From his story 'The Great Automatic Grammatizator'.

>>24532332 (OP)
Where's the lie?
If you can really describe something meaningfully as 'tense' or 'racy', then there's ostensibly some sort of platonic ideal or combination thereof you're pursuing, in the form of words and phrases and positioning and story structure. If it can be quantified, it can presumably be reproduced.

Bump

>>24532332 (OP)
The interesting thing about chatgpt is what makes it even possible in the first place, which is statistics. He just says "machine will do this" without saying anything about how that machine would work if it were to really exist.

>>24532332 (OP)
Didn't Orwell have dime novel machines in 1984?
Anyway, the greatest tech prophet, to an almost eerie extent, was EM Forster in The Machine Stops.

>>24532332 (OP)
>”In capitalist society there is an inherent tendency for the attention span of each successive generation to diminish as the experience of alienation increases, with the proletarian nervous system leading the way toward mental disintegration. Already this mutilation of the human psyche is having its visible cultural effects on American society. New film and musical forms are pulverizing all content into tinier, more purely sensational fragments. Nothing with greater complexity than an advertising brochures can be understood even by privileged bourgeois youth. In movies intended for adolescent audiences, directors will soon be limiting each shot to five-second duration at longest and then cutting back from there.”
Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Joseph Stalin (1941)

>>24533647
It uses buttons and a battery labelled with stops. It literally says in the picture how it works.

>>24534227
Tard.

>>24534253
At least I can read nigger.

>>24532332 (OP)
thanks imma load this into claude and ask it to code it up for me

>>24532332 (OP)
this sounds better than chatgpt

>>24534262
>how does a computer work?
>you press the letters and click the mouse

>>24532332 (OP)
wow

>>24533804
i feel bad for ol' joe sometimes. it's a lonely place being so ahead of your time

>>24532332 (OP)
The more accurate predictor was 2001: A Space Odyssey

>>24533804
That's not from Stalin. Stalin was a philosophical retard, everything he wrote is trash

>>24535162
False equivalency. A computer is doing lots of things at once which you could mystify me with all kinds of technical crapola, but if I'm typing characters on a computer it works with buttons. (1234567890-=qwertyuiop[]\asdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm ,./ plus shift enter bkspc)

>>24532341
>it can presumably be reproduced.

it can't, that's like, eideticly impossible, dude.

>3.5. The Gap Between Fundamental Syntax and Anthropomorphic Syntax
>As many commentators have noted, despite its rigor and abstraction, Greimasian theory fails to elucidate the true eidetic and rational status of the conversion that transitions from the constitutional model to the modalized actantial model. In his Introduction to Narrative and Discursive Semiotics, Joseph Courtès emphasizes this point: “There is, it seems, no direct path from the elementary structure of signification to the surface syntactic distribution.” “Even the syntactic modalities of wanting and/or knowing and/or being able to—which are logically prior to surface narrative utterances and therefore situated at a deeper level—do not allow us to bridge the gap between ‘surface grammar’ and ‘deep grammar.’”
>This lack of understanding of the conversion is not truly detrimental in a conceptual-descriptive theory that can legitimately make use of primitive, undefinable concepts and principles of “hypothetical a priori” parallelism: it suffices to posit that anthropomorphic syntax is a praxeological representation of logical syntax, introducing the specifically action-related elements known as modalities. But it becomes problematic in a theory that claims to be deductive and formal. As Courtès notes, the issue then becomes that of the “formal relationship” between the fundamental and surface levels.
>Clearly, if the problem is insoluble in Greimasian theory, it is because the logical conception of the fundamental level entails the need to convert logical relations into syntactic events—something that is eideticly impossible. The principle of overcoming (Aufhebung) this genuine antinomy lies in the introduction of a topological apperception of structures.

Jean Petitot-Cocorda, Morphogenesis of Meaning, 1985


But LLM can do it. At the cost that the metaphysics underlying the "series of master buttons" is approximated.

>>24532332 (OP)
Kino

he was just shitting on genre fiction