In article <nebusj.1198009183@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) said:

> -[1] Am I overlooking really blindingly obvious bits or has the
> gimmick of psychohistory been left nearly exclusively to Asimov
> and folks writing Asimov pastiche?

There was Barry B. Longyear's intensely depressing SEA OF GLASS in
1986. The predicting agent there was an Nth generation
AI/supercomputer[1] operated ("obeyed" would be a better word) by
the U.S. government that was, at least allegedly, manipulating human
events in order to prevent a Last War. Of course, part of the
problem was that no human being was remotely capable of following
its reasoning.

*1: That is, it had been designed by a slightly less-advanced
computer, which had been designed by one slightly less advanced
than it, et cetera for N iterations before you get back to a
system that had actually been designed -- and understood -- by
any H saps.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)
: There was Barry B. Longyear's intensely depressing SEA OF GLASS in
: 1986. The predicting agent there was an Nth generation
: AI/supercomputer[1] operated ("obeyed" would be a better word) by
: the U.S. government that was, at least allegedly, manipulating human
: events in order to prevent a Last War. Of course, part of the
: problem was that no human being was remotely capable of following
: its reasoning.

Yes, that one has the parable of the Answer, when somebody asked it to
state its reasons for a single action. Note that this is not really
related to psychohistory, despite the surface similarity (eg, predicting
what people will do), because psychohistory is based on large numbers of
people being treatable as a continuous entity with some equations
governing its evolution. Said equations (at least before Asimov got
carried away with rowboats and umpires), were easily comprehendable to a
human. The SOG AI made no simplifying assumptions about what large groups
of people will do, but rather, brute-forced it. Ie, had scripts laid out
for every human, cradle to grave (well... with contingencies, and corrections,
which normally meant a government agent sent out to terminate somebody).

Sheffield's "Dark as Day" had a similar situation... or maybe
intermediate between the two, in which a simulation off human society
could be run; it wouldn't predict *the* lifetime actions of any
individual human, but it was supposed to be based on ... well, go read
it for yourself I suppose, I didn't find it fully plausible as with much
Sheffield. Dark as Day is a Megachirops story, and so worthwhile on that
account as well. And the setting is interesting; in updated terms, there
was a War, in which at least portions of humanity seem to have pretty
much Transcended. At the very least, numerous seemingly-transcendent
artifacts were produced and stockpiled. <fx voice=strangelovve>
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely.</fx> Ahem.
The people who survived (as far as anyone knows) have lost the ability to produce such tech. So far. But they keep running into caches of war
materials and/or ammunition dumps and/or whatnot with technologies
far enough beyond them that there are some artifacts nobody really
understands, which show up, and (genie in a bottle style) get used.
The Commensals, and the... hrm... what to call them... nanoscale Black
Monoliths for example.

DaD of course reminds of of Frederick Pohl's "Man Plus", where computers
allegedly predict what humans are going to do by running complicated
simulations. But it turns out the network had spawned an emergent AI
that humans weren't aware of, and it was lying with the simulation
results. Which of course reminds of of Frederick Pohl's "Man Plus",
where computers allegedly predict what humans are going to do by running
complicated simulations. But it turns out the network had spawned an
emergent AI that humans weren't aware of, and it was lying with the
simulation results. Hrm, actuallly, come to think of it, that was
written so long ago I don't there there was a "network" as such.
More like P1, long after adolescence.

Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On 19 Dec 2007 04:08:44 -0500, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)
wrote:

> *1: That is, it had been designed by a slightly less-advanced
> computer, which had been designed by one slightly less advanced
> than it, et cetera for N iterations before you get back to a
> system that had actually been designed -- and understood -- by
> any H saps.

It's not like any one H. Sap. understands your PC from back to front,
either.

Jasper