've been trying since I first read your comment to puzzle out to whom by that name you could possibly be referring in this context, and it's only just dawned on me to wonder if you simply have not bothered to learn the spelling of the name you intended to mention.
> Yes, that Clarke. Sorry for putting you to the extra effort. I spelled it correctly in the initial post you replied to. Guess I assumed that people would spot the back-reference.
In entire fairness, I was distracted by you having said he and his contemporaries must all have been autistic, as if either you yourself were remotely competent to embark upon any such determination, or as though it would in some way indict their work if they were.
I'm sure you would never in a million years dare utter "the R-slur" in public, though I would guess that in private the violation of taboo is thrilling. That's fine as far as it goes, but you really should not expect to get away with pretending you can just say "autistic" to mean the same thing and have no one notice, you blatantly obvious bigot.
> I'd be happy to receive any pointers on how I'm wrong - perhaps I've misinterpreted what I've read, or there are characters in the rest of his work that defy my stance.
If you meant that honestly, you would already have found ample directions for further research, easily enough not to need asking. Everything you claim to want lies just a Google search away, on any of the various and I should hope fairly easily identifiable search terms I have mentioned. "It is not my job to educate you."
Or, rather, it would still not be my job even if to learn were what you really want here. You don't, of course. That's why you haven't bothered so much as trying a few searches that might turn up something you would have to pretend to have read. Much easier to try to make me look emotionally unstable - 'defy?' Really. - because you can't actually answer anything I've said and you know it. Good luck with that, too.
I've read the books, mulled them over, discussed them with others, and done some reading of what other critics have to say online. I've given my opinion and some of the reasoning behind it. If you want more of my reasoning I'm happy to give it. You have given nothing in response. It feels a lot like you've jumped to conclusions because my opinion is very different to yours. So you've immediately decided not to engage but are nevertheless hellbent on making me out to be uninformed or stupid.
We've clearly got off on the wrong foot here. I don't want to make out like I think Heinlein is crap. He had a lot of fantastic, creative ideas about science, technology, culture, sexuality and governance. He was extremely daring and sometimes quite subtle in the way he explored those ideas. But - in the novels I've read - his characters lack a certain depth and relatability. They express very little of the self-doubt, empathy, growth, and deep-seated motivations that are core to the human condition. So it goes also with Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, and others. And it's fine that those weren't their strong suits. They had other strengths. And there were other writers like Bester, Dick, Le Guin, Zelazny, Herbert etc... who could fill the gaps.
Herbert for better gender and emotional politics than Heinlein. Herbert! And to think I imagined there was nothing left you could say to surprise me.
Don't expect me to stop discussing what your behavior displays of your character, just because you've finally shown the modicum of rhetorical sense or tactical cunning required to minimally amend that behavior. Again, if you actually meant even a fraction of what you say, you would now be reading instead of still speaking. If it bothers you that you continue to indict yourself by your actions this way, consider acting differently.
Should you at any future point opt to develop a thesis in this area which is capable of supporting knowledgeable discussion, I confide it will find an audience in accord with its quality. In the meantime, please stop inviting me to participate in the project of recovering your totally unforced embarrassment.
Believe it or not by the look of things, I already have enough else to do today. Wiping your nose as you struggle and fail to learn from your vastly overprivileged young life's first encounter with entirely merited and obviously unmitigated contempt doesn't really make the list, at least not past the point at which it ceases to amuse, which I admit is now fast approaching.
> Fuck off, you condescending prick.
Ah, here we go. I understand why you're using a fresh throwaway for this sort of thing, of course. Can't risk being seen for no better than you have to be, eh? But this at least - and, I strongly suspect, at last - is honest.
You can't abuse me in any way you're wise or sensible enough to imagine finding, so now you'll go mistreat someone inside the span of your arm's reach, blaming me all the while for your own infantile urge to do so. I wish you every bit as much joy of it as you deserve. And I hope they know your current Hacker News handle.
In Dune there are female characters with their own desires and designs on the world, who go out and take what they want. There is profound loss, and personal transformation. There is coming to terms with intensely sad or painful circumstances. There is overcoming doubt, building resilience, and taking responsibility and control of one's destiny. These things were not really explored in what I've read of Heinlein.
> Bye, asshole.
If you didn't want to prove me right when I said six hours ago [1] that you were throwing a tantrum, why continue throwing the tantrum?
[1] >>43655066
> These things were not really explored in what I've read of Heinlein.
I don't know how much further you expect me to need to boil down "read more" and still be able to take you seriously. How do you expect that, when you haven't even bothered trying to justify how you chose those four novels to represent forty years?
I see that 'seriously' very much describes how you like to regard yourself. You've insisted most thoroughly others must regard you likewise, regardless of what you show yourself anywhere near capable of actually rewarding or indeed even appreciating. Do you have a favorable impression of your efforts thus far? Have they had the results that you hoped?
We would now be having a different conversation if you had said anything to suggest to me it would be worth my trouble to continue in the attempt. I'd have enjoyed that conversation, I think; as most days here, I had hopes of learning something new. You've felt the need to spend the day doing this instead. If you don't like how that's working out, whom fairly may you blame?
> At this point I'm mostly just intrigued to see whether you'll keep replying and whether you'll make any substantial points.
Every substantive point I've actually made all day you have totally ignored, and this is what it's worth your time still to do. But sure. You can stop paying me rent to live in your head any time you like. Keep telling yourself that. I don't doubt you need to, to get through a day.
Also, 122d40d7236cd3ade496d0101d8029ec.
And then it turns out that having taken bits and bites out of my entire mortal day, to pursue this pointless argument with you, was just what I needed even if nothing at all what I wanted. It put me in a state of mind where I could find some kind words to say to my family that I think some folks there may have been quite a bit, if in a small way, needing to hear for a while.
That's not even slightly to your credit, of course. But I can't fairly say you weren't involved, and I have to admit I genuinely appreciate this result, however inadvertent and I'm sure unimaginable on your part it may be. So, though I say it through gritted teeth, thank you for your time. If for absolutely nothing else whatsoever, for that at least I must express my genuine gratitude.
Intolerable though you've been throughout, and despite what I assume to have been your every intention, something good may yet come of your ill efforts. You deserve to know that. May it heap as many coals of fire on your head as your heart should prove small enough to deserve.
> Substantive as in about Heinlein's work, rather than attacks on me or my motivations.
We could have done that fifteen hours ago [1], or eleven hours ago [2], or nine hours ago [3] [4], or any time you wanted. You haven't. What's changed?
[1] >>43655066
[2] >>43657766
[3] >>43659136
[4] >>43659187
I've given you lots of opportunity to offer a defense to the points I raised in my first reply to you. I've offered to go into more detail. I've contrasted Heinlein's work with contemporaneous works. Saying "you should go and read more" is not compelling, especially given the amount of effort you've expended to avoid saying anything of substance. I wonder if you feel insecure about whether such a defense is possible.
> I've given you lots of opportunity to offer a defense to the points I raised in my first reply to you...Saying "you should go and read more" is not compelling...I wonder if you feel insecure about whether such a defense is possible.
No, you don't. I've said nothing I need defend, and you've said nothing you can. It would be one thing if I had to say not to piss on my boots and tell me it's raining, but this doesn't even count as pissing. It's just you repeating yourself from yesterday and that's boring for both of us.
"You are a bigot" is a factual claim I have made [1], now quite a number of hours and comments ago. You haven't addressed it. You won't. You can't. You have no choice now but to let it stand. You have shown it more true than even you yourself can pretend to ignore. You need someone to tell you it isn't really true, in a way you can believe. No one is here to tell you that.
There are other embarrassments, of course; you've shown yourself not a tenth the scholar you fancy yourself to be, nor able to handle yourself even slightly in the face of someone who needs nothing from you and cares neither for nor against you. You would care more that I called you an abuser, but you don't see the people you try to treat that way as human. So what you're really stuck on is that I called you a bigot and you can't answer back. Hence still finding it worth your while to try to talk me into letting you off that hook.
Sorry, not sorry. Go back to bed. Read a book while you're there, why don't you? It might help you sleep.
edit: You also haven't explained what makes those four books you named as exemplary as you called them. Can you describe the common thread? I ask because I actually have read them, in no case fewer than three times, and they really haven't all that much in common. Oh, by the same author, certainly. But you've only dropped names. You haven't tried to draw any comparisons or demonstrate anything by the rhetorical juxtaposition of those characters, though I grant you keep insisting it must count for something that you listed them. You haven't, so far as I can see, discussed or even mentioned a single event in the plot of any of those novels. For all the nothing you've had to say with any actual reference to them, even the few texts you named might as well not exist!
It is extremely risible at this time of you to try to claim you are the one here interested in talking about Heinlein. If there were a God, it would not be safe to tell a lie of that magnitude near a church. But no matter. To get back to the first question I asked here just above: Did anyone actually explain to you why those four should be the first and last of Heinlein worth talking about? Did you ever think to ask? Or was it that they were part of an assignment? - you turned in a paper and assumed the passing grade meant you must have learned something by the transaction, and that for you was where the matter and all semblance of curiosity ended.
I hope it isn't that last one. I already believed firmly that student loan relief was the correct action both ethically and economically; as I have said in other quarters lately, it is not possible for you to be enough of an asshole to change my politics. But if this is you recapitulating something you paid to be taught - if you're currently pursuing or God forfend have completed an American university education, and the best approximation of clear thought you can manage is this - then whoever sold you and your family that bill of goods ought damn well be horsewhipped, and that they merely see the loan annulled instead would be a considerable mercy.
[1] >>43657766
I meant that you might offer a defense of Heinlein against my initial points: for example, that there's a strong element of wish fulfilment in his characters. This is neither an extreme nor an uncommon critique. You clearly disagree with it quite strongly. I just want to know what about it you personally find unconvincing.
You ask what I find unconvincing. I'm happy to further oblige you:
> His male characters typically fall into one of two cartoonish camps: either supremely confident, talented, intelligent and independent (e.g. Jubal, Bernardo, Mannie, Bonforte...) or vaguely pathetic and stupid (e.g. moon men). His female characters are submissive, clumsily sexualised objects who contribute very little to the plot. There are a few partial exceptions - e.g. Lorenzo in Double Star and female pilots in Starship Troopers - but the general atmosphere is one of teenage boy wish fulfilment.
"Cartoonish." "Pathetic." "Stupid." "Submissive." "Clumsily sexualized." "Teenage boy." 'Moon men' - you mean Loonies? And this all was you yesterday [1]. How far do you really expect to get with this farcical pantomime of sweet reason now? I ask again: What's changed?
This all began when I said you obviously hadn't read what you claimed to have [2], and it got so far up your nose you couldn't help going and proving me right. You've made a lot more bad decisions since then, but don't worry: I'll keep reminding you as long as you show you need me to that you can amend your behavior at any time.
[1] >>43651479 →
[2] >>43649293
Okay. Before you do so and for no particular reason, I feel I should note two things.
First, assuming you are not in fact a public figure, I will not publicly reveal your identity or any information I believe could lead to its disclosure, and that is exactly as far into my confidence as you may expect to come. That caveat excepted, I hereby explicitly disclaim any presumption you may have of privacy in any communication you make with me via email or other nonpublic means.
I won't dox you. I understand it isn't as safe for everyone as for me to have their name in the world. And I'm not saying I intend to publish all, or indeed any, of what you send; if it deserves in my view to remain in confidence, I will keep it so. But if you think taking this conversation to email will give you a chance to play games where no one else can see, you had better think twice.
(Should you by any of several plausible means dig up my phone number and try giving me a call, I hereby explicitly advise that any such action on your part constitutes "prior consent" per Md. Code §10–402 [1], and I will exercise my option under that law without further notice.)
Second, there exists an organization with which I have a legal agreement, binding on all our various heirs and assigns, to the effect we are quits forever. I will refer to this company as "Name Redacted for Legal Reasons" or "Name Redacted" for short, and describe it as the brainchild of a fascinating and tight-knit group of siblings, any of the three (technically four) of whom I'd have liked the chance to know better than I did.
I will also note, not for the first time, that I signed that agreement in entire good faith which has endured from that day through this, and I earnestly believe the same of my counterparty both collectively, and in the individual and separate persons of those who represented Name Redacted to me throughout that process as well as through my prior period of employment.
Now, if I were an employee of Name Redacted for Legal Reasons, and I had started a day's worth of shit in public with a signatory of such an agreement as I describe - that is, if I had acted in a way which could be construed to compromise my employer's painstakingly arrived-upon mutual quitclaim - then the very last thing I would ever want to do would be to allow to come into existence documentary evidence of my possibly somewhat innocent but certainly very grave foolishness. Because if that did happen, I would understand I R. May confidently expect very soon to become 'the most fired-for-causedest person in the history of fuck.'
As I said, I signed in good faith. In that same good faith, what choice really would I have but to privately disclose in full detail? It would be irresponsible of me to assume this was the only problem such intemperate behavior might be creating for Name Redacted, any or all of which might be far more consequential than this.
I'm sure at this point I'm only talking to hear myself speak, though. In any case, I look forward to your email.
[1] https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?arti...
For posterity, I repeat here my entire response to your email, omitting only the signature where no new information is present:
> Is that all? You mistake your opinions for facts, and when motivated you freely ignore the difference between an author's voice and that of a viewpoint character. This you share with millions, and feel the need to be secretive about? I thought you had something serious to talk about. Go away.
No, I acknowledge that there's a good few paragraphs more of the superficial, doctrinaire nonsense you have been parroting than was immediately obvious to me here. Enough to be worth pasting through GPTZero, more than enough to say anything novel or interesting, and what a shame you never got there.
One example to shut you up: about the first thing every serious critic of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress addresses is that it's intentionally and explicitly written with about two-thirds of an eye toward the American "revolution" - hence the correspondences between Professor de la Paz and Benjamin Franklin (with a generous dash of Jefferson) on the one hand, and Mannie as an obvious George Washington expy on another. These are intentional similarities! Heinlein mentions it explicitly in Expanded Universe (don't hold me to that, it may have been in Grumbles from the Grave) and it's treated at length in one or another of the crit histories I've read, or maybe it was the Patterson biography, I'm not reading back hundreds of pages of diary notes for your lazy ass. It may have been the novel's own preface! He was intentionally loose with the correspondences, both in character and in plot, for narrative and didactic reasons, and that has proven a fruitful vein for both critical analysis and outright criticism over the years, and you can't even talk about any of it. You didn't notice any of this. Because you never learned the difference between looking at books and reading them. I'm sure you looked at every page, though!
These essays of yours are, generously, on the level of a college freshman who parties too much, studies too little, and treats English as a dump course. I did more thoughtful work as a high-school senior. For this you feel the need to be secretive? What a joke. Get lost, flyweight.
Just to note; it would be really helpful if you could ease up on the ad hominem. It's not going to stop me and doesn't add to the weight of your arguments. It just drags the discussion down and makes it harder to figure out what your arguments are
> These are intentional similarities!
I said that there are "clear comparisons" to the American revolution. I didn't suggest that the comparison was accidental. If anything, I assumed it was supposed to be read that way.
> One example to shut you up
Well, you've failed there. Perhaps we should focus on the cause of your initial outrage: Heinlein's (lack of) character depth?
> For this you feel the need to be secretive?
It's privacy rather than secrecy. I don't want it to be too easy to link this account to my Goodreads.
I've now gone through two well-known pieces of critical analysis of Heinlein's work, and found that they broadly (and in places exactly) agree with my initial sentiment. Far from "feminist twitter", they are written by serious science fiction critics during Heinlein's lifetime. Below are some quoations and references. I have yet to find compelling evidence to the contrary in my research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Heinlein's male characters may be divided into two categories: the competent and the incompetent. The incompetents are of little use in the practical world. They function mainly as caricatures for purposes of contrast, satire, and humor, and include such types as the spoiled brat, the jellyfish father, the pompous blowhard, and the bungling meddler. The competent male characters are divided into two types: the stock competent and the Heinlein hero.
> There are a goodly share of failures due to Heinlein's discomfort, and his subsequent exclusion of emotions and arm's-length distancing of the intimate.
> The Heinlein heroine ... stands as a—pardon the expression—male chauvinist tribute to the hero, implying that women—even such as the heroine—enjoy being dominated. ... Heinlein himself could not break away from his own emotional attachment to the obedient female.
Ronald Sarti. “Variations on a Theme: Human Sexuality in the Work of Robert A. Heinlein.” (1978)
https://www.enotes.com/topics/robert-heinlein-61736/criticis...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is totally a story of process rather than character. Heinlein has always been more interested in how machines and societies work than in why people act, and this is probably more true of this novel than any of his others. And it is the center of what is wrong with it as a story ... Heinlein has always had a weakness for forcing emotion, possibly because his characters themselves are unemotional. When Heinlein wants us to approve a character or a position, or to feel moved, instead of giving us a natural emotional reason growing out of the story or, alternatively, underplaying, he is all too likely to try to find a button in us to push.
> Heinlein's concern with his religion [in Stranger In A Strange Land] is so great, unfortunately, that he lets all character development go hang. Mike Smith is lessened by his super powers. ... Jubal Harshaw, too, is lessened by his super powers -- doctor, lawyer, etc.; his multiple training seems a gratuitous gift from Heinlein without reason or explanation. He redeems himself somewhat by his crusty nature, but I find him suspect. He is too pat. Some of the minor characters have life at the beginning of the story and then lose it, overcome by the flood of talk that engulfs the last half of the novel. Which secretary sleeps with Mike his first time out? They are so lacking in definition that it is impossible to tell. Jill Boardman supposedly loves Ben Caxton, but won't sleep with him. She will, however, go off around the country with Mike on a sleep-in basis. Why? I can't say. At any time it would not surprise me for her to unscrew her foot and stick it in her ear -- she is capable of anything. Ben Caxton's motivations are equally unclear.
> Basically, Heinlein has used the same general characters in story after story, and has kept these characters limited ones. ... There is one unique and vivid human Heinlein character, but he is a composite of Joe-Jim Gregory, Harriman, Waldo, Lazarus Long, Mr. Kiku and many others, rather than any one individual. I call the composite the Heinlein Individual. ... Outside of this Heinlein Individual, there is usually a small supporting cast of side men in any one book. Their most striking feature is their competence, reflecting that of the Heinlein Individual. Beyond that, however, hardly any attempt is made to individualize them, for, after all, they are no more than supporting characters, and if lead characters are not described, what can be expected for less important players? After this small circle, Heinlein ordinarily relies on caricature, and he has a number of set pieces which he produces as needed.
Alexei Panshin. "Heinlein In Dimension" (1968)
https://www.panshin.com/critics/Dimension/hdcontents.html#Co...
All I'm looking for is some reasoning about why you think I'm wrong. Something that goes beyond fallacies such as "because it's not what I think" or "you're clearly a bigot" or "you must need to read more".
I've attempted to do some more reading of Heinlein analysis and am finding that it generally agrees with what I said (see >>43703348). Would be interested t osee if you are anymore willing to engage now.