SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

This is the final thoughts thread for I, Robot. This thread will contain spoilers.

This book was amazing. I loved Mike and Gary(? I'm awful with names) and how they always got out of jams.
the idea of a robotic mayor was awesome and added a bit of mystery in my opinion to part of the book.
as for the ending I found it a bit confusing and a lot of it went over my head. The conclusion, however, that robots now controlled the fate of humanity, was chilling.
Asimov at his best, giving us an amazingly entertaining story and a deep message.

I read this a couple of years ago, and was impressed by Asimov's writing and the intellectual level of some of the stories. But I thought it got off to a rocky start. My review of it is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I did enjoy reading this. I really enjoyed thinking about the implications ‘Evidence’ and ‘The Evitable Conflict’ brought to light. That being said, I kept tripping over the character Susan Calvin. I just couldn’t get my head around the need for a robot-psychologist.

When you think about how dependent we are on computers it is not far from humanity controlled by robots. Those running things in the book are called brains. The last time we had a big system outage at work it was chaotic. We depend on the computer so much. Some people had trouble functioning.

The robots had such human flaws.

Interesting ending, concerning what is really best for humanity, and how a machine would determine that.

I just finished it. I enjoyed it as a diversion, but not enough to make me want to pick up the next Robot book right away.

I'm beginning to suspect that I'm just not a fan of short stories. The format just doesn't lend itself to the sort of storytelling I enjoy.

Jill wrote: "I just couldn’t get my head around the need for a robot-psychologist."

It helped me to remind myself that Asimov wrote these stories before computers were invented (view spoiler)[or to be more precise, anything we would recognize as a computer, since they did have massive multi-million-dollar "computers" with about the computing power of a modern coffee-maker (hide spoiler)]. When he came up with "positronic brains", he was extrapolating from actual brains, not computers.

I had to expand my suspension of disbelief a bit to encompass this alternate reality, but I was ultimately fine with it after the third story or so.

Some background: at the time he wrote the first stories, the public had taken a great interest in robots, and what they could do, along with futuristic technology in general. Computers had been talked about for years, and rudimentary machines for businesses (IBM products) were already in use. A robot simulation was presented at the New York World's Fair in 1939, along with television, and the first general purpose electronic computer was built in 1941. Asimov kept up with science and technology, and probably subscribed to Popular Science Magazine as well. So the public was already expecting great things to come, and Science Fiction provided a channel for it. Asimov's stories had enough imagination and intuition to explore both the good and bad possibilities of all of this new technology. They were often short on characterization, but all anybody cared about at that time was the new stuff they could have in the future.

Thanks for the interesting insight! The prologue does contain the text:

All that had been done in the mid-twentieth century on "calculating machines" had been upset by Robertson and his positronic brain-paths. The miles of relays and photocells had given way to the spongy globe of plantinumiridium about the size of a human brain."

"Miles of relays" is an accurate description of a 1940s "calculating machine".

Nitpick: if you're talking about the the 1941 Z3 computer as the first "general purpose electronic computer", I think calling it that is a bit of an embellishment, though. I think it would be fairer to give that title to the 1946 ENIAC.

Most sources do cite the ENIAC as the first modern computer, but many computer applications made their way into the hardware during WWII, and even the B-29's guns were aimed with the help of such hardware—though it was undoubtedly primitive. They also devised a computer-type application to decode Hitler's Enigna device. And, from what I've read concerning the Z3 computer, it seems to qualify, although 17th-century mechanical computers might also qualify if the definition is stretched far enough. Those calculating machines did have miles of relays and wiring, but the ENIAC was built a couple of years before the invention of the transistor, and it was a chore to keep all of those vacuum tubes working. Interesting topic.

Edit from Wikipedia: ENIAC's development and construction lasted from 1943 to full operation at the end of 1945. The machine was huge, weighing 30 tons, using 200 kilowatts of electric power and contained over 18,000 vacuum tubes, 1,500 relays, and hundreds of thousands of resistors, capacitors, and inductors.

Second edit: I wrote "Hitler's ENIAC device" when I meant to say "Enigma" device.

My degree was in computer science, so my definition is a bit wonkish.

My rationale for saying the ENIAC should get the credit for being the first "computer" was going to be that the ENIAC was the first computer with capabilities equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. A Universal Turing Machine is a Turing Machine which, given enough memory and the right software, can simulate any other Turing Machine including any other Universal Turing Machine. This in turn means that with enough memory and the right software it could in theory run any program that any modern computer could run (albeit very, very slowly).

Being a Universal Turing Machine is what differentiates what we think of as a "computer" from lesser Turing Machines which don't have the capability to compute everything that a Universal Turing Machine can. Such machines are restricted in their fundamental capabilities. That's probably why ENIAC usually gets called "first", at least by computer scientists.

But now that you mention it, Wikipedia says that in 1998, it was shown that the Z3 actually is equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine, using a trick that hadn't been previously known.

From the paper:

We can therefore say that, from an abstract theoretical perspective, the computing model of the Z3 is equivalent to the computing model of today's computers. From a practical perspective, and from the way the Z3 was really programmed, it was not equivalent to modern computers.

I am of course aware that these conclusions are curious enough to re ignite the whole discussion about the invention of the computer.

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/users/rojas/1997/Universal_Computer.pdf

So I stand corrected! The Z3 could be fairly called the first.

Great information! Thanks.

Ken wrote: "Some background: at the time he wrote the first stories, the public had taken a great interest in robots, and what they could do, along with futuristic technology in general. Computers had been talked about for years, and rudimentary machines for businesses (IBM products) were already in use."

This is really helpful. I knew I was reading the stories out of context, and they seemed so silly in that regard, but I found myself unable to imagine a world without computers. Its a completely different world, in such a short period of time.

In context, these stories are really amazing. The foresight and imagination to come up with these scenarios. To me, that makes the last story especially brilliant (if a little clumsy in execution), to not just imagine the widespread use of computers, but what that might mean for humanity. Impressive.

Jen wrote: "to not just imagine the widespread use of computers, but what that might mean for humanity. Impressive."

Yes, his vision was what most impressed me about this book. He not only came up with all of these implications, but he evolved the implications over a half-century story arc that he wrote in separate short stories over 10 years. Here is what I wrote in my review:

"I don't know if Dr. Asimov had the whole thing planned out when he first started writing these, (the way he gradually reveals society's acceptance of robots speaks to that, for example) or if he evolved as the stories did over time, but there is a coherency here that I rarely see across short story collections and places this book in a very select category of honor."

I really enjoyed the stories. Knowing the time and tech in which the stories were written, I found them to be remarkably visionary. But, best of all, they are full of great story telling.

Ken wrote: "Some background: at the time he wrote the first stories, the public had taken a great interest in robots, and what they could do, along with futuristic technology in general. Computers had been tal..."

This context coupled with the fear of industrialisation putting people out of work was often on my mind when reading I, robot for what was the first time for me.

The collection starts off with a story of the irrationality of fearing robots and then follows it up with story after story of justifying said fears. At least that's how I read it.

Do you need to fundamentally believe that humans are the rightful rulers of their domain to really enjoy the ideas explored in this?

I've read 3 stories so far (Robbie, Runaround, and Reason). Started Catch That Rabbit.

I have so much fun with this book. I love to read old-school SF to see how authors have imagined the future. These days their future (they focus on in books) is frequently our past, so it is even more interesting.

In the first story, there is this fascinating mix of futuristic elements and the fifties mentality. Robots and the father reading a newspaper on the couch on Sunday afternoon, expecting his wife won't bother him with her housewife's problems.

Paperback books and sandwiches with lettuce in space were surprising from the modern point of view.

Today I've read some news about Tesla Bot and I thought "Oh boy, it's starting now!".

Does anyone know if it was Asimov who created the term "bug" as a software bug? Or it was used before in this meaning. The first sentences of Catch That Rabbit made me wonder.

Aga wrote: "Does anyone know if it was Asimov who created the term "bug" as a software bug? Or it was used before in this meaning. "

From this article: https://interestingengineering.com/th...

The first recorded use of the term "bug", with regards to an error or malfunction in a machine, comes from none other than Thomas Edison. In an 1878 letter to an associate (which was sold at auction in 2018), he noted:

“You were partly correct, I did find a ‘bug’ in my apparatus, but it was not in the telephone proper. It was of the genus ‘callbellum.’ The insect appears to find conditions for its existence in all call apparatus of telephones.”

Wow! Edison. Thank you Chris.

Aga wrote: "... Does anyone know if it was Asimov who created the term "bug" as a software bug? Or it was used before in this meaning. The first sentences of Catch That Rabbit made me wonder."

As Chris mentions "bug" has been associated with engineering since the late 1800s. It shows up fairly frequently in the '30s and '40s. One example: A letter from the director of the Manhattan Project asking for staff to help with "debugging."

The first published real-world use in connection with computers and programming was said to be due to a moth found in a computer relay in 1947: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/th.... That moth made it into the Smithsonian (more than most of us can claim).

Asimov's use predates that by a few years.

My ratings for the stories are:

Robbie - 3
Runaround - 2
Reason - 3
Catch the Rabbit - 2
Liar! - 3
Little Lost Robot - 2
Escape! - 2
Evidence - 3
The Evitable Conflict - 1

"Robbie" was a good start. Many of us have become attached to computers and even less capable machines. They are like loyal friends who don't judge us and are very good at doing their limited tasks. So we can sympathize with Gloria and her love for Robbie. The parents were cringeworthy stereotypes of the domestic couple at the time of writing, but their opposed attitudes of optimism and pessimism still ring true.

"Runaround," "Catch the Rabbit," "Little Lost Robot," and "Escape!" all followed the same formula: problematic robot behavior, discovery of an unintended consequence of one or more of the Three Laws of Robotics (or variations) in that situation, and a solution based on the insight. These are cerebral puzzles, and I couldn't feel much tension--insufficiently visceral for a story.

"Reason" followed the formula, but the robot's challenge to how highly we think of ourselves hits home. An idea can carry a story only so far, but it was a good idea.

"Liar!" too used the formula, but the robot's transgressions were personal. Getting a peek into the hopes and dreams of the humans, especially Susan Calvin, was a pleasant change. Asimov's characters in this story collection tended to be flat, so putting in motivations beyond averting physical danger was a step in the right direction.

"Evidence" went back to the critique of human superiority seen in "Reason," but this time we can root more wholeheartedly for the robot. It's naive to think that technology can solve the problems of politics, but it's comforting to imagine a robot in power who can think of all of us, instead of just one competing tribe or corporation or interest group.

"The Evitable Conflict" doesn't deserve to be called a story. It's an info dump about the fictional universe. This stuff should have been scattered throughout other stories or written as an entry in a reference book about Asimov's future history.

I'm still reading this one.

"Catch That Rabbit"
(view spoiler)[Donavan and Powell are quite a comedy duo. They bring some lightness to these stories. I think of them and their problems with robots whenever I have a misunderstanding with my google speakers in the living room.

It's funny that I was born in 1982 like Susan Calvin and the next storry is going to be set in 2021 when she's 38 :D (hide spoiler)]

A solid inspirational work, even in 2021.

This book, or rather its 9 short stories, sometimes read like an alternative history book. The vision of the future that Asimov predicted (or made up) is quite different than our reality. He basically pictures a world of the 1950's where you throw in flying cars and robots, but completely skipping personal computers, the Internet, smartphones, digital lifestyles and all. It's funny to hear about futuristic fireplaces that auto-feed wood and auto-clean ashes, instead of the natural gas fireplaces of today with a synthetic wood that doesn't burn. Funny to see the husband reading his Sunday paper in his country house, 1950's style, when today most of us get our news on a phone or tablet. Funny to hear the computer nerds that design robots as "the slide-rule boys". Or programming computers by feeding data on paper, or filing paper documents in an office in the year 2064.

In a way, Asimov jumped from the mainframes of the 1950's, to "the Machines" which are basically positronic robot brains that act like Deep Learning modules, calculating and predicting complex results based on training data previously fed (by paper, mind you). These machines that run humanity in the future approach the concept of The Singularity AI, but without the personality. These are literally ML interfaces that can process anything, not Clarke's HAL9000 or Heinlein's Mycroft.

I like that the short stories feature recurring characters. Susan Calvin is a fascinating woman and character. We don't learn much about her, but just enough, and we learn more by observing her in action. Powell and Donovan are sadly too two-dimensional, like the Laurel & Hardy of robotics field testing. The stories that involve them are fascinating, given all the problems they face that require deep interpretations of the 3 laws of robotics. But the men themselves are too much of a comic relief or side joke as they interact with each other.

Of all the stories, I really loved Robbie, Liar, Little Lost Robot, and Evidence. Aside from the commentary I made above about Powell& Donovan, the stories Runaround, Reason, and Catch that Rabbit were also good. I did not care too much for Escape! and The Evitable Conflict, though the conclusion about the future of humanity in the latter was quite interesting. Funny though, Asimov was way off on his population predictions, estimating only 3.3B humans on Earth in the late 21st century.

Overall it's still a very interesting read, even in 2021, and I'm definitely going to read more in the Robot novels. Highly recommended, a true classic.

Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone seen the Apple TV production of Asimov's Foundation yet? Have high hopes.

Mike, we have a folder called TV and Movie Chat and there's a thread called What Shows Are You Watching? Some shows/movies also have their own threads, but I don't think Foundation does. You're welcome to start one if you want!

I've paused on reading this book after the story "Liar!", where (view spoiler)[the super-duper robopsychologist tortures a poor robot to insanity and she acts like an unstable twelwe-year-old (hide spoiler)]
But I decided to finish.

Susan Calvin is not going to be my favorite character and (for some reason) there was a point when I started to imagine her as Leonard's mum from TBBT. Now I can't imagine her any other way.

Donavan and Powell stories were my favorite. The last story The Evitable Conflict really bored me. Not the best ending IMO.

Aga wrote: "Susan Calvin is not going to be my favorite character and (for some reason) there was a point when I started to imagine her as Leonard's mum from TBBT. Now I can't imagine her any other way."

I can see that! :D It's hard to imagine Christine Baranski acting like Susan (in Liar), but she is a great actress, so why not :)

She would be great as Susan :D