alt Hacker NewsBecause, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology.
In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understand the right kind of interface for the given devices, and then... just built that. And, sure, it probably would get updates from time to time, but nothing like the way we do things now.
Because the way we do things now is immature. It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future.
Likewise, Geordi was regularly shown to be making constant improvements to the ship's systems. If I remember right, some of his designs were picked up by Starfleet and integrated into other ships. He took risks, too, like experimental propulsion upgrades. But, each time, it was an upgrade in service of better meeting some present or future mission objective. Geordi might have rewritten some software modules in whatever counted as a "language" in that universe at some point, but if he had done so, he would have done extensive testing and tried very hard to do it in a way that wouldn't've disrupted ship operations, and he would only do so if it gained some kind of improvement that directly impacted the success or safety of the whole ship.
Really cool technology is a key component of the Trek universe, but Trek isn't about technology. It's about people. Technology is just a thing that's in the background, and, sometimes, becomes a part of the story -- when it impacts some people in the story.
Replies
Most of Trek's tech is just a way to move the story along. Transporters were introduced to avoid having to land a shuttle. Warp drive is just a way to get to the next story. Communicators relay plot points.
Stories which focus on them as technology are nearly always boring. "Oh no the transporter broke... Yay we fixed it".
That's fetishizing Star Trek a bit - they had touch interface for controlling the ship in middle of combat, explosions and everything shaking around which is hardly optimal, both on and off combat (imagine levitating hand across touch panel for hours at end)
I still wonder why not everybody was lingering in the holodeck all the time.
(equivalent of people being glued to their smartphones today)
(Related) This is one explanation for the Fermi paradox: Alien species may isolate themselves in virtual worlds
> In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates
In the Trek universe, LCARS was continuously generating UI updates for each user, because AI coding had reached the point that it no longer needs specific direction, and it responds autonomously to needs the system itself identifies.
LCARS was technically a self-adapting system that was personalized to a degree per user. So it was continuously updating itself. But in a way to reduce user frustration.
Now, this is really because LCARS is "Stage Direction: Riker hits some buttons and stuff happens".
Isn't it probably just that they don't really have money in Star Trek so there is no contract promising amazing advances in the LCARS if we just pay this person or company to revamp it? If someone has money to be made from something they will always want to convince you the new thing is what you need.
> continuous UI updates are frustrating for users […] It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future.
Yes, although users also judge updates by what is apparent. Imagine if OS UIs didn’t change and you had to pay for new versions. So I’m sure UI updates are also partly motivated by a desire to signal improvements.
>In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users.
Not to be "that guy" but LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because that would have cost the production team money and for TNG at least would have often required rebuilding physical sets. It does get updated between series because as part of setting the design language for that series.
And Geordi was shown constantly making improvements to the ship's systems because he had to be shown "doing engineer stuff."
>Because the way we do things now is immature. It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future.
AKA resume-driven development. I personally know several people working on LLM products, where in private they admit they think LLMs are scams