3 ms·
6/6, and I didn't read more than half-way through most of these. What's the tell? Focus. The human-written poetry develops a single, coherent subject with ea
by beloch 10y ago
6/6, and I didn't read more than half-way through most of these. What's the tell? Focus. The human-written poetry develops a single, coherent subject with each passing line. Each new line adds new light to the ones that preceded it. Any single line of the machine written sonnets, considered alone, might appear to be written by a human but, when taken together, they simply don't add up. The progression of a single idea just isn't there.
I freakin' hate poetry. Give me prose or give me epigrams! To me, a poem is an awkward combination of prose without clarity and and epigram too bloated to be stated succinctly. I point this out, because I want to be taken seriously when I say that this machine-written poetry is bad in a way that makes me appreciate human poetry just a little bit more.
- kazinator 10y agoSame here! 6/6 within five minutes. The computer ones are just laughable gibberish, reminiscent of word salad generation from some 1993 dated Perl tutorial.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maze-le 10y ago> The human-written poetry develops a single, coherent subject with each passing line Yep, thats it. The machine-written poems make seemingly correct sentences, but fail to create a coherent sense. Its quite easy to spot. The machine-written parts use: The Pythonic Poet (http://ischoolreview.com/iSR_Grav/entries/entry-6 http://ischoolreview.com/iSR_Grav/entries/entry-6). It works with markov-chains and support-vector machines.
- madmax96 10y agoSame, it took me just a few minutes. The human writers all have a point, whereas the machine writers (although they sometimes do have some beautiful imagery) obviously lack a plot or overall structure. It's just words without purpose.
- adrusi 10y agoNot all the computer generated ones seemed human even on the level of the individual lines. I read all but one all the way through just in case something at the end managed to bundle the chaos into something coherent, but Sonnet #5 has this line: then comes a small bright spark comes wandering There's no way any human would have written a line like that, it looks the kind of error you get when you phrase a sentence one way, then rephrase it but fail to fully delete the existing words. The two occurances of "comes" stick out to any human when read aloud.