George J. Dance wrote:
As readers know, back in the summer I asked an AI to rate my poems on
a scale of 1 to 10, and it gave me a 7/10 rating. Yesterday, though,
someone else did the same exercise on my poetry, with a different result.
His result - 6 on a scale where 1 was best and 10 worst, was
equivalent to 5/10. At least one of these results has to be an outlier,
but which one?
So I decided to do a tie-breaker, and get a third evaluation. I also determined to weed out anything that could have biased the result. I
could think of two potential sources of bias:
(1) The 7/10 rating was a rating for the poet who asked, while the
5/10 was a rating of someone else's poetry. An AI could assign a
higher ranking to someone's poetry if the poet were the one asking.
For example, the other person's AI gave his poetry the equivalent
of a 9/10 rating; it could be that mine gave me a higher score because
I was the one asking.
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
I determined to eliminate both sources of bias from the tie-breaker
result. I could eliminate (1) by asking his AI, but not revealing
my identity; and I could eliminate (2) by asking his AI to look at all
of my poetry that appears on my blog, the way my AI did.
My null hypothesis was that his AI would give my poetry 6/10;
that would also be my average, and the differences of the other
two could be dismissed as biased. If it gave me 7/10, it would
agree with my AI; if it gave me 5/10, it would support his earlier
one. With those parameters in place, I proceeded to ask the question.
"AI. can you access and read George J. Dance's poetry on his blog https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/George%20J.%20Dance and rate it on a scale of 1-10?"
<quote>
Yes, I can access and read the poems by George J. Dance hosted on his blog. Below is an overview and critique of his work, followed by a rating based on its formal and thematic qualities.Poetic Style & StructureGeorge J. Dance exhibits a highly versatile approach to form, moving comfortably between strict traditional structures and experimental modern layouts:
Traditional Forms & Meter: He frequently writes in classic structures, such as the Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnet formats seen in "Bus Ride on a Summer Night" and "Prey". He demonstrates a strong handle on iambic pentameter and envelope rhyme schemes to build narrative tension.
Minimalist & Haiku-Style Verse: Several of his calendar pieces (like "January" and "November") lean into extreme minimalism, mimicking haiku or imagist fragments to capture a fleeting seasonal mood in just a few words.
Concrete Poetry: Works like "Post Meridiem" use spatial arrangement on the page, where the physical shape of the text narrows down to a trickle, mirroring the "slithering" theme of time described in the poem.
Major Themes
The Routine vs. The Metaphysical: He frequently finds deeper existential meaning in mundane scenarios. For instance, a cramped, sweaty public bus ride transforms into a spiritual meditation on shared human suffering and connectivity ("Bus Ride on a Summer Night").
The Cycle of Nature: A large portion of his body of work tracks the months and seasons, often contrasting natural shifts against human emotion"using winter and dead leaves to signify isolation, or rain as a force of baptism and renewal ("An April Shower").
Vulnerability & Dread: In pieces like "Prey", he successfully taps into psychological thriller elements, using the constraints of a sonnet to amplify a protagonist's mounting claustrophobia and paranoia.
Rating: 7.5 / 10
Dance functions as an accomplished, highly capable craftsman. His poetry earns a 7.5 out of 10 for its sharp structural agility and accessibility.
While his lighter calendar verses and children's poems ("Snow, Snow") occasionally lean into simplistic doggerel, his weightier pieces " specifically his sonnets and the ambitious, multi-part "Logos" series " showcase a profound ability to balance rhythm, philosophy, and striking visual imagery. He successfully bridges the gap between old-world formal constraint and contemporary everyday relevance.
</quote>
I hope that resolves the matter.
George J. Dance wrote:
[snip]
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
As readers know, back in the summer I asked an AI to rate my poems on
a scale of 1 to 10, and it gave me a 7/10 rating. Yesterday, though,
someone else did the same exercise on my poetry, with a different result.
His result - 6 on a scale where 1 was best and 10 worst, was
equivalent to 5/10. At least one of these results has to be an outlier,
but which one?
So I decided to do a tie-breaker, and get a third evaluation. I also determined to weed out anything that could have biased the result. I
could think of two potential sources of bias:
(1) The 7/10 rating was a rating for the poet who asked, while the
5/10 was a rating of someone else's poetry. An AI could assign a
higher ranking to someone's poetry if the poet were the one asking.
For example, the other person's AI gave his poetry the equivalent
of a 9/10 rating; it could be that mine gave me a higher score because
I was the one asking.
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
I determined to eliminate both sources of bias from the tie-breaker
result. I could eliminate (1) by asking his AI, but not revealing
my identity; and I could eliminate (2) by asking his AI to look at all
of my poetry that appears on my blog, the way my AI did.
My null hypothesis was that his AI would give my poetry 6/10;
that would also be my average, and the differences of the other
two could be dismissed as biased. If it gave me 7/10, it would
agree with my AI; if it gave me 5/10, it would support his earlier
one. With those parameters in place, I proceeded to ask the question.
"AI. can you access and read George J. Dance's poetry on his blog https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/search/label/George%20J.%20Dance and rate it on a scale of 1-10?"
<quote>
Yes, I can access and read the poems by George J. Dance hosted on his blog. Below is an overview and critique of his work, followed by a rating based on its formal and thematic qualities.Poetic Style & StructureGeorge J. Dance exhibits a highly versatile approach to form, moving comfortably between strict traditional structures and experimental modern layouts:
Traditional Forms & Meter: He frequently writes in classic structures, such as the Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnet formats seen in "Bus Ride on a Summer Night" and "Prey". He demonstrates a strong handle on iambic pentameter and envelope rhyme schemes to build narrative tension.
Minimalist & Haiku-Style Verse: Several of his calendar pieces (like "January" and "November") lean into extreme minimalism, mimicking haiku or imagist fragments to capture a fleeting seasonal mood in just a few words.
Concrete Poetry: Works like "Post Meridiem" use spatial arrangement on the page, where the physical shape of the text narrows down to a trickle, mirroring the "slithering" theme of time described in the poem.
Major Themes
The Routine vs. The Metaphysical: He frequently finds deeper existential meaning in mundane scenarios. For instance, a cramped, sweaty public bus ride transforms into a spiritual meditation on shared human suffering and connectivity ("Bus Ride on a Summer Night").
The Cycle of Nature: A large portion of his body of work tracks the months and seasons, often contrasting natural shifts against human emotion"using winter and dead leaves to signify isolation, or rain as a force of baptism and renewal ("An April Shower").
Vulnerability & Dread: In pieces like "Prey", he successfully taps into psychological thriller elements, using the constraints of a sonnet to amplify a protagonist's mounting claustrophobia and paranoia.
Rating: 7.5 / 10
Dance functions as an accomplished, highly capable craftsman. His poetry earns a 7.5 out of 10 for its sharp structural agility and accessibility.
While his lighter calendar verses and children's poems ("Snow, Snow") occasionally lean into simplistic doggerel, his weightier pieces " specifically his sonnets and the ambitious, multi-part "Logos" series " showcase a profound ability to balance rhythm, philosophy, and striking visual imagery. He successfully bridges the gap between old-world formal constraint and contemporary everyday relevance.
</quote>
I hope that resolves the matter.
View the attachments for this post at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=711514434#711514434
HarryLime wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) expresses an interest.
MummyChunk wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh. >>
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) expresses an interest.
Sounds interesting. Perhaps a new post with what was discussed?
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
<snip>
So I decided to do a tie-breaker, and get a third evaluation. I also
determined to weed out anything that could have biased the result. I
could think of two potential sources of bias:
(1) The 7/10 rating was a rating for the poet who asked, while the
5/10 was a rating of someone else's poetry. An AI could assign a
higher ranking to someone's poetry if the poet were the one asking.
For example, the other person's AI gave his poetry the equivalent
of a 9/10 rating; it could be that mine gave me a higher score because
I was the one asking.
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
I determined to eliminate both sources of bias from the tie-breaker
result. I could eliminate (1) by asking his AI, but not revealing
my identity; and I could eliminate (2) by asking his AI to look at all
of my poetry that appears on my blog, the way my AI did.
<snip>
I hope that resolves the matter.
I've no doubt that it resolves it for you, Dunce.
However, when I asked AI to review one of the Donkey's poems, it automatically assumed that it was one of mine.
Apparently, AI will default to the assumption that the person asking about a poem that it doesn't recognize is the actual poet.
That is why I prefaced my queries with a "not me."
George J. Dance wrote:
<snipped for focus>
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
<snip>
So I decided to do a tie-breaker, and get a third evaluation. I also
determined to weed out anything that could have biased the result. I
could think of two potential sources of bias:
(1) The 7/10 rating was a rating for the poet who asked, while the
5/10 was a rating of someone else's poetry. An AI could assign a
higher ranking to someone's poetry if the poet were the one asking.
For example, the other person's AI gave his poetry the equivalent
of a 9/10 rating; it could be that mine gave me a higher score because
I was the one asking.
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
I determined to eliminate both sources of bias from the tie-breaker
result. I could eliminate (1) by asking his AI, but not revealing
my identity; and I could eliminate (2) by asking his AI to look at all
of my poetry that appears on my blog, the way my AI did.
<snip>
I hope that resolves the matter.
I've no doubt that it resolves it for you, Dunce.
However, when I asked AI to review one of the Donkey's poems, it automatically assumed that it was one of mine.
Apparently, AI will default to the assumption that the person asking about a poem that it doesn't recognize is the actual poet.
That is why I prefaced my queries with a "not me."
I can believe that, if a person gives an AI a poem and doesn't attribute it, the AI would assume that person was the author. According to several
people on this group in the past, that's what any other person would
assume; and I probably would myself, unless the context indicated
otherwise. OTOH, if someone asked me to analyze a poem which
they attributed, speaking in the third person, I would not assume that
he or she was the author; and I'm doubtful that an AI would do so,
either.
<snip>
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.)
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh. >>
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.)
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh. >>>
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.)
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size. >>>>
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems. >>>>
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.) >>>>
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
For us... not for Dunce.
"He had simply written down music already finished in his head! Page after page of it, as if he were just taking dictation! And music, finished as no music is ever finished... Here again was the very voice of God!" -- Salieri, from "Amadeus."
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh. >>
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.)
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
NancyGene wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size. >>>>>
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems. >>>>>
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.) >>>>>
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
For us... not for Dunce.
"He had simply written down music already finished in his head! Page after page of it, as if he were just taking dictation! And music, finished as no music is ever finished... Here again was the very voice of God!" -- Salieri, from "Amadeus."
We knew an artist (a real, professional artist) who could never decide when his paintings were "done." That slowed his output considerably!
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted: >>>>>
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked >>>>>> at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could >>>>>> be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size. >>>>>>
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems. >>>>>>
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.) >>>>>>
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
For us... not for Dunce.
"He had simply written down music already finished in his head! Page after page of it, as if he were just taking dictation! And music, finished as no music is ever finished... Here again was the very voice of God!" -- Salieri, from "Amadeus."
We knew an artist (a real, professional artist) who could never decide when his paintings were "done." That slowed his output considerably!
IOW he could have painted ten different variations of the same painting and chosen the best (or exhibited them all) in the time it took him to decide that one painting was done.
In Dunce's case the literary world is better off for his indecision.
NancyGene wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
HarryLime wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted: >>>>>>
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked >>>>>>> at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could >>>>>>> be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size. >>>>>>>
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh.
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems. >>>>>>>
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.) >>>>>>>
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
For us... not for Dunce.
"He had simply written down music already finished in his head! Page after page of it, as if he were just taking dictation! And music, finished as no music is ever finished... Here again was the very voice of God!" -- Salieri, from "Amadeus."
We knew an artist (a real, professional artist) who could never decide when his paintings were "done." That slowed his output considerably!
IOW he could have painted ten different variations of the same painting and chosen the best (or exhibited them all) in the time it took him to decide that one painting was done.
In Dunce's case the literary world is better off for his indecision.
In the artist's case, it was one-of-a-kind, and he kept adding to the paintings. Like the Winchester House. Dunce works on his craft but not on his ideas.
NancyGene wrote:
Michael Pendragon wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
Creepy Mike aka HarryLime etc. wrote:
2) My AI looked at all of the poems on my blog, whereas his looked
at just three of my poems (only one of which is blogged). It could
be that his his AI gave me a lower score due to the small sample size.
Funny, but my AI says that it is not possible for it to read your blaaargh. >>>
"While I can see the blog's structural overview and main index via search tools, security protocols and technical boundaries prevent me from automatically executing a deep-site crawl of its individual pages or archives to extract text."
One has to wonder if you're being entirely honest about how your new review came about.
Google AI did not say it couldn't read my blog, Harry. It said it couldn't crawl the blog and extract just my poems
into a file that it could read. Fortunately, any person reading the blog can do that in one click, using the blog's
software; the url I gave the AI was to that extracted list of my poems.
*****
That said, I copy-pasted 12 of the poems from your blaaargh to my AI, and you scored significantly higher.
Yes, I read it. I think the AI read only the first page of my file (15 poems), and there's not
much difference between 12 and 15 for a representative sample. OTOH, the three poems you used earler, two rondeaux
and one country sonnet, were not a representative sample; someone reading them would think I
wrote only rondeaux and country sonnets. So sample size did bias the AI's evaluation.
We (my AI and I) then discussed rational vs emotional poetry, etc., further explored my creative approach, after which AI took it upon itself to compare our writing styles.
As it's a lengthy conversation that would probably be of little interest to anyone other than ourselves, I won't bother reprinting it unless you (or anyone else) express an interest.
I read it too; thanks for posting it.I enjoyed reading it, aAnd I'd agree with most of what
was said about me in it.
When I write a poem I'm fully conscious as opposed to being in a trance. (Often when I write
I'll get in "the zone" but that's not the same thing; I'm still fully conscious but my
consciousness has narrowed down to the one thing without distractions.)
I always construct my poems, and I'm constantly revising as part of that process. Whereas
your poems just flow ("like vomit from a drunk" as I said of one of your friends' poems, and you
seldom if ever revise one.
That sounds like a tit, George.
Did you think my posting AI's evaluation (which raised your score from a 6 to a 3) was a tat?
Or are you pre-emptively tatting these days?
The description of poetry flowing like vomit from a drunk seems like it would apply more to Stinky G.
I may drink (a lot), but I rarely get more than a mild buzz (or a wonderful sense of euphoria if I'm drinking Rammazotti, Strega, or Absinthe).
As to revisions... I don't see any need for them. AI has been consistently ranking my individual poems at 1.5 and 2 (with 1 being reserved for writers like Shakespeare and Poe for having invented forms and genres).
Of course, your sneering at my lack of planning and revision is simply the craftsman vs intuitive talent which AI so astutely describes.
Face it. You'll always be playing Salieri to my Mozart.
Revisions come while the poem is being written, not after it has been posted or published. When it's done, it's done.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 122:26:18 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,355 |