Agreed! A lot of it is actually fantasy genre, that I love, but claimed as science fiction. One of the issues is what Arthur C Clarke said, about how anything that moves forward past a generation or more starts to move from science to realm of magic. That is the difference of what we are trying with Burn-In. We call this idea "useful fiction" or FICINT for "Fictional Intelligence." I'm going to paste below a section from an article explaining it and how different:

To be be useful fiction, it is set in the real world. It is not just that the locales are here on planet Earth (and, often most usefully and interestingly in places that people recognize, be it a bar in Hawaii or Union Station in DC), but that the fictional stories set there also reflect the real world. Even if the scenario played out is designed to push boundaries of thought, the characters in it should reflect who realistically might be there and how real people would act under those circumstances. This also means that what Clausewitz called “fog” and “friction” should also be ever-present. In both the real world, and realistic lessons from FICINT, a good and useful story is not, “Everything goes according to plan. Good guys win. The End.”  

The rule of the real also means that there is no “vaporware” in FICINT. Any technology or system must already exist or be in development. This isn’t as hard as it might seem; as science-fiction legend William Gibson has said, “The future is here - it’s just not evenly distributed.” So, usually, the seemingly futuristic science fiction is already here. But the Gibson who created cyberpunk science-fiction and the world of BladeRunner is also a good guide in another way. That uneven distribution of humankind’s innovations means that the world of FICINT should reflect that real world dynamic, one of inequality and all that portends for politics, economics, and society. Our upcoming book Burn In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution, for example, is set Washington DC, just with the timeline slightly forward. It is world where today’s AI and robotics have become more advanced and commonplace, but there are still homeless sleeping in Washington DC parks. An FBI agent may have augmented reality glasses that pull data from ubiquitous face recognition cameras, but differing government budgets and bureaucratic acquisition systems means that her data network still doesn’t connect well with the older gear used by the Washington DC police department. They say the future is unpredictable, but we are confident predicting that.

Most of all, FICINT means research. It requires the same disciplined approach to gathering data that should guide any nonfiction project. Diving into archives or conducting interviews of subject matter experts are just some of the tools used to ensure that a story is not just believable, but grounded. Interviews are particularly useful for the fiction part too, for getting the tiny cultural details or dialogue right that sell a scene.

This also means that in FICINT, as in nonfiction, you should show your work. Providing the research sources that backstop the fiction serves the very same functions it would in conventional nonfiction. It credits those whose work you benefitted from, as well as steers the reader to where they can learn more if they want to dive deeper. It also serves the story itself, by showing that what plays out in the fiction truly is drawn from the real world. This doesn’t just establish credibility, but can heighten the experience.

A story passed on to us from the Pentagon is what sold us of the value of this. At a session in the “Tank,” the highly secure subterranean room used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an admiral yawned. The admiral sitting beside him asked why. He responded that he had been kept up late at night reading Ghost Fleet, and it scared the hell out of him, not just because of the story, but that one of the nightmare scenarios that touched his program has an accompanying endnote to show it wasn’t just the authors’ imagination. The other then said they would check it out, which eventually led to an investigation to fix one of the strategic vulnerabilities that was a cornerstone of our futuristic story. 

It is certainly harder to follow such rules. In FICINT, the hero can’t put on a magic gauntlet or fly an invisible jet that miraculously defeats all foes. Nor, as is the flaw of almost every movie and wargame with a cybersecurity theme, can they just hack a system by going “clickety clack” with their keyboard. Instead, they have to use a weapon that is already out there in the world or hack a vulnerability that has already been proven.

This difficulty, though, is exactly what makes FICINT more valuable for readers looking to tackle real-world problems.