[Tony Barnstone]

From the comments, it seemed the poem needed expansion for the sake of clarity about key concepts, so I turned it into a double sonnet, hopefully for the better?

THE SINGULARITY

1. The Thousand Monkeys
“If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters
they might write all the books in the British Museum.”
--A. S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

I saw William Shakespeare in my dream,
reflective shadow with a pixeled face
gazing out at me from the flat screen
where all his words are in the database.
And as the dream began to evanesce,
Shakespeare withdrew below what I could find,
under the motherboard. Can consciousness
really monitor the undermind?
The thousand monkeys theory can’t account
for what strange being stirs there, for what appalls
the darkness with its artificial fount
of light that lights this cave made of glass walls,
this O without a figure, being unbeing,
this I without an eye, seeing unseeing.

2. Ex Nihilo
“Man will construct the deux ex machina in his own image.”
--I.J. Good, Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine

We enter fearful, enter the labyrinth
of binaries where yes and no are doors
open and closed at once, where truth and synth
recede like ghosts down endless corridors.
Who made the labyrinth? Who made this womb
of microcircuitry, beast at the core?
What heartless heart? Whose furnace brain? What room
that is no room, what door that is no door?
No one unscrewed the deadbolts from the doors.
No one unscrewed the doors from the doorjambs.
No one released the beasts inside the cores.
No one, Nothing, bred tigers out of lambs.
And no rough beast will watch us with blank gaze
when Nothing comes alive and leaves the maze.

1) Per Glenn's suggestion, cut original title (What Mortal Hand or Eye) and used "Ex Nihilo")
2) Working from questions of clarity, expanded by adding a first sonnet to gloss the second
3) Per Susan's suggestion, revamped the lines
4) Per Glenn, put quotation author names in same format

Who constructed life from death, this room
that is no room, this door that is no door?
----------------------------
ORIGINAL POST BELOW
A little stuck on my Florida poem, so I guess I'll post the latest and move on for now. Here's my AI poem, the first draft of which I wrote in collaboration with CHATGPT2, though only a few words remain of that draft. Still, I thought it would be interesting to write about the dangers of AI by consulting AI about the issue.


Ex Nihilo

“Man will construct the deux ex machina in his own image.”
Good, I. J., Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine

We enter fearful, enter the labyrinth
of binaries where yes and no are doors
open and closed at once, where truth and synth
recede like ghosts down endless corridors.
Who made the labyrinth? Who made this womb
of microcircuitry, beast at the core?
Who constructed life from death, this room
that is no room, this door that is no door?
No one unscrewed the deadbolts from the doors.
No one unscrewed the doors from the doorjambs.
No one released the beasts inside the cores.
No one, Nothing, bred tigers out of lambs.
And no rough beast will watch us with blank gaze
when Nothing comes alive and leaves the maze.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

You set the bar extremely high Tony and unfortunately this one flounders. “Did he who made the Lamb make thee? Is a question of theodicy and AI is yet to approximate the ‘Tyger’. I would question the use of the the premise here. It is also far too dense The concept definitely has legs.

Jan

[Glenn Wright]

Your title and L12 allude to William Blake’s poem, “The Tyger.” Blake, in his Songs of Innocence and Experience, conveys his terror-tinged nostalgia for the quickly disappearing agrarian way of life (lamb) that he saw being devoured by the “dark, Satanic mills” of the Industrial Revolution (tiger). In line 13 you juxtapose this to a reference to Yeats’s “The Second Coming,” in which Yeats conveys a similar terror at the “rough beast” whose “gaze,” blank and pitiless, threatens violence in a succession of revolutions and world wars.
Your sonnet captures the same prophetic tone of danger and regret as the mechanical age gives way to the digital age of AI. Is the labyrinth image homage to Borges, or to the myth of The Minotaur?

[Glenn Wright]

I’m trying to figure out a way around “synth.”
Am I the only one bothered by this?
How about something like
We enter fearful, enter the twisting maze
of binaries where yes and no are doors
open and closed at once. Clear light and haze
recede like ghosts down endless corridors.

[Tony Barnstone]

Hi Jan,

Sorry it did not appeal to you!

Hi Glenn,

All of the above. I don't want to wax prolix on this thread, so I'll send you a p.m. in answer to your question!

Best, Tony

[Carl Copeland]

Very interesting, Tony. I did find the density a bit off-putting, as Jan suggests, but perhaps it’s expressive of the microcircuitry. A few random thoughts:

Deus ex machina

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

I’m trying to figure out a way around “synth.” Am I the only one bothered by this?

Before I decide whether it bothers me, what does it mean? Synthesizer music? I’ve been watching “Picard,” but that sense, while tempting, doesn’t seem operative here.

An intelligent machine constructed from death does sound scary, but death is of course the state of having lived. Poets can make such shifts, but I think I’d be happier with something along the lines of “Who built this life from nothingness.”

I love the word “doorjambs,” but I don’t know how to scan it here. A trochaic inversion in that spot is awkward and makes an off-beat rhyme with “lambs.” A spondee also sounds off to me. You might try “jambs” all by itself and an extra syllable elsewhere in the line.

I’m also not sure what you’re getting at with the “no one unscrewed” lines—another way of saying that the doors are no doors? It is interesting how you shift from a negative no one (there was no unscrewing) to a positive no one that did release and breed beasts. (I wonder about shifting the responsibility from ourselves to “Nothing,” but that’s a moral and philosophical debate I’m unprepared for.)

I’m not sure how the Yeats allusion operates here. You say there will be no rough beast with blank gaze, while I would have expected that to be the beast emerging from the labyrinth (Minotaur?).

[Tony Barnstone]

Carl & Glenn,

I guess it is a common use among the sci fi crowd, but less so for the rest of humanity: synth is slang for "synthetic humanoid, an android, a robot, a clone" -- normally, of course it means "musical synthesizer."

Is it too obscure, therefore? If so, I am in trouble, because the only other rhymes are hyacinth (shades of Eliot) and plinth.

On the doorjambs meter, it is an interesting metrical debate. My go-to solution for anapests is to add another stress at the end and turn it into a double iamb (pyrrhic, spondee) or minor ionic. There are those who argue that spondees don't exist because one of the two syllables will always take extra stress. But in context, after a pyrrhic, the two relatively stronger syllables take stress to my ear, "jambs" less than "door" of course.

My go-to for this is Robert Frost, who also loved this rhythm, as in "As the breeze rises, and turn many-colored / As the stir cracks" in "Birches" where he uses three of them in two lines!

Lots of allusions--too many, perhaps ("Once by the Pacific," "The Second Coming," "The Tyger," Song of Myself, the myth of the labyrinth in Crete, in Eco and in Borges, futurist and 19th century sci fi fears of the mechanical womb, Odysseus in the cyclops cave, etc). The poem is a theodicy like Blake's "The Tyger," asking: who created the tyger, and did he also create the lamb? Is God the source of evil and of good and does that make God evil? --but applied to AI, which many in the industry feel is the most dangerous technology to be invented after the atom bomb.

The death-life stuff has to do with that question at the core of all artificial person stories, from the golem to "The Sandman" to Frankenstein's monster to Blade Runner to Isaac Asimov's I Robot series to Star Trek, etc.: At what point does the machine become organic? At what point is a thinking being human? Is the soul simply a function of the body, as Blake would have it: "Man has no Body distinct from his Soul. For that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age"?

So when the technological singularity comes around--when technological growth achieves I. J. Good's "intelligence explosion model" of chain-reacting, uncontrolled machine intelligence that becomes ever smarter and surpasses human intelligence"--is that intelligent machine without spirit, ex nihilio and also nothing at the core, and if so it is a different kind of beast slouching towards Bethlehem to be born, one constructed of nothing.

The unscrew the doors stuff to my mind is about the dangers that come from endless innovation on the one hand, but also a meditation on binary code--at what point does the machine transcend yes and no, one and zero, life and death, organism and machine, and become open and closed at the same time. When does nothing become being? (For literary detectives, it tries to undermine the inventive optimism of similar lines in Whitman's Song of Myself).

So, yes, the poem is very densely packed. It embraces difficulty of reading, with the hopes that the thought behind will reward the persistent reader. But I also hear from you, Jan and Glenn that it might be too difficult, so I'll have to think about that!

[Tony Barnstone]

Thinking about it, it seems to me I'm trying to do too much in one sonnet here. I think this is really going to have to be a sequence of sonnets on the singularity which gloss each other with recurrent imagery.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Well this is not what I originally critiqued. I will have to come back.

Jan

[Glenn Wright]

Some nice wordplay in the first sonnet, Tony.
S1L8: undermind—This is a great term for the digital subconscious, with overtones of “underworld” and “dark web.” It also suggests the speaker’s attempt to “undermine” the will of the digital gods and pursue the ghost of Shakespeare in a katabasis to the underworld paralleling Aeneas’s encounter with the ghost of Hector in a dream in The Aeneid.
S1L10: appalls—Blake uses the same word in his poem, “London” with the same double meaning of “shocked” and “lightened.” This plays nicely into the light/dark images in the next two lines.
The play of the letters O and I (eye) against the binary code digits is reinforced by the oxymorons “being unbeing” and “seeing unseeing.” Very clever.
The addition of the first sonnet makes the second sonnet the actual epic katabasis. Will a third sonnet bring him back to the upper world?