[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> imperfect, become the songs of the nations."   
   >>>   
   >>> I believed this before I read Emerson over a quarter century ago, and I   
   >>> continue to believe it today.   
   >>>   
   >>> The number of poems that were written before time is both infinite and   
   >>> finite.   
   >>>   
   >>> Finite in the specification that they had to have been "written down."   
   >>> This is another example of the block universe theory that all time   
   >>> happens simultaneously.  In this sense the number of poems is finite, in   
   >>> that they only come into existence *as* they are written down.  This   
   >>> finite number would therefore be determined by the number of poems that   
   >>> humankind has been/will be able to write down during the course of their   
   >>> existence.  When AI achieves the ability to compose poetry equivalent   
   >>> to, or even superior to, that of humans, the finite number of   
   >>> 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)