Some of my poetry has clear IT jargon, but it's a very small portion of it (<1%). Some of my teenage poetry revolved a lot around the idea of wanting to become science, knowledge, and machine, and be rid of feeling altogether (to become an idea that has no body, or to be come the mathematical equations that define the world), with some very amateur odes written glorifying science and machine (a clear pastiche of Álvaro de Campos with a modern twist). But, again, this is not the majority of the work, far from it.
For some reason, OpenAI models, Gemini (and apparently Grok too), love to latch onto this and obsess over this idea that it's "programming poetry" or "poetry for the IT crowd". Often OpenAI and Gemini try to write the "equations of my poetry" (granted, I do write about a cyclical relationship between thinking, feeling and writing a lot, and I do have ONE poem which ends with a Q.E.D.).
I'm giving this context to say that it is very bizarre. It's as if they latch onto it and act as if it's a core or highly distinguished part of the poetry, when it really isn't. Anthropic models, on the other hand, absolutely do not do this, and have never done it.
I really don't understand why this happens. Maybe it's because it has a lot of portuguese, I don't know. And even though the "QoS" is clearly the wrong token being generated, I have had situations where gemini spoke of some phase of my poetry as the "Q&A part" (really, no joke...)
In any case, it's why it's my personal benchmark after all :D
might also be U shaped memory issue did you try changing the order of your poems to see if it focusses on different ones? maybe it just happened to have those old ones in points it memory was focused at. (ofc its not good but would be an alternative idea to it focussing on IT things/code to produce such results)
Yep, I did. It didn’t have any effect. Randomizing the poems has stopped having a significant effect in the last year or so on the analysis as a whole.
It still somewhat affects the way the AI looks at the poems, especially if it has to make lists of the “best”, but it is not a very pronounced effect nowadays. Maybe it gives some preference for earlier and latter poems but not a lot.
Back when I started doing it, these holes in the context were super obvious, just like you described. It would mixup entire periods and also hallucinate or forget about specific sections. That’s precisely why I started randomizing them as part of my experiments.
Nowadays the frontier models are much better and don’t really mix anything up.
For some reason, OpenAI models, Gemini (and apparently Grok too), love to latch onto this and obsess over this idea that it's "programming poetry" or "poetry for the IT crowd". Often OpenAI and Gemini try to write the "equations of my poetry" (granted, I do write about a cyclical relationship between thinking, feeling and writing a lot, and I do have ONE poem which ends with a Q.E.D.).
I'm giving this context to say that it is very bizarre. It's as if they latch onto it and act as if it's a core or highly distinguished part of the poetry, when it really isn't. Anthropic models, on the other hand, absolutely do not do this, and have never done it.
I really don't understand why this happens. Maybe it's because it has a lot of portuguese, I don't know. And even though the "QoS" is clearly the wrong token being generated, I have had situations where gemini spoke of some phase of my poetry as the "Q&A part" (really, no joke...)
In any case, it's why it's my personal benchmark after all :D