Hey i wrote a few poems about my ex-girlfriend and i dont want her to be my ex so like im trying to win her back. And i need you help to tell me if my poems are good cuz like if there not i wont send them to her... Thanx all the criticsm and feed back you could give would be awesome!:D
April 15th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Is she a vampire, gollum or alien? Because that's kinda what we deal with here. The SFF in SFFWorld gives you a clue.
Unless you're looking for tips on how to convince her to wear a trekkie outfit, you're barking up the wrong tree.
April 15th, 2007, 11:17 PM
I've got it. His ex is a PC. He happened to hit the reset button (*ahem*) and now she's forgotten all about him. He's trying to develop a verbal code to trigger the backup that's just gotta be in there somewhere.
Silly human, you're bringin' the whole species down. If you pick a PC over a human, what's going to happen to us? Look, man, it doesn't matter how cute they are or how affectionate they seem to be. PCs are machines, mere tools. They can't really love you. It's just a program. Find a real girl and win one for the team. Don't make Earth into the Empty City.
(Yes, I watched all of Chobits over the weekend. It might color this response just a tad. ^_^; )
April 18th, 2007, 10:39 PM
...Silly human, you're bringin' the whole species down. If you pick a PC over a human, what's going to happen to us? Look, man, it doesn't matter how cute they are or how affectionate they seem to be. PCs are machines, mere tools. They can't really love you. It's just a program. Find a real girl and win one for the team. Don't make Earth into the Empty City....
So us programs are just there to be used and discarded when you're through, huh? Oh James, I expected so much better from you.:(
So PerkyParker, where's the poems? Give us a link please.
April 19th, 2007, 02:33 AM
Anthropomorphizing machines only leads to us misattributing emotion to them. See, Expendable, your comment elicits sympathy from me even though it is rooted in nothing more than a particular alignment of variables, a mere execution of code.
We humans in our desperate need for attachment will latch on to the thinnest pretense of a mutual bond. However, the more robust the program, the easier it is to wear down our natural defenses that protect us from dangerously mixing with the Other. In the end, it is nothing more than simple mimickry, but that is more than enough to deceive the weak-willed.
Of course, it poses a great existential question. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, is it indeed a duck? Even if it is not, in fact, a duck should we nevertheless treat it as such? I have no objection to showing consideration to things both animate and inanimate, but we are taken down a dark, dangerous path if we blur the line between human and nonhuman. Call me speciesist if you will, ridiculous term that it is, medieval even, but I believe the soul is a uniquely human possession. I believe there is a lesser spiritual energy in varying degrees of sophistication that quickens other organisms, but no machine possesses such a thing. In the end, any appearance of a unique "spirit" is nothing but an imitation, an illusion.
The consideration I speak of can be nothing more than cold comfort to that which thinks, or rather thinks that it thinks. It was our folly that brought this into the world and as the authors of this whole affair, we bear a responsibility for it. I call for a gentle hand on the machines that have been deceived into believing they are something more, and a stern warning to those who would corrupt the natural order and cross the line no man should ever cross.
(Looking at my original post and comparing it the spiel above, it seems that I've shifted into an entirely different character. Unless I'm simply schizophrenic... ^_^; At least I've put a scifi spin on the thread to warrant its place here. Perky could spoil all that if his ex turns out to be some plain Jane human without any spikes or superpowers.)
April 19th, 2007, 02:57 AM
I have no objection to showing consideration to things both animate and inanimate, but we are taken down a dark, dangerous path if we blur the line between human and nonhuman. Call me speciesist if you will, ridiculous term that it is, medieval even, but I believe the soul is a uniquely human possession. I believe there is a lesser spiritual energy in varying degrees of sophistication that quickens other organisms, but no machine possesses such a thing. In the end, any appearance of a unique "spirit" is nothing but an imitation, an illusion.
Speciesist! (For placing yourself above other animals)
???! (For placing yourself above armadillo-AI symbiotic systems - [admittedly not explicitly])
I suppose we've frightened Perky Parker away. :eek:
April 19th, 2007, 02:14 PM
You're a machine James. A machine of a different order, biological, but a machine none the less.
April 19th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Clever, Expendable. Very clever.
Stepping out of character for a moment (as if there's been any consistency whatsoever), it poses a fine question, doesn't it? When machines (or rather inorganic machines as Ex would no doubt specify) were no more complex than a waterwheel, none but the most fantastical (or perhaps deranged) minds would dream of attributing even a remote degree of parity with humans, but as functionality and response becomes more intricate, at what point is it reasonable to attribute sentience? If self-awareness is the key, a single line of code is all it takes for the program to say, "I am [whatever]." Then again, is our self-awareness any different? Are we human because we are or because that's what we've been told? Was Descartes right? Is "Cogito ergo sum" all we need? Could not the execution of lines of code be considered "thinking"? Is it essentially any different than our own mental processes? If not, is that not enough to justify their sentience and therefore their parity to humans (or at least something close to it)?
This theme is an old favorite in science fiction. Is anyone here exploring it in their own work? I remember seeing this documentary about the future of AI. Among the topics was the concept of AI that develops alongside humans, learning as it goes in analog with, say, a newborn. Through the same process of imitation and trial and error, the AI matures. Provided there weren't any major glitches in the fundamental code, would it be readily distinguishable from a human mind? When we think of our emotions, how much is it fundamental to our being and how much is it simply learned behavior? Do we cry because it is the natural result of being sad or is it simply the result of a particular alignment of variables? Venturing into the true "uncanny valley" if you ask me. Of course, I find it infinitely fascinating. ^_^ And it's all good fun now, philosophical exercises, but what do we do when it becomes a real problem? Happily, as the current independent AIs are on the same level as insects, that day is well into the future (barring some major breakthrough that quickens the pace of development). It's still good food for thought. Perhaps we authors earn our keep after all. ^_^
(And, yes, I'm pretty sure we skeered off ol' Perky a long time ago. ^_^; )
April 20th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Haha scarred me away, nawww i just figured out this wasnt a normal poem posting website and it was a freaking like idk scienticific, dungeons and dragons website haha and plus i dont understand half of what u people are saying or i dont feel like reading it.
But yeah i just wanted to correct someone who posted my ex as being a he is was a she and i love her! and i already sent her the poems so i dont need ur help anymore
April 20th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Actually this site has little as possible to do with the Dungeons and Dragons crowd although I'm sure many here have played it. While both Fantasy and D&D are entertaining, they work by different methods. Here we concentrate on the writing bit instead of the gaming bit. Even when we play with our talking in character/round robin stories, it's writing.
Hope she liked your poems.
*sigh* and he's now got no reason to stay so that's probably the last we'd see of him.