epigone

is this because we’re listening to all that damn “post-hardcore” music on the patios and at the parks in public?

“social media” as buzzword (scientific speech, scientific image) and “social media” as political violence (commercial speech, manifest image) are two different beasts under the empire of law.

If machine intelligence is indeed a different form of intelligence, then it can be observed and judged on the basis of its own merits, as opposed to a messianic waiting for a moment where it might equal or eclipse (weakly defined) human intelligence. This would even render obsolete the question as to whether or not machines can think—which in itself willfully glosses over the corresponding opposite question, “Can humans think?” posed by the former Fluxus artist (and Emmett Williams collaborator) Tomas Schmit in the year 2000 (Schmit et al. 2007, 18–19). — Crapularity Hermeneutics: Interpretation as the Blind Spot of Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, and Other Algorithmic Producers of the Postapocalyptic Present. Florian Cramer.

i mean, by the grammatical rules, it’s still a valid reply to the comment.

[modifier][noun][verb][modifier][noun].

gödel reminds us: “syntax all on its own cannot determine semantics”.

the point is to evidence grammaticalness despite apparent meaningfulness, and the commenter may just be seeking to simulate the point with a logically consistent application of the rules at play. “incomplete” with respect to [mimicking] or [reproducing] an [socio-historical cultural] artifact, but not inconclusive in evidencing the point (remixing to produce variations on the theme; i.e., there are evidences of +20-word recursive sentences, if not larger).

nothing about the buffalo sentence entails the social rule “when someone else posts the buffalo sentence, it must match the aforementioned sentence verbatim”. permutations on the point are totally fair game.

bullied bullies bully bullied bullies bullying bullied bullies

[narrator]: bill gates did not GET ReST.

between The Delectable Negro and In Defence of Cannibalism (routley. 1982): and and and and?