20180728_085743 A word from the Machine Learning hackathon sponsors
20190127_152103 Connect Four on a brewery patio
20190127_145056 Instructions for making an instrument out of a plastic bottle
20190127_144731 Playing the bottle-and-membrane instrument
CIMG4372 Ted Chiang, Walter Jon Williams
Left to right: Ted Chiang and Walter Jon Williams at the "God or the Machine?" discussion panel.
Addressing the distinction between technology and magic, Ted Chiang said he believed Arthur Clarke's famous adage is incorrect. Then the panelists quickly became mired in the age-old debate of what is science fiction, and what is fantasy. Oh no, not again, you say! Well, this discussion wasn't quite like beating a dead horse. I heard some interesting insights.
A lot of western fantasy writers prefer magic to be systematic, i.e. to have laws, rules, constraints. An arbitrary magic, where everything is possible or impossible, depending on whether it is convenient for the author, they don't find very interesting. But does systematizing magic move it closer to science? Not necessarily.
Traditionally it is thought that it's the presence or absence of scientific / technological elements -- the so-called furniture -- that causes most people to view a certain story as science fiction or fantasy. But actually, the worldview expressed in a story may be more relevant. (Though apparently there are no universal criteria how to determine the genre a particular story belongs to, because some people in the audience disagreed over which genre certain books belonged to.)