Are robots even better suited to literature than we are? As far as we know, they aren’t self-conscious. Grad students who write shitty self-conscious literature often say that self-consciousness is ruining literature. A robot does not write thinking about where it fits in a critical dialectic. It is not afraid of failure. It does not wonder whether it is good enough. It just puts words on the screen.
Kant says that beauty “has the appearance of purposiveness without a definite purpose. (Yes, I am sure Kant said that.) Kant seems to be describing exactly draws people to @LatourSwag and @horse_ebooks. A robot can literally write something without a definite purpose. Have you ever tried to write something without a purpose? Ignoring the whole meta-layer of your purpose being to write something without a purpose, have you ever tried just saying random things? Doesn’t your mind always default to some sort of selection process? Is it ever free?
This is an illustration of what I was getting at in the previous post: the future of avant-garde art is in eschewing “selection.” The only avant-garde artists possible right now are bots.