Explore
Ppopulated by tired humans and their robot helpers, the world of Helen Phillips’ latest novel Sums is set at an unspecified point in the future but feels disturbingly contemporary. Its protagonists are a family suffering economic and existential disappointments. The parents struggle to make ends meet financially while simultaneously navigating their children’s deepening relationship with their devices. Climate catastrophe is often imminent, has already occurred, or both: the family seems to be constantly recovering from one disaster while simultaneously preparing for the next. The advertising is relentless and inescapable, and the surveillance state is the status quo.
“You’re not sure how to cope in the world as it is now,” says Phillips’ protagonist May, the mother of the family. “You know the world is broken, but you don’t know what that means for your children’s lives.” And that worry is at the heart of the book: Although we know we’re leaving a bleak future for future generations, we don’t know how to stop it or what that future will look like.
I spoke with Phillips via Zoom about this and other sleepless topics that Sumsher third novel, which, like her previous works, is a speculative, suspenseful look at how families cope in a rapidly changing world. We chatted about the threat of technology to human relationships, the research she did while writing the book, the uncertain line between utopia and dystopia, and whether there’s anything we can do to tip the balance in favor of the former.
Where did the idea for Sums come from?
One day a few years ago, as I was walking home from work, the following thought occurred to me: I need new tea towels. Just a thought. And then when I got home, I opened my computer and was offered tea towels. It was one of those moments – and I think we all know them now – where you think: Wait! How did it know I wanted that? It was internal, but somehow there was an external cue that they noticed. That moment was very striking to me and I bought the tea towels that were advertised.
That got me thinking – it feels uncomfortable, it feels scary a small desire or need is manifested when you feel like it’s only in your imagination. It might not be such a big deal if it’s just dish towels, but it still feels uncomfortable. It feels like there’s something wrong with it. And with the book I wanted to ask the question, what would be the worst case scenario for that, the worst that could happen if these things that you feel are private were made public?
“Humming” is the most sacred sound in the universe.
You’ve said elsewhere that your inspiration often comes from imagining a nightmarish version of a familiar world and stripping away the surface to see what lies beneath. What attracts you to such scenarios?
One reviewer described my book as being set five minutes in the future, and I liked that description. I hope my books help people feel less alone in really looking at the things in today’s society that create fear. This book is speculative fiction, but as you might be able to tell from the bibliography, it is very much inspired by our world. Looking at something that is a little speculative or a little strange or a little different can help you see your own reality with new eyes.
I really liked the word “hum” both as a title and as a name for the AIs. Where did this idea come from?
I love the sound of this word, hum! It is the constant background noise produced by machines. It is related to the word human. It feels like it’s derived from that. It’s the most sacred sound in the universe, a sound that we associate with singing as a child. So it came to me very organically and very early.
In the world of SumsThings the characters don’t really need are cheap, while the things they do need, like rent or access to nature, are expensive. What are the consequences of this dichotomy?
In the novel, the most modern technological devices are accessible and subsidized even to a family that is struggling financially, because our attention is so valuable to the advertisers that they are willing to give us these devices for free. In return, we give them our attention, which feels like something free that you just havebut actually, it may be your most valuable resource. We take this for granted, but our attention is very valuable to advertisers and should be even more valuable to ourselves.
Do you think there is always a clear line between dystopia and utopia?
No, I don’t think so. Even on our planet, there are people who are experiencing a fairly utopian version of this technological and climatic experience, and then there are people who are experiencing a very dystopian version of it. It’s definitely not an easy thing. At the heart of the book is a utopian environment that this family is allowed to enter for a period of time, and that utopian environment is hopefully as much of a refuge for the reader as it is for the family. But it also turns out to have a much darker side, as I think every utopia has its dark sides.
When I set out to write this book, it was important to me not to create a pure dystopia. I don’t know if I succeeded in that or not. I wanted to find in the book – and in myself and my own research as I wrote it – at least hints of how we might deal with that situation.
How can we use the technologies we develop to advance a positive rather than an obviously dystopian future?
That’s the hardest question. I think that’s the question of our time. If a technology is not always subject to an agenda – a marketing agenda, a sales agenda, and other kinds of agendas – then it can potentially become a tool for good. We need an AI that has no agenda other than to be useful and helpful and wise and positive to people – that has a sense of when to step back and allow people to connect. But that’s perhaps a fantasy.
Nothing is without poison. The dosage makes it a poison or a remedy.
In this sense, there is a scene in Sums where one of the daughters talks to a digital avatar about her day rather than her parents, suggesting that AI is a threat to human relationships. At the same time, I also think about the fact that the internet theoretically allows a person to connect with far more people than they could ever do in person, so you could argue about the pros and cons. What do you think?
I am not a digital native, unlike my own children and the younger generation, so I admit there are things I don’t know. But my instinct tells me that (AI) is not good (for human relationships). I read a really interesting book while writing: Sherry Turkel’s Regain the conversation. She writes a lot about it, and comments on the incredible ease with which we attribute empathy to robots. When someone – even a robot – speaks to us in a friendly way, if it has eyes and makes eye contact, we don’t really distinguish between it and a human. But it’s not a different human, and it doesn’t create the same kind of friction that we experience in human relationships. It’s not going to offer the same kind of structure and complexity. And I think that you have to deal with that when you’re having deep conversations with somebody and that somebody brings their own life experience to the table, or they have a different way of looking at things, or they disagree with you on something – yes, those can be uncomfortable conversations, but you also gain depth from them.
What kind of research did you do for the book?
I’ve never done this before, but at the end I have a long section of notes and a bibliography, and that’s a way of telling the reader what I was reading at the time. I’ve read books about artificial intelligence and about climate change. I’ve read The uninhabitable earth by David Wallace Wells. And a book that I read at the beginning of the process that was quite interesting is called The artist and the machine by Arthur I. Miller. It represents a fairly positive view of the collaboration between humans and AI in the field of art and music, so that was an interesting starting point, not to simply say: “The robots will kill us all.” But rather to ask: “What positive forms of cooperation could we have?”
Do you think we should be afraid of AI and the future of AI?
Yes, I think we should be afraid of it. I think we should be very afraid of it and we should be having a lot of conversations as a society about what kind of world we want to create.
Would you say that you have more reason to be optimistic or pessimistic?
I think optimism is important to even have the possibility of a good outcome. Believing that there are worthwhile things we can do – even if that’s not always entirely true – is important to get us to do those things. But I have a mixed feeling of optimism and pessimism.
Do you have any advice for young people who are facing an uncertain future?
I think I want to give my children the feeling of connecting with other people and how good it is to just sit at a table without a cell phone and talk and laugh. It’s such a simple thing.
I would also like to mention the motto of the book:Poison is not everything, and nothing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy– this comes from Paracelsus, a 16th century physician. How do we find the right dosage so that we can enjoy the benefits without too much expense? 
Cover image: TheRightFrameMedia / Shutterstock
Get the Nautilus newsletter
Cutting-edge science revealed by the brightest thinkers alive.
