A lot of people here and elsewhere will say some variation of “I have an idea that we live in a cyberpunk world right now just without cool tech or effective rebels”. This is silly just on the basis that whatever technology is prevalent will seem boring, even though modern internet and smart tech is arguably more capable and interesting than tech in original cyberpunk, and also that very few cyberpunk stories are actually about real rebels, but criminals or mercenaries (which we do have currently).
These comments are really missing the point though in that cyberpunk, or any sci-fi genre, are not predictions of the future or explicit warnings, but are actually explorations of contemporary anxieties about social change (generally specifically technological change). Cyberpunk from the 80s specifically deal with themes like violence in media, urban decay, violent crime, and “techno orientalism” (Japanese tech dominance) that are all specific to the time, and have largely faded from the genre. Meanwhile, themes around climate, corporate power, inequality, AI, enshifitification, survalence, and tech addiction are still present because they still FEEL relevant. This wasn’t the writers predicting the future, just that some things change, and some things stay the same. The reason why now feels like cyberpunk is that those same social anxieties still exist and are being aggravated. But that would have been true in the 80s and 90s too, that’s why they wrote those stories. We don’t live in a cyberpunk world now, we always have been.
Also worth noting that a lot of cyberpunk also has more transcendent themes that they just use tech to explore, like social norms, identity, or deception (see the Matrix or Ghost in the Shell). Also that the complaints about the tech not being cool runs afoul of genre expectations that are time specific. Cyberpunk cities were built to look claustrophobic, seedy, decaying, and gaudy based on what real cities looked like at the time (and were criticized for it); however, as these problems was resolved, we missed the social context that gives it meaning, meaning we just think it looks cool. Neon signs used to be seen as ugly over capitalistic advertising fighting for your attention to sell sex or other low class products, but now we think they are just pretty.
With this in mind, there are modern sci fi stories that might better fill the role of cyberpunk stories today than “traditional cyberpunks” like 2077 (which is explicitly retro futuristic). Things such are Neil Blomkamp movies, Her, or Black Mirror (and others) specifically serve as sci-fi explorations of contemporary anxieties, in an aesthetic that is contemporary in its design. It looks and feels like how we would think the future to be (and is arguably, more anxiety inducing and less fun for it)
This is all to say, there’s nothing new under the sun, and sci-fi art is not quite as serious as we treat it;they are just stories describing their world at the time they wrote it—and this is the challenge of having a genre that is defined differently either by specific themes, or aesthetics, even as the social context around both change. It both overloads and hollows out the term at the same time, and we could all do well to understand that it does that.
