The New York Times reports on the rise of computer programs such as Brutus 1 that are capable of writing really quite reasonable stories. For example, a computer is responsible for this piece of prose:
“Dave Striver loved the university - its ivy-covered clocktowers, its ancient and sturdy brick, and its sun-splashed verdant greens and eager youth. The university, contrary to popular opinion, is far from free of the stark unforgiving trials of the business world: academia has its own tests, and some are as merciless as any in the marketplace. A prime example is the dissertation defense: to earn the Ph.D., to become a doctor, one must pass an oral examination on one's dissertation. This was a test Professor Edward Hart enjoyed giving”.
Human authors aren’t in too much trouble yet. Computers are bamboozled by the many choices that are available to them in developing a story. However, humans use their disorganised natures to their advantages by just not bothering to try out all the possibilities that are open to them. Instead, they rely on serendipity and inspiration, which stops them from getting bogged down in deciding between the millions of choices open to them.

The IPKat says, these computers may be brainy, but they don’t get to hold the copyright in what they create. Instead, under s.9 of the CDPA 1988, the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken gets the right.

More computers with human characteristics here, here and here
Fiction a computer would be proud of here (lawyers of a sensitive disposition look away now)
COMPUTERS GO AGAINST TYPE COMPUTERS GO AGAINST TYPE Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.