wreaking havoc

watching David Balducci defend the sanctity and integrity of human-originated writing in a congressional hearing reinforces my own musings about our common cyberfriend, the AI composer. That entity lacks soul, lacks spiritual insight, and lacks a trinitarian nature.

A man- or woman- is composed of three parts...body, soul, and spirit. The nature of the latter in different states of "heaven," when corporally moving like the wind and not bound by the material, remains a mystery to the human mind. Beyond that, it is completely discombobulating to one based in a cyber realm. While we, as humans, project our faith in what is spiritual, a cyber being cannot begin to understand, since understanding the human spirit will always remain intuitive. It is impossible for an AI to explain the spiritual utilizing language that adheres to the spiritual laws, transcending physical, whether in this realm or the next. We can, however, touch each one of the trinities, explain in fragile human words, and surpass the machine every time.  

Since this is the case, and like parallelism, the two can never arrive at an intersection of common experience, my writing, and your writing, when crafted with a trinitarian approach will always surpass the AI's performance. AI may completely obliterate many rational ways of explaining the material world, but humans rule when taking the story into the spiritual.

Because the spiritual, on this side of the veil, requires thought that AI cannot recreate within, nor duplicate in imitation, with any believable mesh of words and images, we owe it to ourselves to, like this run-on sentence, break barriers that AI will not be able to reproduce. 

When my thought processes produce a poetic fiction, or any other creative venture passing beyond the standard that AI has been programmed with, I can be assured that AI will not be able to create alternative pieces shadowing my works. 

For one like Steven King, or John Grisham, unlike James Joyce's Ulysses, that one's production is too relatable. The question for readers of the future is how relatable the human author's works should be to be read, rejoiced in, and celebrated. I harbor no ill will toward anyone if my work is generally too eccentric...for like the forementioned Joyce, my first goal as an author is not to be relatable, but to relate an experience that could resonate with some consumers, more often the more spiritually sensitive ones. I would rather create beyond the capability of an earthbound cyberfriend than imitate a style praised by the New York Times. Life is too short to imitate.

so, for some, the next few decades could wreak havoc on the literary catalogue of accepted morality. in actuality, we have entered an era no longer bound by the rules of creative decorum. how we snake our way through the snowdrifts of this slalom may determine what becomes of future tense, that world destined to be evaluated in a whole different set of values that must include parameters for AI story creation, copywrite, and fair use.