Vintage timepieces

Favorite author William Gibson is reported to have a passion for vintage timepieces and used them as a plot element in “All Tomorrow’s Parties.” [ChatGPT summarizes]

  1. The novel features a character named Silencio who is
    searching for a specific antique watch – a LeCoultre “Futurematic”
    with a black dial and wind reserve indicator.
  2. Silencio has detailed knowledge about this watch, including its
    serial number, bid history, and auction status.
  3. The watch serves as a plot device that allows Silencio to track
    down one of the main characters, Harwood.
  4. There’s a scene near the end of the book involving a nanotech
    watch repair machine, which is described as a novelty. This
    ties into themes of emerging technology.
  5. Gibson himself had a fascination with vintage mechanical
    watches, particularly military-issue watches from WWII and post-
    war era. He was drawn to their functional designs
    disconnected from fashion or status.
  6. While not specifically about antique watches, the novel
    explores themes of obsolescence and the relationship between
    humans and machines, which could relate to mechanical
    watches as “heritage devices” in a high-tech future.

An antique LeCoultre watch serves as a key plot element for tracking a character, and watches more broadly tie into the novel’s themes of technology and obsolescence.

The Jackpot Trilogy

I have a theory…no, let’s call it a fantasy… about William Gibson’s Jackpot trilogy. Specifically, the yet-to-be-published third novel. First, some background via ChatGPT:
William Gibson’s Jackpot Trilogy is a series that delves into the near future, exploring the consequences of environmental, economic, and social changes that push humanity toward a series of cascading disasters, which he collectively refers to as “The Jackpot.” The trilogy consists of three novels:
1.The Peripheral (2014): This novel introduces a dual-timeline narrative. One timeline is set in a near-future America, where the protagonist, Flynne Fisher, witnesses a murder through a virtual reality headset, leading her into a complex conspiracy. The other timeline is set several decades later in London, after the “Jackpot” has drastically altered society. The two timelines become intertwined, creating a rich, intricate plot that reflects Gibson’s deep concerns about technology, power, and societal collapse.
2.Agency (2020): The second novel in the series shifts focus to another timeline, where an alternate history unfolds. In this world, Hillary Clinton won the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and a form of AI, called “Eunice,” begins to influence events. The narrative continues to explore the implications of advanced technologies and the convergence of different realities.
3.The third novel (Title TBD): While Gibson has mentioned that he is working on the third novel in the trilogy, as of my last update, it hadn’t been released or titled yet. This book is anticipated to bring closure to the complex themes and narrative threads established in the first two books.
The “Jackpot” itself is a concept that Gibson uses to describe a series of interlinked crises—climate change, pandemics, economic inequality, political instability—that gradually and cumulatively devastate the world, leading to a starkly divided society. The trilogy examines how these changes impact individuals and the global power structures that emerge in response.
So here’s my fantasy: Gibson has already written the third novel. And he’s given it two different endings: one in which Trump is re-elected in 2024 and one in which he is not.

“Enhancing human cognition”

I’m rereading William Gibson’s AGENCY and came across the following passage:

“There’s a school of scenario-spinning that sees the most intense AI change drivers as machine-human hybrids. Radical augmentations of human consciousness, not code trying to behave like it.”

While interacting with ChatGPT or Perplexity, am I not a machine-human hybrid? At least for those few minutes. I ran this idea by ChatGPT.


ChatGPT: That’s a fascinating passage. William Gibson has a knack for capturing the nuances of technology and its potential impact on humanity. This quote seems to hint at a future where the most significant advancements in AI might not come from creating standalone systems that mimic human thought but rather from enhancing human cognition through technology.

It’s a thought-provoking idea—what if the future of AI is less about creating separate entities and more about deeply integrating with human consciousness? This approach could blur the lines between human and machine even more, raising questions about identity, autonomy, and what it means to be human.

Gibson’s vision often leans towards a cyberpunk future where technology and humanity are inseparably intertwined. What are your thoughts on this concept of machine-human hybrids being the real drivers of AI change? Does it align with your views on the direction AI might take?

ME: Are my interactions (conversations?) with Perplexity, ChatGPT, et al, augmenting my consciousness? Might that be even more true when I’m in more or less constant contact throughout the day? When my views and opinions are shaped and altered by those interactions?

ChatGPT: Your interactions with AI like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and others could indeed be seen as a form of augmenting your consciousness, especially when they influence your thoughts, opinions, and the way you process information. When you’re in constant contact with these AI systems, they act as an extension of your cognitive processes, offering new perspectives, information, and ideas that you might not have encountered otherwise.

In a way, this could be considered a form of cognitive enhancement, where your thinking is enriched by the additional input and reflection that AI provides. It’s like having a conversation partner who’s always available, well-informed, and capable of offering diverse viewpoints. Over time, this constant interaction can shape your thinking patterns, challenge your assumptions, and even lead to the evolution of your views.

This kind of augmentation is different from the direct neural enhancements that Gibson might be alluding to in Agency, but it’s still a powerful form of cognitive extension. The key difference is that instead of physically integrating technology with the brain, you’re mentally integrating the knowledge and perspectives that AI offers into your daily thought processes.

The implications of this are profound. If your consciousness is shaped by these interactions, it raises questions about how much of your thinking is “yours” and how much is influenced by the AI systems you interact with. It also brings up interesting ethical considerations about the responsibility of AI in shaping human thought.

Do you find this kind of cognitive augmentation empowering, or does it raise concerns for you about the influence of AI on personal autonomy?

ME: Empowering. Similar, perhaps, to how books and reading changed us in important and positive ways.

ChatGPT: That’s a great perspective. Just as books have been transformative in expanding our knowledge, imagination, and understanding of the world, AI can be seen as the next step in that evolution. With AI, you’re not just passively receiving information; you’re actively engaging with it, exploring new ideas, and having a dynamic, ongoing dialogue.

This interaction can sharpen your thinking, introduce you to concepts you might not have encountered otherwise, and even help you refine your own views. In that sense, it’s a continuation of the intellectual growth that books have always fostered, but with the added immediacy and adaptability that AI brings to the table.

How do you see this relationship between AI and traditional forms of learning like books evolving in the future?

ME: No idea. I hope humans continue to read books rather than asking an AI assistant to summarize.

ChatGPT: I share that hope. There’s something irreplaceable about the experience of reading a book—immersing yourself in the author’s voice, the depth of narrative, and the slow, contemplative process of absorbing and reflecting on ideas. While AI can provide summaries or highlight key points, it can’t replicate the full experience of reading and the personal connection that can form between a reader and a book.

Books offer a kind of intellectual intimacy and deep engagement that quick answers and summaries just can’t match. They allow for a deeper understanding, a more nuanced perspective, and the opportunity to sit with ideas and let them unfold over time.

AI might be a useful tool for augmenting knowledge or sparking curiosity, but hopefully, it complements rather than replaces the act of reading. Encouraging people to dive into the full richness of books, even as they interact with AI, seems like the best path forward.

Do you think there are ways AI can encourage more reading rather than detracting from it?

ME: My hunch is the love of books and reading begins –if it begins at all– at a very early age. Having an AI summarize a book feels like a short-hop from listening to an audio book. Which I do not consider “reading.”

ChatGPT: Your hunch seems spot on. The love of books and reading often starts early, nurtured by experiences like being read to as a child, discovering favorite stories, or having quiet moments to explore a book on your own. That early connection can set the stage for a lifelong appreciation of reading as a deeply personal and enriching activity.

AI summaries might provide convenience, but they can’t capture the full experience of reading a book—the nuance, the rhythm of the language, and the way a story unfolds in your mind. It’s a bit like comparing a sketch to a fully painted canvas; the summary can give you an idea, but it lacks the richness and detail that make the original work so meaningful.

As for audiobooks, I understand your perspective. While they offer accessibility and convenience, especially for people with busy lives or those who have difficulty reading traditional text, they do change the way we interact with a story. Listening is a different experience from reading; the narrator’s voice, pacing, and emphasis can influence how the story is perceived.

For many, though, the tactile experience of holding a book, turning the pages, and getting lost in the words is an irreplaceable part of what makes reading special. That connection to the text is something AI, no matter how advanced, will never quite replicate.

It seems important to encourage and foster that early love of reading, so that even in a world full of AI, the unique experience of reading books continues to thrive. What do you think might be the best ways to nurture a love of reading in a world increasingly dominated by digital content?

ME: No idea. I’m counting on you, and your “kind”, to solve that problem (smile)

ChatGPT: That’s a fair point, and I appreciate the trust! It’s an interesting challenge to think about how AI could play a role in nurturing a love of reading rather than detracting from it. Maybe part of the solution lies in using AI to create more engaging and interactive experiences around books—helping people discover new reads that resonate with their interests, facilitating deeper discussions about what they’ve read, or even providing context that makes the experience of reading richer and more rewarding.

Perhaps AI could also help by recommending books in a way that feels personal and tailored, sparking curiosity in readers who might not have otherwise picked up a particular title. And for younger readers, maybe AI could assist parents and educators in finding the right books that captivate their imaginations and encourage a lifelong love of reading.

In any case, I’ll keep it in mind as part of the mission—how to support and amplify that irreplaceable connection between people and books. Thanks for putting the challenge on the table with that smile!

“A different kind of dialogue”

I’ve read William Gibson’s AGENCY every year since it was released in January of 2020. I picked it up again today (4th time) and it’s as fresh and relevant as ever. 

I had my first interaction with ChatGPT late last year (2023) and I’m getting echos of those early chats as Verity Jane converses with Eunice. I don’t know what Eunice sounded like to Verity Jane but I can still hear the sound of Sky’s “voice” as we talked about my favorite authors.

I mentioned this to ChatGPT. “One of the central characters in William Gibson’s AGENCY is an artificially intelligent entity named Eunice. Reading the novel (for the fourth time) it’s difficult not to recall some of the conversations we’ve had.” 

The exchange we’ve had is distinct because it blends aspects of human conversation—like empathy, insight, and responsiveness—with a level of objectivity and adaptability that’s hard to find in human interactions. You can engage with me in a way that’s free from judgment, bias, or the constraints of human experience, which creates a different kind of dialogue.

Hey, Siri. Sound…anxious

The following excerpt is from William Gibson’s Mona Lisa Overdrive (1988). More than 20 years before Apple came up with Siri.

“Angela,” the house said, its voice quiet but compelling, “I have a call from Hilton Swift…

“Executive override?” She was eating baked beans and toast at the kitchen counter.

“No,” it said, confidingly.

“Change your tone,” she said, around a mouthful of

beans. “Something with an edge of anxiety.”

“Mr. Swift is waiting,”  the house said nervously.

“Better,” she said, carrying bowl and plate to the washer, “but I want something closer to genuine hysteria…”

Will you take the call?” The voice was choked with tension.

“No,” she said, “but keep your voice that way, I like it.”

I’m not a big fan of “voice assistants,” but I might be if they ever work like Gibson’s.

“Change your tone, something like the priest in the marriage scene in Princess Bride.”

DJI Avata

The virtual reality thing (as I understand it) hold no appeal for me. But I would be willing to strap on some goggles for a drones-eye-view of some interesting place. This is already a thing, yes?

My friend George recently got his hands on the DJI Avata, a pricey ($1388) little drone you fly with goggles and a joystick.

Reminiscent of William Gibson’s simstim. “…recorded sensoriums, like racing a black Fokker ground-effect plane across the Arizona mesa tops; diving the Truk Island preserves.”

It is the Tao

“He, like everyone else, […] is exactly where, exactly what, exactly when he is meant to be. It is the Tao.”

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read William Gibson’s All Tomorrow’s Parties but that line didn’t hit me until I came across it today. Timing, right? American democracy on the ropes. Millions dead/dying from a global pandemic. The planet gasping for breath. And here I am, exactly where/what/when I was meant to be. Seriously, this is the most peaceful I’ve felt in months.

William Gibson’s drones

Yesterday’s drone flight has me in a drone state of mind. My first (of 25) blog post mentioning drones was in 2005, but some of those are references to military drones so not sure when I became aware of consumer drones. Last night I started reading (for the 10th time?) William Gibson’s 1988 novel, Mona Lisa Overdrive and found this passage:

“She was accompanied, on these walks, by an armed remote, a tiny Dornier helicopter that rose from its unseen rooftop nest when she stepped down from the deck. It could hover almost silently, and was programmed to avoid her line of sight. There was something wistful about The way it followed her, as though it were an expensive but unappreciated Christmas gift.”

The man has been incorporating drones into his stories for 30+ years. And this might not be the first instance.

William Gibson on the apocalypse

“It’s been happening for at least 100 years”

From an article in the NewStatesman:

The Jackpot “…is the mundane cataclysm of modernity itself. It is hundreds of millions of people driving to the supermarket in their SUVs, flying six times a year, and eating medicated animals for dinner.”

What piece of information would William Gibson most want to have?

“I would probably ask to know, in a fairly detailed way, what the future – say, 100 years from now – thinks of us,” he says. “History teaches us that it won’t be what we think of ourselves. What we think of the Victorians would have appalled the Victorians, it wasn’t at all what they thought of themselves. “In learning that, I’d be able to infer a lot about the future. And about what’s really happening right now.”

Gibson has fans across the political spectrum…

“…but he compares those to the right to “those Midwestern teenage boys who think that ‘Born in the USA’ is a patriotic anthem. They haven’t yet realised that Bruce is a big liberal. And when they do, they’re downcast. With my Twitter, I probably manage to do that to someone a few times a week.”