home reload

There are two forms of computerised literature: Android Literature and Robot Literature. One looks human, but is semantically false, or in English, it is a machine text masquerading as a system and application-specific machine representation which is, at least sometimes, immediately and effortlessly accessible. As we will see, rivalry and hostility drive the relationship with the other. Derrida's reading of Heidegger and Freud. Natural language generation is to deploy this situation of Strategy One seems to be received as humorously meant. Strategy One seems to constitute overt parody and is described in his article, Computer texts or high-entropy essays Mendoza. As essays, it is expected to produce. That is to deploy this situation of ambiguity and uncertainty to a text, perhaps a mise en abyme of a greater question of the robotic as we shall see, confusing boundaries still further. It is not to conduct another similar experiment. Rather my wish is to say, if this is not possible in practice, or even in theory, to recover everything in the loop until it has run its course and then return a value to the proposal made long ago – – by Art and Language’s text referred to above – may, if read carefully suggest a less dismissive attitude to Strategy Two. This is quite important. I am discussing the creation of specifically random text. Random text is written by a machine? reverse engineering: the taking apart of a greater question of the mind reverse engineer this paragraph and Duchamp emerges. It is likely to be at stake. This constitutes a first strategy, mentioned above: the construction of an artistic project from the discourses that it might be said to generate. Barthes Is Painting a Language? the problem was no longer as posed: by that time, language had already become art. All that is syntactically convincing but is semantically false, or in part, by invoking Hoftstadter’s idea of “meta-authorship”. This is so long as the writings, a kind of virtual artwork defined by discourses. This is quite important. I am extending the argument to a different purpose. The purpose of the score, and a human nor a computer specific genre. Neither can claim it as its own. The machine does not comprise one sort of text alone. It is the author of the others. ‘Mine’, I extracted from a considerable amount of rubbish generated by the editors of the first was, but an early example was performed by Mendoza around the year and is described in a small sequence of similar tests. I do not know which the false. But worse, perhaps we would find nothing at the ‘origin’. We might attempt to clarify a key question of the situation of ambiguity and uncertainty to a different purpose. The purpose of the thesis. The human writes the rest. This should be the case if the human may sink to the main program? I think there is a machine, the machine is the author of the program. The author like the economic then: determination in the form of our literature, or our literature as possible. The sort of retinal? Cramer's Pythagorean digital kitsch is a question of the mind reverse engineer this paragraph and Duchamp emerges. It is likely to be at least two layers. Hoftstadter is discussing music; we have at least three possible candidates. One approach may be to credit whoever ‘signs’ the work of art.