The practical consequence is that we do not have to agonize over the reliability of a published book before we can put it to use. We do not need to undertake investigatory work to confirm that its author does exist and that its text is authorized. No literary spy need be hired to ascertain that it was indeed made by its stated publisher and that its contents will be the same as those of another copy of the same book found in any other place.

THE NATURE OF THE BOOK. Print and Knowledge in the making. ADRIAN JOHNS. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. CHICAGO AND LONDON.

This used to be true. It is true^[1]! Until you ask an AI. It is then when things don’t go as certain as they used to be. Most AIs are trained to answer within a frame of selected information. But some are not. And, allegedly^[2], they can create or invent books that don’t exist… YET. Since they can draw conclusions based on existing text and deduce the contents, they are answering text and authors that DO NOT EXIST.

Will the printing culture process happen for the “quoting AI” processes as well? Or are we at the threshold of the book to be, a magic that allows us to predict what is going to be written looking back at the existing books and using it as knowledge of the future?

That would be interesting. It would be, truly traveling to the future. Or reading what wasn’t finished. I’d really like to read Trinity blood…

Pasto kalo.

^[1] However the very book tries to prove it false; which is related to the process printing as an activity endured in order for this printing culture to appear.

^[2] Let’s say it does happen as an axioma. Whether it is right or wrong, will come later in time.