You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.28 AVERAGE
4.28 AVERAGE
The history conveyed through this novel is fascinating, but as a novel it is incomplete and only sporadically successful.
challenging
informative
reflective
If in his first books, Benjamin Labatut delves into the very thin line that separates reason from madness [ La Antártica empieza aquí and Después de la luz (quite an oneiric book)], his last ones take it a step further, embedding these themes with scientific advances and discoveries that took place in the first half part of the 20th century. Indeed, Un verdor terrible , worldly known by its English title, When we cease to understand the world is such a book, having Quantum Mechanics as a spotlight. His next book, a small one called La Piedra de la locura, rather essay than literature, deals again with the topics of reason and madness, this time in relation to the world we are living in nowadays.
I understand that Labatut’s books might not be meant for everyone. They deal with themes that require a level of attention to the scientific aspects of the stories and avoid the usual narrative techniques we are usually used to. It is fiction based on facts.
In The MANIAC (acronym for Mathematical Analyzer, Numerical Integrator and Computer), Labatut returns to the scientific world of the first half part of the 20th century. Divided into three sections, the first chapter is an account of mathematician Paul Ehrenfest's later life, at a time his mental capabilities came to a point that caused him a breakdown. Around the same time, came the ascension of Nazism in Germany. In some ways, this first chapter resembles in style his When we cease to understand the world , and it is such an interesting account of such a singular man. But it also felt to me like a piece of advice in relation to the roads we humans are choosing to follow.
The second chapter takes us back a couple of decades to tell the story of the Magyar mathematician John von Neumann, considered one of the greatest and such a singular and powerful mind, a prodigy since his younger years (made me think of the Indian mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan). There is not a linear story being told, but rather, it is composed of something similar to testimonies, as if written by the people who passed and/or shared von Neumann’s life: from siblings, teachers, and school friends to scientists with whom he worked, or his first wife and his last one, his only daughter, etc. Labatut shows his genius by giving these people unique voices. I mean, reading Richard Feynman's two testimonies gave me the thrills, it is the physicist's writing style! The same goes for Klari, Neumann’s second wife, who lived hell with him.
The third and last chapter takes the reader into contemporaneity and is mostly concerned with some of the last ideas Neumann had (he was not able to advance with them due to his death by cancer caused, mostly probably, by one of his contributions to the world: the nuclear bomb). Neumann started considering the possibility of machines evolving to a point where they could achieve consciousness. Klari, in one of Labatut’s testimonies, says that what he really meant was to prolong his own life forever, that her husband would do anything to save his mind from perishing, a mind that he himself considered outworldly.
Thus, in the third section, we follow the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) able to beat humans in one of their creations: games. Despite it starting with Kasparov and chess, it soon moves into one of the hardest games ever created, GO, created around 3.000 years ago. A game that requires more than a strategic mind, but the capability of creating art, beauty.
Alpha Go was such an IA, created by DeepMind, that shook the world by winning 4 out of 5 rounds when it played with the reputed Korean Go player, Lee Sedol:
People felt helplessness and fear. It seemed we humans are so weak and fragile. And this victory meant we could still hold our own. As time goes on, it’ll probably be very difficult to beat AI. But winning this one time… it felt like it was enough. One time was enough.
A personal note. I understand why humans yearn to beat an AI made up of a set of algorithms. It is a human creation; thus, it is as if humans need to prove to be much better. Yet, our brains, our minds, regardless of their great capabilities, are still limited. We are far behind in achieving something like the possibility of using our minds as those we watch in Luc Besson’s movie Lucy (played by Scarlett Johansson).
Thus, I believe that, regardless of this yearning to beat a set of algorithms, we are just playing dull. And the reason why I think so is because an AI has a calculating ability that we don’t. It allows the AI to achieve a predictability that makes it quite impossible to beat. And this is why, for worse or for better, Sedol could win at least one of the rounds because he played randomly on the third round, he played for the sake of the game, which he takes as an art endeavor. We exist because of randomness since the beginning of times when the same amount of matter and antimatter crashed, though it is not yet understood how matter came to form our universe, for they should have annihilated one the other. Randomness. Creation. Art. Beauty.
There might come a time when AI can achieve consciousness. Humans are quite concerned about it. But then, I believe that the reason behind it is that we tend to think of everything on our own terms. We have something so great, our minds. Yet we use it for the worst endeavors: one against the other. Why don’t we start, at last, to think about convergence instead of always looking for divergence? Right now, wherever, whatever we look at, it is divergency we see. It feels like we are in a constant game against each other, for the sake of winning, not for any other sake. As if we have to prove something to the other side. As if we have to prove our mighty, our power. It is even okay if we destroy the whole world as far as one can prove himself/herself right. John von Neumann was not different from that. Maybe, this is why I appreciate minds like that of Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Alan Turing, for instance, because there was a search for understanding here rather than an attempt to control.
I understand that Labatut’s books might not be meant for everyone. They deal with themes that require a level of attention to the scientific aspects of the stories and avoid the usual narrative techniques we are usually used to. It is fiction based on facts.
In The MANIAC (acronym for Mathematical Analyzer, Numerical Integrator and Computer), Labatut returns to the scientific world of the first half part of the 20th century. Divided into three sections, the first chapter is an account of mathematician Paul Ehrenfest's later life, at a time his mental capabilities came to a point that caused him a breakdown. Around the same time, came the ascension of Nazism in Germany. In some ways, this first chapter resembles in style his When we cease to understand the world , and it is such an interesting account of such a singular man. But it also felt to me like a piece of advice in relation to the roads we humans are choosing to follow.
The second chapter takes us back a couple of decades to tell the story of the Magyar mathematician John von Neumann, considered one of the greatest and such a singular and powerful mind, a prodigy since his younger years (made me think of the Indian mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan). There is not a linear story being told, but rather, it is composed of something similar to testimonies, as if written by the people who passed and/or shared von Neumann’s life: from siblings, teachers, and school friends to scientists with whom he worked, or his first wife and his last one, his only daughter, etc. Labatut shows his genius by giving these people unique voices. I mean, reading Richard Feynman's two testimonies gave me the thrills, it is the physicist's writing style! The same goes for Klari, Neumann’s second wife, who lived hell with him.
The third and last chapter takes the reader into contemporaneity and is mostly concerned with some of the last ideas Neumann had (he was not able to advance with them due to his death by cancer caused, mostly probably, by one of his contributions to the world: the nuclear bomb). Neumann started considering the possibility of machines evolving to a point where they could achieve consciousness. Klari, in one of Labatut’s testimonies, says that what he really meant was to prolong his own life forever, that her husband would do anything to save his mind from perishing, a mind that he himself considered outworldly.
Thus, in the third section, we follow the evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) able to beat humans in one of their creations: games. Despite it starting with Kasparov and chess, it soon moves into one of the hardest games ever created, GO, created around 3.000 years ago. A game that requires more than a strategic mind, but the capability of creating art, beauty.
Alpha Go was such an IA, created by DeepMind, that shook the world by winning 4 out of 5 rounds when it played with the reputed Korean Go player, Lee Sedol:
People felt helplessness and fear. It seemed we humans are so weak and fragile. And this victory meant we could still hold our own. As time goes on, it’ll probably be very difficult to beat AI. But winning this one time… it felt like it was enough. One time was enough.
A personal note. I understand why humans yearn to beat an AI made up of a set of algorithms. It is a human creation; thus, it is as if humans need to prove to be much better. Yet, our brains, our minds, regardless of their great capabilities, are still limited. We are far behind in achieving something like the possibility of using our minds as those we watch in Luc Besson’s movie Lucy (played by Scarlett Johansson).
Thus, I believe that, regardless of this yearning to beat a set of algorithms, we are just playing dull. And the reason why I think so is because an AI has a calculating ability that we don’t. It allows the AI to achieve a predictability that makes it quite impossible to beat. And this is why, for worse or for better, Sedol could win at least one of the rounds because he played randomly on the third round, he played for the sake of the game, which he takes as an art endeavor. We exist because of randomness since the beginning of times when the same amount of matter and antimatter crashed, though it is not yet understood how matter came to form our universe, for they should have annihilated one the other. Randomness. Creation. Art. Beauty.
There might come a time when AI can achieve consciousness. Humans are quite concerned about it. But then, I believe that the reason behind it is that we tend to think of everything on our own terms. We have something so great, our minds. Yet we use it for the worst endeavors: one against the other. Why don’t we start, at last, to think about convergence instead of always looking for divergence? Right now, wherever, whatever we look at, it is divergency we see. It feels like we are in a constant game against each other, for the sake of winning, not for any other sake. As if we have to prove something to the other side. As if we have to prove our mighty, our power. It is even okay if we destroy the whole world as far as one can prove himself/herself right. John von Neumann was not different from that. Maybe, this is why I appreciate minds like that of Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Alan Turing, for instance, because there was a search for understanding here rather than an attempt to control.
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
informative
reflective
fast-paced
informative
fast-paced
Loveable characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I did not abandon my wits, or let dismay drive me past folly and into madness. But I could have. I could. Because I know madness. I’ve glimpsed that dread continent from afar, felt its dark influence on others, and been called toward it by ideas that hang close to the edge of reason. But I’m not crazy
challenging
informative
sad
slow-paced
challenging
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes