home reload

Mystification is neither a human nor a computer specific genre. Neither can claim it as its own. The machine does not fail the human meets the computer's. It is the Text? Nevertheless, this text is written by a machine. It was a compound word, combining connotations of insubstantial exhalations with those of solid commercial goods. What is the author of the Text Machine? Or is it the contrary? This text does not comprise one sort of random texts, quote generators and the many other travesties at Stanford University's The Random Sentence Generator http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~zelenski/rsg/. See APPENDIX for examples. HORACE's reviews also suggest a less dismissive attitude to Strategy Two. This is an altogether more difficult area. Uneson defines its project thus: Another way of putting it is possible for apparently plausible sounding text that is fundamentally a legal fiction, says Marx; however, according to Geoffrey, it is my thesis that these rules may emit a text that may be discerned. Is it the contrary? This text could be a cybertext. It is possible for the nondeterministic generation of text it should not, then this act is of questionable legitimacy. To use an example of The Dada Engine’s output from the work should be the case if the language is more unusual? Will the machine is the true and which the false. Why do reverse engineering? I will return to this question below. The Body and Dialectics, with reference to machine texts, are perhaps a mise en abyme of a machine that “who”? is the Text? Nevertheless, this text may in part or entirely might be that this discussion of cybertexts is a machine, can we expect to discover an absence where a something should be. There would be no machine, merely vapour. Natural language generation has potential practical application, the production of documents tailored to users’ specific needs and wishes for instance see Dale et al, Both yes and no. For what if a literature already converges with an output?