Humanist Archives: July 12, 2021, 9:12 a.m. Humanist 35.134 - an oppositional artificial intelligence
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 134.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
Submit to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 2021-07-12 07:31:15+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <email@example.com>
Subject: once again unto the breach
Let's consider again this notion (it is vague, I admit) of an
oppositional AI. My objective in staging such opposition of
human-with-problem versus a conceivably mischievous machine is, a
folklorist might say and have examples to prove it, as old as the hills.
For example, in their introduction to Untying the Knot: On Riddles and Other
Enigmatic Modes (1996), Galit Hasan-Rokem and David Shulman write about
a genre that comes to mind:
> The riddle's form is dialogic, requiring the interaction of self and
> other. Two levels are joined in the question, only to be disentangled
> in the answer. The process involved is inherently enigmatic and also
> transformative: the transition effected leaves reality changed,
> restructured, its basic categories restated, recognized, affirmed.
> This is no less true for the inner reality of consciousness than for
> any external, "objectified" world.
> In short, the riddle, both in itself and in its contextual
> embeddedness, is rich in existential content.
The late Peter Clemoes likewise wrote in his masterful book,
Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (1995),
about how Anglo-Saxon riddling and the enigmatic language in
Beowulf, The Wanderer &al, deliver "a lesson in the quirkiness to
which a systematic relationship between potential and performance
could be subject" (p. 105).
OK, I am fishing... but from time to time I do think I can see the fish.
To speak less metaphorically, I am thinking that it is, somehow, in the
creative disruption of sedimented thought that the potential lies.
But equally important if not more so is the question of where the
disruption occurs. Surely we mistake things fundamentally in
narrowing this question down to the machine in its precomputational
sense. Surely the betweenness is where we must look -- in current
jargon, in the 'space' between hardware and wetware?
Clemoes especially furnishes a reminder of what we have to gain by
remembering that in the digital humanities imaginative literature is not
merely a domain of data to be processed but a way of thinking and
being to be enacted.
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: firstname.lastname@example.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php