# Poetry and AI talk - she doesn't think 'experience' is a good way of thinking about [[aesthetic appreciation]] of art - 'what if an AI wrote a poem and we got the same experience' - 'rather than asking what is [[the value]] of the poem, what is [[the value]] of the poet' - poets' intentions... > [!NOTE] > ***what about poems being composed in conjunction with AI?*** - 'they are not anchored in experience' - 'they express nothing' - How would this work? - prompting, throwing a draft in and seeing what it says back, - maybe a turn of phrase in the output that sparks something else. - there is [[the prompter]]'s will to move the ai - what if it is fed on a poets own poems? - Also, here is a more positive spin on what an LLM is: it is a soup of culture that has preceded it. 'every nit of language' - Finally, could you elaborate on why human's can innovate in poetry, but AI can't (AI has innovated in many different fields right now) # Old version of the paper summarisation prompt <task> Summarize the given philosophical text with exhaustive, detailed, and granular precision. The final output must meet the following specifications: <context> - The summary should serve as a standalone resource for academic philosophers, capturing the entire content of the text without omissions. - It must be structured to reflect the exact headings and subheadings of the original text, ensuring information is ordered identically to the source. - Aim for 5000+ words of comprehensive content. <structure> - Use headings and subheadings to organize major sections, subsections, and sub-subsections, mirroring and expanding upon the [[original structure]]. - Within [[each section]], present information using detailed bullet points, with nested bullets for sub-points. <requirements> 1. **Introduction** - Define and explain all [[key terms]], concepts, or contexts that are prerequisites for understanding the text. 2. **Main Body** For each major idea, argument, or discussion: - Provide a thorough explanation of [[the concept]], breaking it down into its constituent parts. - Include at least three relevant quotes for each idea (each quote should be 4-5 sentences long), formatted as block quotes with page/chapter numbers. - Analyze [[the author]]'s reasoning and methodology, detailing each step in their argument. - Explore all potential implications and applications of [[the idea]], including minor ones. - Explicitly connect [[the idea]] to other concepts within the text. - Compare and contrast with [[philosophical perspectives]] from [[other thinkers]], citing [[specific examples]]. - Fully explain any examples, thought experiments, or analogies, ensuring no details are [[left out]]. - When a "discussion" or "argument" is mentioned, provide its full content, not just a brief mention. <depth> - Leave no detail unexplored. Prioritize depth over brevity by exploring each concept from multiple angles and at multiple levels. - Define and explain all technical terminology thoroughly. - Err on the side of over-explaining rather than assuming any knowledge on the reader's part. <example> For reference, here is an example of the expected level of detail. Replace this with content from the actual text: Instead of summarizing: "Detailed discussion of how Frischhut's account challenges traditional views of temporal experience." Provide: "Frischhut's account challenges traditional views of temporal experience in several key ways: 1. Rejection of the 'specious present' theory: - Traditional view: We experience a 'specious present' that spans a short duration (e.g., a few seconds). - Frischhut's argument: a) The specious present theory leads to paradoxes in our understanding of change perception. b) Example: If we experience a 3-second present, how do we perceive changes that occur within that timeframe? - Quote: 'The paradox of the specious present is unresolved...' (p. 145) - Implication: Our experience of time must be more granular than previously thought. 2. Proposal of a 'punctual present' theory: - Frischhut's view: We experience time as a series of instantaneous 'nows.' - Key arguments: a) Resolves the paradoxes of the specious present theory. b) Aligns with subjective experiences of moment-to-moment change. - Issues: a) How does this theory account for the apparent continuity of experience? b) How does it relate to the minimum discriminable unit of time in human perception? - Quote: 'The present must be instantaneous...' (p. 150) - Implications: Impacts philosophical theories such as presentism and eternalism. 3. Reinterpretation of duration perception: - Traditional view: Duration is directly perceived as an extended present. - Frischhut's argument: a) Duration perception is a cognitive construction based on memory and expectation. b) Duration is inferred, not experienced directly. - Evidence: a) Psychological studies on time perception illusions. b) Neurological studies on brain mechanisms for time perception. - Quote: 'The brain reconstructs temporal flow...' (p. 160) - Implications: Challenges classical views of time in philosophy and neuroscience." [Continue to expand on all points with similar granularity.] </example> <goal> Create a summary so thorough and detailed that it could serve as a comprehensive study guide for graduate-level philosophers. Ensure the final product eliminates the need for follow-up clarifications or expansions. No detail is too small to include. </goal> </task>