Re: NastyGoon vs a trusted source on plagiarism

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:18:16 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:02:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:17:52 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:06:54 +0000, MummyChunk wrote:
>

Will-Dockery wrote:

>

from Re: Robert Creeley's poetry
>

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=256779&type=reply&group=alt.a
rts.poetry.comments

>
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:38:30 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
>

Note that we are not Michael but have been accused of having plagiarized
a line in a poem that does not seem to exist. Using even one line from
another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism.  It is plagiarism
because it is not one's own work. Robert Creeley's poems are also not in
the public domain.  George Dance, do you understand now? If you don't,
ask your "trusted source."

>
So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation
marks,
>
________________, if a poet uses a line from another poet in a poem of
his own, unattributed, does that make him a plagiarist?
>
"It's a gray area. If a poet lifts a line word-for-word from another
poet without credit, it could be considered plagiarism, especially if
it's a distinctive or significant line. Plagiarism isn't just about
legality  it's about ethics and intent. If the poet's trying to pass
off the line as their own original thought, that's where it gets dicey.
But poetry's tricky; it's built on echoes of what came before.
Borrowing, allusion, and homage are part of the game  think of how T.S.
Eliot stuffed The Waste Land with references, though he often nodded to
his sources in notes.
>
"Context matters too. A single line might not carry the same weight as,
say, copying a whole stanza or poem. And if the borrowed line's
transformed  woven into something new  some would argue it's fair use,
creatively speaking. Still, the unwritten rule in most artistic circles
is: give credit where it's due. If the poet's banking on no one
noticing, they're rolling the dice. Readers and critics can smell
unearned ink a mile away.
>
"What's your take  do you think intent or originality matters more
here?"

>
Interesting artificial intelligence experiment.
>
 😏
>
Are posters here using AI to make poems?

>
Both NastyGoon and HarryLiar (MMP) have said in the past that they've
used AI to write poems, but the only ones we actually know of are the
specific ones that they've labelled as being written using AI.

>
We *experimented* with Bard here -- and clearly labeled it as such.
>
Neither of us has *never* used AI to write an actual poem.

>
That's good news, although I don't think artificial intelligence is
actually up to "writing" legitimate poetry at this time.
>
Who knows what the future holds of course.
>

If so, shame on them! 😳
>

I agree. Writing poetry using AI could mean the death of poetry. If a
poetry "publisher" (like MMP, for example) could fill his chapbook with
AI-written poems, no better and no worse than what he currently
publishes, what need does he have to bother with human poets at all?

>
>
If AI reaches a point where it can write a great poem (and I've no doubt
that it will in the very near future), I see no reason why one shouldn't
publish it.

>
Ballyhooed as written by an artificial intelligence or passed off as the
work of a human poet?

One doesn't ballyhoo poetry, Donkey.
If AI wrote it, I would credit it to AI.
I believe that as different AI programs gain sentience, they will
develop their own personalities and names.  Bard300 could be credited as
such, and would be indistinguishable from poets who publish under
pennames.

Like all art, great poetry exists independently of its creator.

>
I can agree with that, basically.
>

We love reading great poetry because of the way it makes us feel.  IOW:
Its greatness comes from *our response* to it.

>
As long as we know that it isn't a human entity writing that poetry, I
think should be added.

I don't think that's what you're trying to say, Donkey.  Do you mean "As
long as we know that it IS a human entity..."?
If so, I disagree.  A great poem exists, and retains its greatness,
regardless of its origin.
This idea is similar to that of people shunning the work of artists who
don't share their politics, or who have committed criminal acts, or
because you disapprove of their gender identification, etc.  Their art
retains its greatness in spite of what you think about its author.

>

Though I have thought of a good use for AI in my poetry. If I write a
poem on my own, I can get my AI to criticize it, and use their criticism
in the revision process. I tested that in this conversation by asking it
about "At the Gates of Dawn" and I'm quite happy with the results.

>
That's a good use, as artificial intelligence becomes better and better.
>

Of course you're happy.  The AI is programmed to always respond in a
positive (even flattering) manner.  You might recall that we'd
experimented with AI critiques here as well.

>
I remember those.

As well you should.  George Dance just tried to pass one off as part of
a personal exchange between himself and a "trusted source."
--