4 ms·

Interestingly enough, if there were such a thing, then objectively good literature would be the first thing taken over by AI. It would be that very ability to b

Interestingly enough, if there were such a thing, then objectively good literature would be the first thing taken over by AI. It would be that very ability to be objective that would make it definable in a way that could be machine produced. Of course, this flies in the very face of thing because something very different is afoot here, as the names demonstrate. And a comparison and a question arises: name who wrote Little Red Riding Hood. Which, of course, is an inanswerable question. One can name many famous author who have written versions, but past that one quickly becomes lost in the diffusion of oral tradition. So, here, what arises of importance is the contents, the flow and interplay, the fluxuations of intersecting generalities and particulars attached to nothing. Yet with the names one speaks not of 'Titus Andronicus' or 'The Penal Colony', one speaks of Kafka and Shakespeare. The question is has one read name, is not name truth. And it is the name that is the primary. The question is why can truth not seem to arise from anonymity? Why can it not arise from plurality? Why can it not arise from diffusion? Because those are the very opposite of the name. So are they truth then or are they sigil? If not, where are the anonymous truths?

xamuel 7y ago
There are plenty of anonymous truths. Euclid probably didn't actually invent geometry, he probably compiled many sources to compose the Elements. Depending which scholars you ask, half or more of The Bible is either totally anonymous (e.g. the Book of Hebrews) or attributed to authors who didn't actually write it (e.g. Deuteronomy, which Moses would have to have predicted his own death in order to finish). More recently there's the Bitcoin Whitepaper published under a pseudonym. "Objective" doesn't imply "simple", the fact that so-called AI can't produce great literature is an indictment against the marketers calling it AI, not against great literature.
- apocalypstyx 7y ago
  Euclid - a name, along with Newton, Einstein, etc. We don't say Geometry Theta, we say Euclidean Geometry, Newtonian physics, etc. Why speak of them at all? Why not the ideas divorced from the men (and the few women)? The Bible - Promulgated mainly (for the most substantial part of its history) by those contending its ultimate authorship lay with God. And any appellation of greater significance would likely prove difficult to procure. >Bitcoin Whitepaper published under a pseudonym. Is this now Milton's competition? > "Objective" doesn't imply "simple" Yet simple enough to be described surely, to be circumscribed with pen and paper, surely, because if not, how is it known to be such? Or do we accept as fact the intuitions of those who had nothing more? And if it is not the name that stands predominant, why should we fear veritas ex machina?

xamuel 7y ago

There are plenty of anonymous truths. Euclid probably didn't actually invent geometry, he probably compiled many sources to compose the Elements. Depending which scholars you ask, half or more of The Bible is either totally anonymous (e.g. the Book of Hebrews) or attributed to authors who didn't actually write it (e.g. Deuteronomy, which Moses would have to have predicted his own death in order to finish). More recently there's the Bitcoin Whitepaper published under a pseudonym. "Objective" doesn't imply "simple", the fact that so-called AI can't produce great literature is an indictment against the marketers calling it AI, not against great literature.

apocalypstyx 7y ago
Euclid - a name, along with Newton, Einstein, etc. We don't say Geometry Theta, we say Euclidean Geometry, Newtonian physics, etc. Why speak of them at all? Why not the ideas divorced from the men (and the few women)? The Bible - Promulgated mainly (for the most substantial part of its history) by those contending its ultimate authorship lay with God. And any appellation of greater significance would likely prove difficult to procure. >Bitcoin Whitepaper published under a pseudonym. Is this now Milton's competition? > "Objective" doesn't imply "simple" Yet simple enough to be described surely, to be circumscribed with pen and paper, surely, because if not, how is it known to be such? Or do we accept as fact the intuitions of those who had nothing more? And if it is not the name that stands predominant, why should we fear veritas ex machina?