Print

Print


Peter Howard sent a highly interesting argument about AI to the Poetryetc.
list but I made a mistake in posting my reply to that argument both on the
Poetryetc. channel and on Britpo.  My aim was to broaden discussion so that we
could have a co-operation between both lists.  However, as Peter doesn't
subscribe to Britpo, this has left him without access to making any response
to my message on this channel.  With the speed of this e-mail medium, I simply
hadn't thought of this but it's clearly unfair, not least because he has
cogent answers to my remarks.  The only reason I don't post all his points
here is that, again, he'd be left without opportunity for reply to any other
Britpo listers who wade in.

Since it's my fault for overlooking this problem, may I ask that any response
to my Britpo posting should keep to the general issue rather than attack an
intelligent argument by Peter which I have presented only in ghost form as an
unspecified text to which I am responding?

The general issue might be something like: could a poet's view of
consciousness be similar to that of a scientist wishing to create at least a
simulacrum of "mind"?  I'm not putting any spin on that.  It might be similar.
And I know there are poets out there who are interested in computer generated
and similar machine assisted forms of poetry.  


Best

Doug


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%