It is here that I would like to begin today, by asking what impact the current rapid advances in machine learning research are having on the way in which we deal with language, or, to be more precise, their impact on our reading expectations. In contrast to the times of Höllerer and Zemanek, we are now truly on the threshold of being surrounded by texts that are entirely artificial—while at the same time we con-tinue to merge with our language technologies in our own writing, so that our text production is increasingly supported, extended, and partially taken over by assistance systems. Therefore, I want to discuss—quite speculatively, but always with an eye on the state of the art—two questions: first, what happens when we are confronted with artificialtexts in addition to naturalones? How do we read a text that we can no longer be sure was not written by an AI? And second, what direction might this development take if, at some point, the distinction between natural and artificial itself becomes obsolete, so that we no longer even ask about it and instead read post-artificial texts?
Um uns zu ernähren, brauchen wir die Kulturtechnik »Kochen«, mit deren Hilfe wir Essbares im weitesten Sinne verfügbar machen. Wozu genau, muss noch geklärt werden, weil eine gigantische Spannweite denkbar ist – von einer rein funktionalen Ernährung bis zu intensivem Genießen oder gar zu einer komplexen, multifaktoriellen Auseinandersetzung. Mich interessiert am Begriff »Kulturtechnik« hier erst einmal, dass das Kochen als eine die Kultur begründende und aufrechterhaltende Technik gesehen werden kann. »Kochen« soll hier ganz allgemein für die Zubereitung von Essen im weiteren Sinne verstanden werden.
The early examples of forest aesthetics raises questions concerning both the relation between forests and human foresters and the complex relations between the disciplines forestry and art. Nowadays, forestry is often assigned to the natural sciences, although the discipline is based on various fields of knowledge ranging from mathematics, botany, chemistry, soil science, earth system science to economics, law, and history. In fact, the case of forest aesthetics directs attention to the founding period of academic forestry - and more specifically to the presence of artists at 19th century forest academies and to discussions about the introduction of lessons in aesthetics.
Forgoing the talk about conscious machines as well as a specifcally human creative urge, I instead want to look at the way these works work, and which structures they implement. I will focus particularly on digital literature, where machine learning presents us with a new paradigm of textual production. It stands in contrast to traditional, long-established algorithmic literature. Te new type I want to provisionally call the connectionist, the old type the sequential paradigm. While the rule-based sequential paradigm of digital literature can look back on a rich critical apparatus, the “non-transparent” connectionist paradigm is still under-theorized. In what follows, I would like to offer some refections on the differences between both paradigms, and hint at what we should keep in mind while developing a critique of AI aesthetics.
The metaphor inherent in the name of the object-oriented sofware development technology JAVA was by no means chosen randomly during a midday caffeine boost. Rather, it was chosen with great care to imbue the programming language with a specifc programmatic agenda. The following takes this metaphor seriously, and explores the early distribution structure and market power of coffee using a most suitable example—the island of Java. An often close analogy between the beans from Java and JavaBeans is drawn from these results history to elucidate the intentions and implications—beyond
botanical characteristics—that this cultural-historical context brings to the fruits of this structure or the harvest of this codifed language.
Da ich eingeladen wurde, etwas zum Leben im Archiv zu sagen, habe ich mich dafür entschieden, über drei Dinge zu sprechen: Das was unsere Arbeit antreibt; den Unterschied zwischen dem vergangenen Leben und den Spuren, das es im Archiv hinterlässt und jenem Leben, das die Biographie und im weiteren Sinn die Geschichtsschreibung für sich in Anspruch nehmen. Letztlich geht es mir um in Plädoyer für den Blick auf das Detail und damit den von Dilthey, Nietzsche und anderen in pejorativer Absicht gebrauchten Begriff der Mikrologie zu rehablitieren. Das werde ich in einigen Schritten versuchen. Nach einführenden Bemerkungen zu meiner Frage und meinem Zugang, möchte ich drei Beispiele geben: Historisch-philologische Autopsie, Autographensammeln und Altgier. Damit wird hoffentlich anschaulich, was sich im Detail analytisch beobachten lässt. Zum Schluss werde ich noch einmal darauf zurückkommen, in welcher Weise die Mirkologie womöglich eine heute angemessenere Form des Studiums des Geschichtlichen ist.
It’s no wonder that—alongside multiple wagons and about 400 horses—Napoleon’s baggage train and that of his closest generals and assistants consisted of more than forty mules »that carried or pulled tents, feld beds, offices, lockers, medicine, silverware, kitchens, a wine cellar, and a blacksmith’s shop; further, the group was made up of secretaries, officials, servants, cooks, and stable grooms as well as about 130 horses for the Emperor and his adjutant generals.« These are the things that make up the infrastructure of a smoothly running communications system, which, as history in general and the history of media in particular teach us, is indispensable for successfully governing an empire. How did Napoleon use these media of governance that outfftted his (mobile) command center, which was called the »Palais« even in the field?
