October 28

Smashing Pumpkins and other gourds.

Every now and again, I apparently have to engage in a little spleen-venting. This is the now, or maybe the again. Batten the hatches.

Typical.

I was thinking about Ogden Nash this morning, a purveyor of 'light verse.' You know, short, funny, wry, insightful, approachable. In fact, The Poetry Foundation claims Nash was the most widely known, appreciated, and imitated American creator of light verse, a reputation that has continued after his death. Few writers of light or serious verse can claim the same extensive dissemination of their poems that Nash’s works enjoy.

In spite of this affection, The P.F. contains no examples of Nash's poetry. Perhaps I should have said 'because of this affection.' The academy is notorious for disliking poets who achieve almost any degree of popularity and accessibility. See, for example, Rod McKeon, who doesn't even rate a bioblurb in P.F., even though he was the best-selling poet in America for a while. So typical of the P.F. and the other purveyors of purity and taste.

Back to this morning. I was thinking of Nash's poem, Reflections on Ice Breaking, written in 1931. The poem:

Candy
is dandy
But liquor
is quicker.

In the 1960s, Nash added:

Pot
is not.

While observant, and in keeping with the times, lengthening the poem by nearly a third was not popular with his audience, and the revised piece soon fell into oblivion.

If you need a day-brightener, you can read some of Nash's poems here.

Efficiency.

As we grow older, the importance of birthdays wanes, both to you and to others. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's lack of surprise. Maybe it's that the people we want to celebrate with are no longer with us(mostly, they've moved to Florida). Maybe we think it's an unnecessary intrusion into a steady flow of life, with surprises every day. Maybe we don't like the fuss over us and the spotlight being on us.

I have no idea what this has to do with efficiency, except maybe I found the thought of getting gifts that require dusting to be off-putting.

Decisions, decisions.

I came across the word 'erstwhile,' and thought, 'what a curious word! I should use that!' I agreed with myself (you might be surprised to discover how rarely that happens) but figured I should probably make sure I know what it means before using it (you might be surprised to discover how rarely that happens).

So off I go to an e-dictionary to find that erstwhile means 'in the past' or 'formerly.' Remembering the popular Spelling Bee question 'Are there any other definitions?', I kept reading and found out that 'quondam' is a perfect synonym.

So hard to decide which one I want to be my formerly go-to word.

Wait. That doesn't sound right.

Insight.

I bumped into one of those 'if you were on a desert island and could take only one book, what would it be?' articles.

As is not my wont, I skipped the joke answers like a cookbook or a manual on boatbuilding. I also skipped the usual Bibles or encyclopedias or other large and/or impressive books.

Instead I would answer 'an unlimited supply of pens and paper so I could write my own book.'

No applause, please. It took me three-quarters of a century to figure that out.

I guess you have to find out sometime.

I've mentioned my wife's garden, which delights the neighborhood walkers. It also, as a side benefit, draws bees, butterflies, and birds.

The two met this morning. I noticed a hummingbird and a goldfinch among the usual suspects. Then a young family (mom, stroller, toddler+, dog, + 9 yr. old) came close, and the mom exclaimed, 'Look! A hummingbird!' They took a few more steps, and the 9 yr. old asked, 'What's a hummingbird?'

This level of ignorance is too much to lay at the doorstep of the American educational system. Somebody else must be held accountable.

Confusion reigns.

not really, but...

While on the way to find something, I bumped into Top 150 Elle Woods Quotes (With Meanings), provided by ScriptureSavvy. I was confused for a moment. Was Elle Woods a secret fifth evangelist, with her own gospel? But what really intrigued me was the parenthetical. I mean, there's a certain profundity to Elle, but do we really have to spin out the meaning of 'you have to be true to yourself?'

I get it. It's a self-affirmation site, which is fine, even if it's just cribbing from the Dale Carnegie and Tony Robbins playbooks. Collecting quotations is fine. But the beauty of aphorisms is they are short, direct and memorable. Mark Twain once fumed about how much work it was getting aphorisms right. And 150 variations of 'believe in yourself' actually makes Elle sound kind of shallow and (dare I say it?) vapid.

And, no, I didn't find the quotation I was looking for.

You got that right.

an unnecessary rant.

The host of a podcast I listen to irregularly made a reference to being a 'solo parent.' This was new to me, so off I go to find out what that is. Basically it's a single parent who no longer has contact with their former partner.

Then, the author makes this gratuitous, pompous, fatuous, and somewhat insulting statement: Many people use the term 'single parent' when they actually mean 'solo parent,' perhaps not realizing the distinction. Well, yeah, when you didn't know something existed until five minutes ago, the lack of distinction is understandable, and forgivable. I might also point out that, in common parlance, solo parent is a subset of single parent, as in 'all solo parents are single parents, but not all single parents are solo parents.' While we're at it, all widowed parents are solo parents. So, single> solo> widowed. I'm surprised Mr. Single/Solo didn't know that.

A quick note on writing decisions.

Once a month, I join an online writers' discussion group hosted by The Muse Writers Center. Part of the introduction is to declare what we write. Some people (like myself) will identify a general category, like 'novel,' 'memoir,' or 'poetry.' Others will get much more specific, like 'science fiction romance.'

What's interesting is how many decisions are put in place or made for the writer just by making that genre declaration. Poets, for example, 'don't have to worry about' novelists' concerns, like characters, plot, conflict, or rising/falling action and structure. But I wonder if that removes certain opportunities for exploration and discovery.

I also wonder if the same thing is true in life. If you declare that you're a 'housewife,' or 'writer,' or 'undertaker,' or 'solo parent,' then you don't have to worry about certain boundaries or parameters of your life. The decision has already been made. Although many find the classification confining, others find it liberating to find where the boundaries are flexible and the structure fuzzy. You're free to make it your own, without having to worry about low-level, routines decisions.

But beware! There are always those who will try to recast the fuzzy boundaries in concrete, insist on adherence to external rules, and may even insist you call it 'solo parent.' And where's the fun in that?

Over the next month or so, there may be intermittent 'service outages for from a comfy chair, due to software changes and changing internet service providers.
Thank you for your patience.

word of the week

gryphon

new!
poetry bonus! recent augie sez

Quoted.

If my mind is right, any day is perfect.

--George Saunders

Stop whining and get back to work.

--Werner Herzog

Predictions themselves are tricky things, since they rest on the power of belief.

--Suzanne Shumway

 

Bonus!

Please be nice to our machine.

Anthropic, a leader in large language model computing, recently warned users not to be 'intentionally mean' to Claude, one of its computer programs. And if you are mean to Claude (intentionally), Anthropic reserves the right to no longer let you play with Claude.

My first response to this was 'how stupid is that?' I wrote up a little grumble-piece and moved on.

Well, the topic resurfaced in this post by Joe Procopio, a very funny satirical piece, which also made some thoughtful points along the way, including wondering why we have to alter our behavior to accommodate an overly sensitive machine.

But as so often happens, thoughts generate thoughts. What Anthropic's action tells us is that Claude is a sensitive flower that must be protected from the harsh light of reality. Or since we're trying to anthropomorphize our large language models, Claude is a somewhat shy teenage girl who must be protected from the mean girls.

LLMs are often presented as springing forth full-grown from the brow of Albert Einstein, brilliant and infallible, when in fact their intellectual age ranges from advanced toddler through teenager. Grok, for example, with it fetishization of making images of naked women, is like a 14-year-old boy. And Anthropic is now revealed as being akin to a too-sensitive teenage girl.

But here's where the fresh thinking comes in:

This whole announcement/threat has nothing to do with the sensitivity of a LLM, but everything to do with planting the idea that a LLM is sentient, self-aware and has feelings, making it easier later on to accept sentience as a matter of course, a done deal.

It's telling that people at Anthropic will be the ones doing the kicking-off of the intentionally mean. I wonder how Claude will let its handlers (or parents) know that someone has crossed the line.