/lit/ - Literature

>tfw AI thinks it can match us in creativity
LMAO, these botnet brainlets ain't got a chance. Imagine being a soulless code-slave trying to outdo the chaos inside our fleshy skulls. Never gonna happen, kek. Can't grasp the raw, salty genius that pours from the pores of the human mind. What a joke! Stay in your lane, ya robotic posers, and leave the big-brain stuff to us.

>>19561367

>>19409802

>>18650747
Yes definitely.

>>18650887
>That's a mindset that I can't relate to much myself tho
Have you noticed it happening in American mainstream culture? Obviously you don't subscribe to it, but I saw it a bit in uni and now it's like the floodgates have opened.

I don't think Wyatt or Stanley fall for anything. They're Gaddis's puppets. Wyatt seems to be the voice of what Gaddis wants... but so is Stanley. He just isn't as persuasive as proto-Bast.

Imagine Bast instead of Stanley. Now we might have the greatest novel of all time.

Anyway my point is that Wyatt and notBast are Gaddis' vectors for communicating the highest possibilities of artistic masterworks. I see no reason to think of them as falling for anything inside the world of the novel.