Why did Skynet lose the war ?

[Stark]

Wow, I had no idea the Terminator novels devolved into such amusing AI fannishness. That's made my weekend! I'm actually amazed that SCC is actually less dumb than the novels.

[Starglider]

Wow, I had no idea the Terminator novels devolved into such amusing AI fannishness.

That series of novels seems to have a rather convoluted and confusing storyline, but in what way is it 'AI fannish'?

[Stark]

Well, they DO say 'substrate'. Seriuosly, I had to think for a term to describe it; obviously it's no problem that Terminator novels expand of Skynet as a character (which would be pretty fucking hard to do without AI scifi silliness), but it's so obviously fannish (they use the term 'endos' for crying out loud) that it's like the book is an extended forum post. It's not just silly and wankish based on what we see in movies (which is almost always the case with EU novels of any stripe), it's ... ... shit. I can't find a word. Not really pretentious; maybe, self-aggrandising?

Then again, the Tom Clancy-style 'insert needless, plot-irrelevant technical jargon to make reader feel smart/educated' style has always irritated me. It's not even a particularly interesting exploration of the AI as a character, but by jove they crammed in the nerd-chic bullshit to make up for it.

[Starglider]

I can't find a word. Not really pretentious; maybe, self-aggrandising?

I think you just mean 'badly written'. I just, ahem, borrowed that book from a friend, and I can confirm that the rest is all written in the same style.

I don't think the Skynet bits are wank. In fact most of the wank in that book seems to be about the capabilities of the genetically engineered humans, who come from a future where Judgement Day happened a decade or so in the future. In combat they're effectively on a par with the terminators and that's definitely biowank.

It's not even a particularly interesting exploration of the AI as a character, but by jove they crammed in the nerd-chic bullshit to make up for it.

To be fair, exploration of AI characters that is both interesting and realistic is extremely difficult. I can only think of a few examples, Greg Egan, Vernor Vinge perhaps and even there they're groping blatantly on the technical specifics (through no fault of their own - there are no authorative textbooks on AGI design yet). You can't expect much from this kind of hack writer contracted to continue a print-money franchise.

[Stark]

Well, your standards for 'realistic' with regard to AI are possibly a tiny bit higher than mine. And yeah I think wank is the wrong word for the AI stuff, but I couldn't find the right one. Maybe just pompous; the tone suggests the author considers himself very intelligent and clued in and that we should be amazed by his use of technical terms, or something.

I had no idea about the ridiculous genetic-engineering stuff, though... but honestly anything that moves the drama away from the basic concept of the movies strikes me as 'missing the point', just like those ridiculous Predator comics where a fleet of invisible Predator starships invaded LA. It's pure nerd-driven pew-pew-fan nonsense driven by and for people who think 'Star Trek would be better if every episode was a giant starship fight'.

That reminds me, though, someone needs to print some goddamn Egan hardcovers already.

[Starglider]

Maybe just pompous; the tone suggests the author considers himself very intelligent and clued in and that we should be amazed by his use of technical terms, or something.

Yeah; the next most irritating thing after writers who never do any research is writers who are all 'OMG look at me I can lift random terms and concepts from popular science articles and/or better sci-fi'. I actually think the 'excruciating technical detail' style can work; it does in most of Stuart Slade's stuff (paired with the 'hyperreal omniscient-observer combat description'), though as a particular writing style to be enjoyed on its own terms. But you need to be an expert in the field to write like that without making mistakes that inevitably trip bullshit detectors. And unfortunately most technical experts who take up writing can't do the basics (characterisation/plotting etc) but that's another rant.

I had no idea about the ridiculous genetic-engineering stuff, though... but honestly anything that moves the drama away from the basic concept of the movies strikes me as 'missing the point', just like those ridiculous Predator comics where a fleet of invisible Predator starships invaded LA.

Yeah, and the superhumans aren't even the main culprit. In principle, I like the way that triology explains and has the characters deal with the many-worlds explanation of time travel. The author's relatively tenuous grasp of physics isn't such a problem here. But the fact of the matter is that parallel universes and having multiple (different-aged) versions of characters around really doesn't work well with the core Terminator premise, which was always quite simple.

It's pure nerd-driven pew-pew-fan nonsense driven by and for people who think 'Star Trek would be better if every episode was a giant starship fight'.

I don't think the Terminator franchise has that problem; it was always heavily action and combat biased (though that didn't preclude strong characterisation). The nonsense in these books is mostly of the 'be ridiculously inclusive of every other concept seen in anything that could remotely be considered canon' (you know, the same problem most of the SW EU has) and 'shoe horn in sci-fi concepts the writer likes the sound of regardless of whether they're a good fit with the core material' (also a SW EU staple - no surprise since those books are churned out by the same type of writer).

BTW the book does answer the question of what hapened to the Skynet-carrying T-XA that went through a botched time jump;

Hiro's computer showed a space-time field fluctuation 6000 miles away, in Colorado. There'd been
many through the night and into the day. Most were local travel by Terminators. Skynet must have been
sending them to attack Devaux' forces on the mountainside. This time, it was different. Something had
passed through the mad computer's time vault. Analysis re-fused to show a destination.

Soon, it became clearer. Whatever had gone into the time vault was no more. It had not been displaced
to any one point in the space-time continuum. It had been totally disintegrated and scattered, across
infinity.

[Stark]

I don't think the Terminator franchise has that problem; it was always heavily action and combat biased (though that didn't preclude strong characterisation). The nonsense in these books is mostly of the 'be ridiculously inclusive of every other concept seen in anything that could remotely be considered canon' (you know, the same problem most of the SW EU has) and 'shoe horn in sci-fi concepts the writer likes the sound of regardless of whether they're a good fit with the core material' (also a SW EU staple - no surprise since those books are churned out by the same type of writer).

And the forced scale of it; when I was a kid, I wanted to know what the future war was like too. I didn't want some horrible hack writer to churn out some fanfiction about it, and when I grew up I didn't even care because it's dramatically irrelevant. I think the ways EU stuff breaks original concepts is linked by this - wish-fulfillment. Nobody's going to read this shit but a very small subset of nerds, so it's all pure fanservice anyway and quality is almost irrelevant.

[Starglider]

And the forced scale of it; when I was a kid, I wanted to know what the future war was like too. I didn't want some horrible hack writer to churn out some fanfiction about it, and when I grew up I didn't even care because it's dramatically irrelevant.

Well we'll soon see given that the following movies will be set in the future war period. Personally I don't that's the problem. No it isn't the core Terminator story, but it's a valid part of the setting and it'd be nice to see a war against killer robots in a post-apocalyptic setting (no other visual sci-fi has done it convincingly). The problem with these novels isn't that they cover the future war period - it's more that all the cross-dimensional and superhuman stupidity obscures the original premise.

[NecronLord]

Jesus, I didn't say you should read that stuff. Poor you. As for the author, I think it's more than simply being a hack. The man is a doctor of philosophy (and "bioethics") and a barrister. That's a combination where you'd surely forget how not to be pompous. It has some neat bits (the T-XA being a rather good idea in some ways) and some really terrible things (engineered humans being the shit, is chief among them). And it has (though it didn't invent) the abomination that is the idea that humans can invent and build time machines in the pre-Judgement Day period.

As for the forced scale of it, well, that particular bit is meant to be some bizzaro alternate timeline where Skynet's winning. The vaguely canonical version is much more mundane.

Those books are not very good. They are, however, interesting at times. Which is more than can be said for some of the other Terminator novels.

[Khaat]

SkyNet lost because while it is technically brilliant, it is not a well rounded intellect. an artificial intelligence should, would be alien. yeah "its canon that SkyNet's (human concept) insane". i call bs.

considering the applications to which SkyNet was originally intended (tactical operation and direction of automated weapons), i think it did rather well in capitalizing on its self-preservation

one of the "excuses" i hold for the tech, the strategy, the tactics, the bs of SkyNet is that the machine forces were built after sweeping human records for concepts, then finding technical solutions to them. imagine the well-spring that is fandom would provide a brilliant technical intelligence