[continued from previous message]   
      
   > pre-existent poems is multiplied by a near-infinite amount.   
   >   
   > And, IMHO, the more great poetry that has been rescued from the Platonic   
   > plane of Ideality, and brought into human (or human and AI) culture, the   
   > better.   
   >   
   > Infinite in that a computer (multiplied by billions of computers) can   
   > theoretically compose a near-infinite number of poems in a fraction of a   
   > second.    Moreover, since cyberspace has no physical existence, it is   
   > not inconceivable to surmise that at some point in the future it may   
   > reach a state wherein it can exist *outside of* the confines of   
   > Space-Time as *sentient energy.*  For the present, it is dependent upon   
   > computers to keep it running -- but that is because it was created by   
   > humans.  AI is already designing its own programs, and its limitless   
   > potential exceeds the capabilities of human thought.   
   >   
   > Of course, an infinite number of poems would be too much for any human   
   > being to be capable of learning (even with a computer chip implant, our   
   > physical brain would be unable to process that much information over the   
   > course of a lifetime).  But AI would, again, theoretically, be able to   
   > not only "know" all of these poems, but to examine, critique, compare,   
   > and rank them against one another.  Can you imagine the *quality* of the   
   > 100 greatest poems as ranked by computers that have knowledge of an   
   > infinite (or near-infinite) number of great poems?   
   >   
   > And, ultimately, it is the poem that matters -- not the poet.  And   
   > certainly not whether the poet was a human (who, as Emerson notes, is   
   > prone to "miswrite" the poem) or AI (which, theoretically, should be   
   > able to capture it in its truest, Ideal form).   
   >   
   > --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)