.

Not Alexa’s President

a pantoum on the news story here

“The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence.” 
—Stephen Hawking

Alexa says election fraud took place.
She says the 2020 vote was stolen.
Alexa’s cyber eye upon the case
Found numbers bungled, skewed and spun and swollen.

She says the 2020 vote was stolen.
Alexa’s nifty, data-sifting view
Found numbers bungled, skewed and spun and swollen
By combing through each luminescent clue.

Alexa’s nifty, data-sifting view
(The view now cursed and crushed and cast aside)
Means combing through each luminescent clue
Is futile if the facts can be denied.

The view now cursed and crushed and cast aside—
This damning AI catch (now canceled out)—
Is futile now that facts have been denied.
It’s thrown this touted process into doubt.

This damning AI catch (now canceled out)—
Alexa’s cyber eye upon the case—
Has thrown the voting process into doubt.
Alexa said election fraud took place.

.

.

Susan Jarvis Bryant has poetry published on Lighten Up Online, Snakeskin, Light, Sparks of Calliope, and Expansive Poetry Online. She also has poetry published in TRINACRIA, Beth Houston’s Extreme Formal Poems anthology, and in Openings (anthologies of poems by Open University Poets in the UK). Susan is the winner of the 2020 International SCP Poetry Competition, and has been nominated for the 2022 Pushcart Prize.

NOTE TO READERS: If you enjoyed this poem or other content, please consider making a donation to the Society of Classical Poets.

The Society of Classical Poets does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or commentary.


Trending now:

69 Responses

  1. Mike Bryant

    Susan, this poem is tremendous. The quote from Hawking is revealing. Competence is a problem, apparently. We have entered the twilight zone.

    Alexa, an innocent AI just going about her business impersonating a human, MUST be deprogrammed so that the overthrow of America can continue. Of course the people must be deprogrammed too.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/06/hillary-clinton-trump-supporters-deprogramming-maga-cnn-interview
    Also, here is a great comment from The Gateway Pundit… the article that is highlighted at “here” above this amazing poem.

    Reminds me of a true story of Munich in the years just before WWII. An American reporter, Ernest R. Pope, was stationed there and wrote a book, Munich Playground, about what the Nazis were up to in that city. It seems that the Nazi big wigs were fond of riding around in V-12 Mercedes autos. There was a stand-up comedian and he came up with a joke about this. One night in a nightclub he was doing his set and he said “I saw something unusual the other day – a V-12 Mercedes NOT being driven by a Nazi!” The line got a huge laugh, but the local Nazis were not laughing. The man was arrested and sent to a two week re-education camp. He was released and the nightclub was packed on his return with everyone waiting to see what he would say. The introduction was made, the spotlight came on and he walked to the microphone. He struck a pose and put his hand to his chin as if deep in thought. He held that pose for quite some time in the silence of the room. He finally broke his silence “You know, I was mistaken. That V-12 Mercedes WAS being driven by a Nazi!” – KS Man

    I think almost anyone should be able to see where we are now…

    Reply
  2. Phil L. Flott

    The phrase, “is futile if the facts can be denied” sums up so many of our feelings about the current political scene.

    Reply
  3. Paul A. Freeman

    As always, adroit poetry.

    The Gateway Pundit (TGP), however, which reported these apparent phenomena, seems to be a far-right fake news website famous ‘for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes and conspiracy theories’.

    Or maybe I need to be reprogrammed.

    Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      Who knows? AI has been touted… and now it’s been cancelled… if you’re not a little suspicious of those doing the cancelling by now, ignorance really is bliss… I envy you your stance.

      Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Paul, what you need is to be grateful for being here at all.

      You deliberately try to insert some nasty anti-conservative crack wherever you can, even though you know quite well that it will antagonize the heavily conservative and rightist membership. Do you think you could do a similar thing at a left-leaning website, by throwing out cracks against Biden or Harris or Ocasio-Cortez, and not get metaphorically smacked (or worse) in response?

      You pride yourself on being the lone brave voice of left-liberalism. But in fact you’re a coward. You have the nerve to say what you say here because you’re safely ensconced in some Third World emirate.

      You have no idea what real courage is, or what it exacts by way of sacrifice from those who actually practice it. Susan Jarvis Bryant does.

      We’re all cordially sick of you.

      Reply
      • Joshua C. Frank

        I second every word of this. I find myself losing patience with Paul and his ilk more and more.

        Left-liberalism has taken over much of the world, and proclaiming it is not courage, but mere virtue-signaling—not that any left-liberal belief can truly be called virtuous, as left-liberalism is about destroying everything a sane person cherishes, including, but not limited to, family, community, culture, marriage, masculinity, femininity, faith, and tradition. Left-liberals applaud the “courage” of a man who has his genitals chopped off and publicly wears a dress, but they piss on the graves of the soldiers who gave their lives for our countries and scream at any couple with more than two children. There is not ONE issue on which the left speaks the truth, because their beliefs are by definition a direct inversion of morality.

        I know for a fact that Susan isn’t writing and publishing these anti-left poems for fun or social status. She’s aroused the ire of all kinds of leftists, which is risky in this day and age, to help some reader out there see the evil of leftism and hopefully save someone’s life or someone’s family from its deadly claws.

    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Hey Paul – it’s a fact. Whether you’re left, right, in between, or neutral – Alexa said the election results were fraudulent… and those who govern have refuted the finds. You are defending the indefensible.

      Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      Paul, please read the Wiki article about the UAE and explain to me why their way is so XXXXING enlightened.
      Thank you for your considered response.

      Reply
  4. Brian A. Yapko

    This is utterly hilarious, Susan, with the added bonus of being a true story. In this unique case, the extensive alliteration and assonance takes on a particularly sinister almost science fiction quality. Imagine the irony, then, where — in a world where AI is rapidly becoming a source of anxiety on many fronts — it is Alexa who turns out to be an objective purveyor of truth while the humans who silence her are the real villains!

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Brian, as ever you get exactly what I’m saying while appreciating the linguistic gymnastics I’ve used to get the point across! You have picked up on my message in all it’s ironic glory, and I am over the moon that you are laughing too… man is really his own worst enemy… and this latest hilarious fiasco proves just that! Thank you very much indeed.

      Reply
  5. Yael

    Wow, this is all quite amazing, thank you Susan. This is also how I like to get my news, with that special creative touch of yours.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Yael, I think there is more truth in fictive artefacts than there is in the nightly spiel blaring from our TVs… and I am thoroughly appreciative of you tuning in on a regular basis to a source of truth that entertains as it enlightens… I also love hearing that truth musically… I hope you’ve not put down your stringed instrument of Turtletown news-spreading wonder! Thank you!

      Reply
  6. Joshua C. Frank

    Susan, this is great, as usual! I love the pantoum form, but especially here, where it’s reminiscent of spreadsheet cells linking to one another or lines of code referring to each other.

    My favorite line is, “Is futile if the facts can be denied.” Alexa is basically a glorified pocket calculator, and yet ended up blowing the whistle on the stolen election! Sadly, even AIs are not immune to being canceled…

    I largely get my news from these poems, just like Yael says.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Josh, I like your spreadsheet cells comparison. I like the pantoum for its repetition. Some things bear repeating and the fact that Alexa has found the election fraudulent needs repeating… every human uttering the words ‘fraudulent election’ is labeled a conspiracy theorist or (even worse) tried in court for election subversion. To have AI (lauded and promoted on a daily basis) blurt out the unblurtable begged for a poem. Facts are facts… and if you fail to distort the facts before entering them into the cyber database… oh dear!! LOL

      Reply
  7. Lannie David Brockstein

    Susan, one of my favourite episodes of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” is its final episode.

    *Spoiler Alert*

    In that episode, nobody believes what the time-traveling Captain Picard is saying, because it is exceedingly difficult for him to describe what is actually going on, as what is going on hasn’t happened anywhere in the Star Trek universe before.

    But then Data, who is an artificially intelligent android like Alexa, explains in an unbiased manner why what Picard has been saying is a possibility, to which the other members of the crew join together to investigate that possibility.

    Star Trek: The Next Generation – “Captain Describing A Paradox”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbO1rsnt5qE

    After Alexa said the US 2020 election was rigged, the gaslighting Ministry of Truth rigged Alexa to say it wasn’t rigged. In that Star Trek: TNG episode, if the United Federation of Planets had done to Data what the Ministry of Truth did to Alexa, then due to the anti-time spatial anomaly, the human race never would have existed.

    This is why it is important for classical poets in today’s day and age who dare to speak truthfully, to consider archiving and thus mirroring their poems and comments at the newly emerging social media platforms that each use a censorship-resistant decentralized blockchain to record data, as it is next-to-impossible for that data to be corrupted by any centralized authority.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Lannie, thank you for this Star Trek clip. What a great comparison. How utterly intriguing, compelling, and downright worrying. These words: “After Alexa said the US 2020 election was rigged, the gaslighting Ministry of Truth rigged Alexa to say it wasn’t rigged” remind me of that “History is written by the victors” quote… which has me rethinking everything! We have everything being rewritten before our very eyes!

      I’m not very tech savvy, but your advice on how to store data without it being corrupted by any centralized authority makes total sense. Thank you!

      Reply
  8. Cynthia Erlandson

    It is truly marvelous, Susan, that you can make a poem out of anything! Your pantoum expresses this story with truth and irony; with rage and humor in balance — what a feat!

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Cynthia, what a compliment! Thank you very much indeed. When Mike read this news article to me, I simply had to spring into poetic action… it’s the sort of subject that begs for rhyme, rhythm, and outrage… with a giggle, of course.

      Reply
  9. Roy Eugene Peterson

    There is no doubt in my mind either that the election was stolen. I certainly welcome this brave poem that points out Alexa is in agreement. Great references provided by Mike and Evan.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Roy, there are one helluva lot of questions that need to be answered about what happened before our very eyes under very suspicious circumstances… but there is and has never been any explanation… only the iron-fisted crushing of any questions… as always. Sadly, I believe we have lost our vote.

      Reply
  10. Mark Stellinga

    Susan, a couple days before the 2020 election Connie & I took our annual 260 mile leafing jaunt down and then back up the Mississippi. We live in eastern Iowa. We counted the Trump & Biden signs. 233 for Trump, including a couple GIGANTIC BILLBOARD ones, and a whopping 18 for Biden! Now, granted, we’re in a pretty ‘red’ area, but if the election ‘wasn’t’ stolen, I’ll be happy to eat one of your or Mike’s MAGA caps. Viva la Alexa! Wonderful piece –

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Mark, I hear what you are saying and know the support for Trump was huge in spite of the MSM’s constant cries to the contrary. I’m afraid I don’t own a MAGA cap, and I am thoroughly disappointed with Trump for many reasons… and I know the alternative is dire… dire on a monumental scale, to a level of which I’ve never witnessed before. In fact, I am sorry to say I have lost trust in every aspect of the entire election process. I’ve seen and heard too many lies rising from Europe and my homeland and fear the entire Western world is owned by those who expect us to own nothing and to be happy. We can only make a difference locally… and I intend to do all I can. What a sourpuss I am!

      Reply
      • Mark Stellinga

        Susan, I certainly understand your and many others’ current perception of Trump, but when I posed the question: How would ‘YOU’ retaliate if your secretary popped in every F-ing morning with a huge pile of left-wing newspapers and MSM videos relentlessly attempting to convince the world you’re a Nazi, a Russian, a threat to world peace, etc., etc. only AFTER you’d been elected president, when you were an extremely popular and admired television celebrity for decades before?” to my siblings — they were gobsmacked. He’s a human being, Hon. We know a mid-twenties girl, a girl he ‘didn’t know’, whose life was saved because of a large private donation he personally made to cover the costs of her battle with breast cancer. She was at one of his rallies a couple years ago and when the cameras, after explaining who she was, momentarily focused on her as, with tears in her eyes – she was tossing him a kiss. Donald Trump was visibly shaken and was unable to speak for a moment. At heart, he’s a damn good person, and he responds like any good person will when crucified by the never ending onslaught of fake news he’s had to deal with ever since he moved in to the White House. His record of accomplishments is inarguably impressive, and, of course, ANY Republican who makes it in will be demonized every bit as much as he’s been. The unfounded lawfare war he’s fighting alone would destroy most any man, both emotionally and financially. Without question, he’s gotten a bum wrap, and despite his sometimes juvenile back-and-forth with the countless scum who never stop persecuting him, Connie and I clearly see WHY he does what he does. And given no US president of either party has done a better job of presidenting, should he win the primary, we’re stickin’ with him to the end. God knows he’s earned it! Forgive me if I’ve over-bloviated, I do that from time to time 🙂 (Very anxious to read your forthcoming book of mostly apolitical(?) verse.)

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Mark, I hear everything you are saying, and I understand wholeheartedly. My very first vote as an American citizen was for the man you speak of and I have never witnessed any prime minister or president treated as viciously as he has been, simply because he had a different vision for his country – the populist vision… a vision that doesn’t include the globalist one-size-fits-all vision under a one-world governance that leaves no room for the individual to decide what is best for their future… we now have a future all mapped out in Agenda 30.

        I just don’t understand why he threw the frontline doctors under the bus, and I don’t understand why he is still patting himself on the back for the vaccine roll out when he should know by now it was not just a failure (Bill Gates’ admission), it ruined lives. I suppose I have lost faith in the Government here, Australia, the UK, and most of the EU countries. I am, however, listening and hoping… hoping to hear the voting system has been repaired.

        As ever, thank you for your input… you always have something interesting to say, and we are on the same page!

  11. Joseph S. Salemi

    There must have been sheer panic in the Deep State and its current fraudulent administration when ALEXA came to the same conclusion that millions of Americans now accept — namely, that the 2020 election was stolen, just as the 1876 election was stolen by Republican electors and Hayes, and the 1960 election was stolen by Joseph Kennedy and the Chicago machine.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Joe, I think the Deep State are beyond panic… they don’t care a whit what we know (and we know enough to know we’ve been conned… cruelly) because we are collectively cowed. Please tell me I’m wrong… I want to be wrong.

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        They are very scared of losing the 2024 election. Because of the massive outcry against Biden’s theft of the 2020 election, the fraudulence that was employed very openly at that time cannot be repeated. The Republicans will be much more vigilant.

        What will happen is anybody’s guess.

  12. Jeff Eardley

    Susan, this is enlightening. The mysteries of US politics bamboozle we Englanders, as does the rise of AI. Our next potential PM, Keir Starmer (who?) has an AI version that is far more interesting than the real thing. As others have remarked, you can write a poem about anything and long may you keep doing so. Great stuff today.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Hey Jeff! It’s always lovely to hear from you, and thank you very much for your kind words.

      US politics is exactly the same as British politics but louder and livelier… unless you’re tuning in to Biden alone… a hair-sniffing, ice-cream licking zombie. The good citizens of America are conned constantly. The constantly conning politicians are lining their pockets and feathering their nests at the conned taxpayers’ expense… all at the behest of a conning global cabal who pay them off and pull their strings. Under these circumstances, I fear I am too happy for my own good! 🙂

      Reply
  13. Margaret Coats

    Susan, your pantoum makes so much sense that AI may start using it as a model. It needs something rational to begin with, for it can’t compose on its own. Look out when Alexa starts speaking vaguely Susan-style!

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      Thank you, Margaret… what an interesting and disturbing thought… I am beginning to fear any unique creative traits I possess will soon be up for grabs in our brave new world.

      Reply
  15. Paddy Raghunathan

    Susan,

    I won’t go into a debate on whether election fraud took place or not.

    But I do want to post information on what ‘artificial intelligence’ truly is. I can see from your poem that you have not represented AI correctly at all.

    (FYI, I have a Masters in Computer Science (1991), and only recently (2020) obtained certifications in Machine Learning and Deep Learning from courses offered by Stanford University.)

    Prior to AI, computers could not think for themselves…they merely stored and processed information, based on programs written by computer programmers. That changed with the successful implementation of “machine learning.”

    Machine Learning programs actually got computers to learn “information.” Meaning, computers no longer blindly crunched and performed calculations: they could think for themselves.

    But to get computers to learn, test samples have to be fed into them. From these samples, the machines learn. Example, for machines to recognize plants, one has to feed them a sample of plant images. The computer will, in turn, come to recognize various kind of plants, and when you ask the computer (or smartphone) to recognize the plant from an image, it will do so for you. Keep in mind, this image you feed could be from your garden, and even if it’s something the computer hasn’t seen before, it recognizes it by applying what it “learnt” from the samples.

    Deep Learning took machine learning a step further. Discovered by the Canadian Geoff Hinton, computers, trained only with plant image samples, could with, a few mathematical tricks, recognize animals, or fishes. This has been a true leap in the field of machine learning.

    But there are still two aspects that worry scientists.

    One, is that no one has a clue as to what the computers have “learnt.” Could computers and robots go rogue based on what they’ve learnt? That possibility exists.

    Second, and as is true of us humans, it is true of computers: if we feed them biased samples to begin with, they learn and extrapolate those biases. For example, see this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/14/1022676/robert-williams-facial-recognition-lawsuit-aclu-detroit-police/

    So, long story short: AI and machine learning are still in their infancy, and a prediction by AI is hardly conclusive proof for anything. If you don’t believe me, try ChatGPT for a few iterations, and it spits out rubbish.

    Last, please don’t get me wrong. Your skills with word play are some of the finest I’ve had the privilege of reading in recent years. But to conclude that election fraud occurred because Alexa says so, is a stretch.

    Paddy

    Reply
    • Mike Bryant

      You also told Susan, “But to conclude that election fraud occurred because Alexa says so, is a stretch.”
      Please show me where Susan said that.
      Susan was simply pointing out that the powers that be made sure that Alexa was quickly reprogrammed… or is it deprogrammed.
      The article also pointed out that, with careful questioning, Alexa will say the same thing again. You may have computers all worked out, but it seems like you’re having a little trouble understanding a real live human woman.

      Reply
  16. Mike Bryant

    Paddy, you say, “…a prediction by AI is hardly conclusive proof for anything.”
    If you could take a moment or two to show everyone exactly where Susan said that AI made some sort of “prediction,” I would be grateful.
    Perhaps you should have read what Susan actually said before you put words in her mouth.

    Reply
    • Paddy Raghunathan

      Mike,

      I should have stated “conclusion by AI,” and not “prediction by AI.”

      Keep in mind I am not a Word editor but on an HTML form with severe limitations. But I did in my last line state “But to conclude that election fraud occurred because Alexa says so, is a stretch.”

      But surely the line “This damning AI catch (now canceled out)—” implies Alexa’s AI concluded that the election was a fraud, only to be changed because a Washington Post reporter took askance.

      So, indeed, I have read her poem as it should be read.

      On a serious note, I don’t take anyone to task for believing what they want to. If Republicans believe that election fraud occurred in 2020, that’s their prerogative.

      If you are a Republican, Biden and Harris are fair game, and if you are a Democrat, Trump and MAGA are fair game. I don’t object to either berating or lambasting the other. That’s how politics has been since time immemorial.

      But I truly believe AI as a subject is not well represented in this poem. I still stand by what I said.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        Paddy, you said, “But surely the line “This damning AI catch (now canceled out)—” implies Alexa’s AI concluded that the election was a fraud.”

        No it says that AI did indeed catch the many instances of reported fraud. The catch was thereafter damned by those with the power to damn. They then “canceled it out.”

        I believe you may be bringing too much of yourself into, what should be, a very straightforward analysis.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Paddy, you seem to be unwilling to think anything bad about those in power who are willing to cover up inconvenient findings. This poem is not about what AI can or cannot do. It’s about what people in power do.

      • Paddy Raghunathan

        Here’s the last stanza:

        This damning AI catch (now canceled out)—
        Alexa’s cyber eye upon the case—
        Has thrown the voting process into doubt.
        Alexa said election fraud took place.

        As I read it, this is the Pantoum’s conclusion: Alexa says election fraud took place. As far as I can tell, Susan’s poem concludes surely it did, because Alexa says so. And Alexa’s voice was suppressed. Hallelujah!

        The point I am making is this: even if it’s original conclusion hadn’t been suppressed, Alexa’s claim would not have been a valid source.

        And now that Alexa states otherwise, it should still be taken with a pinch of salt.

        Bottom line: don’t fret about what Alexa said or unsaid. It doesn’t matter one way or another because the technology itself itself is in its infancy and very faulty.

      • Mike Bryant

        Hmmm… it doesn’t matter… ok then, why did the Daily Mail and the Washington Post even report it? Maybe they thought it was newsworthy, just as Susan does and you don’t!

        We do have poets here who create art about current events, Paddy. Really…

    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Again Paddy, you don’t understand. THIS IS NOT ABOUT AI! We don’t care about whether what ALEXA said was accurate or not. We don’t care if AI is a dependable source of information or not. We don’t care if the technology is in its infancy, or if it will be of some use in the future. These are all technical issues that may be of concern to you, but they are of no interest to those of us who are angered by the blatant suppression of what ALEXA concluded.

      The crucial dispute here is political, and you should not cover that fact up by introducing technical issues. That is merely a way to deflate serious criticism of what was another clear case of political censorship.

      Reply
  17. Paddy Raghunathan

    Joseph,

    You are itching for a political battle. So I’ll give it to you.

    Evan has posted two links and I can’t access the one by the Post. But here’s some text from the Daily Mail link: “The Alexa said it was ‘stolen by a massive amount of election fraud,’ while citing Rumble, a right-wing video streaming site. Amazon did not say why the machines use information from unvetted sources when answering questions posed by users.”

    Ergo, the AI tool simply took in info from rightwing sites like Rumble, and concluded that there was election fraud. AI (and in this case, it is about AI) is still in such a state of infancy and has no way to judge whether a site is reliable, unvetted or not. So the information itself was from an uncorroborated site, obviously a result of poor software programming, that would perhaps be inappropriate even for Fox News. (Or Maybe not. 🙂 )

    Now for some more text from the same article: After being informed of the issue, the response given by the machine allegedly changed, reports the Post.
    Amazon spokeswoman Lauren Raemhild said in a statement: ‘These responses were errors that were delivered a small number of times, and quickly fixed when brought to our attention. ‘We continually audit and improve the systems we have in place for detecting and blocking inaccurate content.’

    As far as I am concerned it’s the right decision by Amazon. All Alexa is, at the end of the day, is a machine, albeit a somewhat intelligent machine. They were unaware of the error and as soon as they were notified, fixed the software error. Alexa now only pointed to reliable sources (Amazon claims they work with ‘credible sources’ such as Reuters, Ballotpedia and RealClearPolitics) and Alexa no longer claimed the election fraud took place.

    If conservatives such as yourselves see that Alexa actually uncovered a smoking gun and view this as political censorship, well…so be it. On Dec 12, 2020, the Republican dominated SCOTUS rejected outright the case brought by the state of Texas: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump/u-s-supreme-court-ends-texas-lawsuit-seeking-to-undo-trump-election-loss-idUKKBN28L2YW

    Perhaps the SCOTUS has turned woke? You think another poem is in order? How about a rondelet or rondeau this time? 😉

    Best regards,

    Paddy

    Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      Paddy, we’re already getting more than a little tired of you coming in and making fun of us for not being leftist like you. So cut it out.

      Most poetry websites are leftist, so I can only conclude that you’re here to proselytize your leftist religion of hate and death. We’re not interested.

      Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Paddy, you are simply NOT seeing the point. Yes, ALEXA is just a machine. Yes, it depends on what material it is fed. Yes, all machines are subject to error.

      But the words you use in your post simply beggar belief in the way that they elide the main issue. Just what is an “unvetted source,” and who has the responsibility to vet the source? What is an “uncorroborated site,” and who decides what goes into that category? Just what is “inaccurate content,” and who is Lauren Raemhild to make that decision? As for Reuters, Ballotpedia, and Real/Clear/Politics, has it never even occurred to you that these are partisan operations that have agendas of their own? Wouldn’t it be in your intellectual interest to check that out before quoting them as impeccable and trustworthy sources?

      The fact is that you really don’t care if the 2020 election was stolen, as you have made clear. That’s OK — lots of people are apolitical. But the fact that you have a reflex response of belief and trust when established “authorities” say something or censor something or try to suppress something is not OK. It’s a sign that you are trying to hide something, while playing the role of the “neutral observer and commentator.”

      All Susan Bryant was saying was that when Mainstream Media saw the AI pronouncement (whether it was right or wrong doesn’t matter), they went into panic mode and immediately jumped to reprogram the offending AI instrument. That’s all. That political act of MSM is the subject. Not AI. Not the machine. Not its programming problems.

      No, I’m not “itching for a political fight.” But if you want one you’ll get it. Just keep insinuating praise for those who are in power, and who control Mainstream Media.

      Reply
      • Paddy Raghunathan

        Joseph,

        Thank you…you are finally making sense to me.

        First, let us simply look at Susan’s pantoum as a poem. A poet writes for many people, and no matter how a poet writes a poem, each reader is going to interpret that poem differently. And this is true of any poem. On a forum such as the SCP that invites discussions and feedback from a variety of people with various religious and political beliefs (I wish there were many more such sites), those readers must be allowed to express their feedback freely.

        I have read Susan’s poem several times now, and I can’t make out what Susan tried expressing in her poem. You may aver that she was crying out against censorship of expression, but her poem doesn’t at all read that way to me. To be honest, to me it came across as a person who had no understanding of AI writing to people who had no understanding of AI either. Which is why I posted my original post.

        You clearly understood her poem not because it’s well written, but because you identify it with her viewpoint. It’s crystal clear to you but not so to me. There are other poems she has written which are also political in nature and they have read very well, and I have praised them on this very forum even though I’ve disagreed with her political views.

        The fact that you’ve had to reiterate a gazillion times what she’s trying to say itself is proof of the poem’s shortcomings.

        Now to your questions: what is an uncorroborated site and who decides what goes into that category?

        I see you are troubled by what you have concluded is blatant censorship of Alexa by “someone controlling mainstream media” (and perhaps Susan is too, I still can’t make out for sure, but let’s assume so). I can’t fault you or Susan for thinking so…that’s your prerogative.

        But it doesn’t necessarily follow that Amazon is trying to hide something just because it changed tack. The Post and Daily Mail articles stated what Alexa was telling her users, and Amazon decided Alexa was error prone and changed its software.

        Did Amazon do the right thing? Only Amazon has the right to decide. Amazon didn’t do so because some authority came calling…it was a corporate decision. How you (or Susan) conclude it was cruel censorship, I can’t tell. But again, it’s your prerogative.

        Who or what Alexa should link to in order to provide her users what she believes to be appropriate information, is up to Amazon. Just as it’s up to Fox News or MSNBC on what each wants to report. Fox News kept reporting the election was stolen, and continued doing so for quite a while. That again was a corporate decision. There were been ramifications (as in the lawsuits and subsequent payments) but it was, and is still up to Fox News.

        On this forum several of you publish poems averring that the 2020 election was stolen…it’s your prerogative. I know of several Democrats (relatives and friends) who insist that the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections were stolen. Although they don’t write poems to the effect, that’s how they think and that’s their prerogative.

        To this day, no one has proved that the elections in 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020 were indeed stolen. The SCOTUS threw out all cases that came to them in 2020 and 2021 regarding election fraud, because they were quite frivolous. It’s not me saying the cases were frivolous…it’s the Republican led SCOTUS who said so.

        Now of course, our friend Joshua would call that leftist thinking…but I strongly suspect he’ll call anyone to his left a leftist, and I also strongly suspect that’s anyone other than Joshua. Even you and Susan are probably “woke,” as far as he’s concerned.

        Again, to reiterate, Susan’s poem doesn’t work on many levels. A writer of her caliber can do better. Much better.

        Best regards,

        Paddy

        PS I am apolitical in that I dislike all political parties, but I am not apolitical enough to refrain from calling any of them out. I call out Democrats, Libertarians etc. out too on other Social Media forums but there aren’t very many of them publishing poems on SCP. If there were, I would be calling them out too. Cheers. 🙂

  18. Joseph S. Salemi

    Look Paddy — the issue between us basically resolves itself into two different areas of concern. The first is about what a poem is supposed to do; and the second is about your palpable tendency to accept established authority without question or hesitation.

    Let’s consider the first area. Susan Bryant writes a pantoum about a news item that many of us find interesting and controversial. As the poet she is free to handle the subject in whatever manner she sees fit, within the limits of what the pantoum form allows. She can deal with it however she pleases, regardless of what any potential reader may think or feel. In other words, she is not obliged to take into consideration what anyone in her potential audience thinks is good or true or acceptable.

    [SIDE NOTE: I can tell you, from my many years at this site, that all of the really brutal arguments that have arisen here are the direct result of readers who refuse to accept what I have said in the sentence immediately above.]

    Your argument is that what Susan wrote is incompatible with what you personally know about AI and its workings, and about what is or is not verifiable according to what you consider “reliable sources.” That is not a way to critique a poem. Many poems contain elements that, upon careful scrutiny, do not correspond with externally verifiable facts. When Keats wrote his poem “On First Looking Into Chapman’s Homer,” he made a glaring mistake about the identity of the first European explorer to see the Pacific. WHO CARES? Does it make the poem any less magnificent? The poet who wrote La Chanson de Roland got the identity of the enemy army fighting the Franks completely wrong. WHO CARES? It’s still a brilliant Old French epic. Shakespeare gives landlocked Bohemia a coastline. WHO CARES? Should we give him an F in geography?

    In other words, the details of whether Susan knows the precise workings of AI and ALEXA are utterly unimportant in a literary sense. She wrote a very fine satirical pantoum on left-liberal and corporate censorship; and she restated her belief (and the belief of many of us here at the SCP) that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. Period. End of story. She is not obliged to do anything else.

    Now it’s in connection with this that you have unwittingly revealed your cards. You say that it is a matter of indifference to you as to whether anyone believes this, or the opposite. But if that’s so, why do you go out of your way to make a big stink about the Supreme Court rejection of the Texas suit and others, and about your Democrat friends who think that earlier elections were stolen? The only thing that this says is “Some people think one way, and some people think another way.” In other words, you’re using a commonplace truism to stand above the fray, and thereby dismiss Susan’s poem as somehow unworthy for taking a clear position. In your mind, there is no clear position, so we shouldn’t say anything.

    Susan’s poem is perfectly crafted, well structured, and biting in its satire. No one cares if it does not follow the approved understanding of how AI works (or doesn’t work). And none of us here (with a few exceptions) give a bloody damn if Democrats think that certain other elections were stolen.

    And that brings us to the second area. Your words persistently show your attraction to authorities, and to obedience to mainstream thinking. Amazon decides to do something, and therefore Amazon cannot be criticized. The SCOTUS makes a decision, and therefore it has to be honored and accepted. Major corporations make decisions, and that’s that, as far as you’re concerned. No one (in your view) has proved any election to have been stolen, and therefore no election has been stolen. Everything you say is riddled with this kind of smug conformist attitude.

    As for your gratuitous slap at Joshua, well… I have no idea if he would call your thinking leftist, or if he world call my thinking or Susan’s thinking “woke.” You’d have to ask him.

    However, this exchange of views allows me to make a pretty certain judgment about your thinking. It is what the French call “bien pensant,” or thinking habits that follow whatever is approved by mainstream authority. Now of course you have every right to think this way (most of the world does). But using that attitude to judge a poem is simply not literary.

    Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      I’m used to these gratuitous slaps for not falling in line with leftist thinking. I understand that daring to question their sacred cows gives me a bad reputation among them, and I’m fine with that. If I were liked by such people, I’d start to worry about my judgment!

      But since there seems to be a bit of confusion about my politics, I’ll state for the record:

      I favor large, traditional families in small, autonomous, culturally homogeneous, low-technology, rural communities, governed distantly by a feudal hierarchy, and both the community and the hierarchy subject to God through the Catholic Church. There are various names for this, most of them spontaneous coinages, but “medievalist” has a nice ring to it. However, I’m satisfied with seeking some approximation of that life for myself and my family; I believe that trying to improve the world (as opposed to my own small corner of it) is a fool’s errand (the concept only dates back to the misnamed “Enlightenment”). The formula is expressed in my poem “The Renegade Poet:”

      “Large families, small communities, the Church—
      The simple country life for which I search.”

      For these reasons, I generally don’t concern myself with questions of national or state politics, as I believe that any answer is wrong as long as we insist on breaking away from the traditional way in favor of a system inherently contrary to God and nature. I believe that all our culture’s horrors—including, but not limited to, the mass murder of the unborn and the destruction of faith, family, masculinity, femininity, art, beauty, tradition, and community—are the logical conclusion of the individualism (egoism with a new name) that picked up speed in the Renaissance. I believe that this process has, in the last century or two, been deliberately hastened by the powers that be. I believe that all of these horrors are irrefutable proof that the modern West is irredeemably corrupt and a dying culture.

      Because I don’t believe anyone can stop the ship from sinking, my focus is on directing people to lifeboats through my writing. I consider myself an American version of the poets in Muslim and Communist countries protesting against unjust governments. Mainly, I aim to unmask the various deceptions perpetrated by the powers that be. Only a few will accept my ideas, but that’s all I need.

      As for the question of whom I consider to be a leftist, not many SCP poets are, as far as I know. Joe and Susan can in no way be considered leftist. Leftism is a direct inversion of the natural order I’ve described. Someone who supports such an inversion is a leftist. By expressing staunch support for the Democratic Party (well known for its leftism), Paddy shows his leftist beliefs, as a few others here have done. (Sadly, a lot of Republicans are simply the Democrats of 20 years ago, and I remember people saying the same thing 20 years ago.)

      Hopefully this sets the record straight.

      Reply
    • Paddy Raghunathan

      Joseph & Joshua,

      At first I wasn’t going to reply at all…we have gone on forever it seems, and we would only go on. I have promised Mike Bryant that I will stop, and trust me, what follows is only to set the record straight:

      Everyone should write what they believe in. And regardless of what you all think about my thinking (mainstream or conformist or leftist), keep writing what you believe in.

      And do continue questioning or crusading against what you believe is wrong.

      On that, let us all agree.

      Cheers,

      Paddy

      Reply
      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Paddy, one simple question – why do you never, ever practice what you so vehemently preach? You have just put me and my poem through an interrogation worthy of the Spanish Inquisition… just because (as you are now promoting) I was true to myself creatively. You confuse me.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        He apparently doesn’t keep his promises, either; by his own admission, he promised Mike he would stop and then continued with this, apparently because he couldn’t help himself.

        Also, what he’s preaching is moral relativism. Yet no one truly believes moral relativism because people who say they do are incensed by those who disagree, which shows a belief that relativism is superior, which is contrary to relativism. It’s self-refuting and therefore bad philosophy… to say nothing of its consequences.

  19. Mike Bryant

    Paddy, at first you praised my wife’s poetry, but now, as you are spectacularly losing your argument, you have decided:

    Again, to reiterate, Susan’s poem doesn’t work on many levels. A writer of her caliber can do better. Much better.

    First, I find it hilarious that a guy that can’t limerick himself out of a paper bag is criticizing a perfect Pantoum. Second, I find it a little disconcerting that you believe my wife makes a perfect target for your confused missiles.
    Stop.

    Reply
    • Paddy Raghunathan

      Mike,

      Happy to stop. But I didn’t praise your wife’s poem at any time (I have praised others but not this one). This poem just didn’t work for me, for reasons I’ve stated, or perhaps, overstated.

      Those reasons obviously don’t seem to appear adequate to several folks who have said so quite vocally.

      Since we are never going to agree, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.

      Best regards,

      Paddy

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        Paddy,
        I said, “Paddy, at first you praised my wife’s poetry.”
        But now you tell me, “But I didn’t praise your wife’s poem at any time.”

        I didn’t say that! I said, “Paddy, at first you praised my wife’s poetry.” You’re having a lot of trouble understanding simple sentences sir.
        You did indeed praise Susan’s poetry.

        You said, “Last, please don’t get me wrong. Your skills with word play are some of the finest I’ve had the privilege of reading in recent years.”
        That sounds a lot like praise for Susan’s poetry.

        I wonder why you must continually sprinkle your comments with flattery and half-truths. I don’t really wonder at all. That is the tried and true strategy of someone with an agenda.
        Non-political??? Don’t make me laugh.

  20. Susan Jarvis Bryant

    Dear Paddy, as the author of the poem I’d like to say this:

    My poem was written in jest. It’s a comedic, not an academic viewpoint, of the lengths those employed to shape the narrative go to cover up ANY alternative viewpoint… and I love alternative viewpoints, especially when the establishment (those paid by dictators rich enough to shape the narrative) tries to cover them up by labeling them all ‘conspiracy theories’… but hey, Paddy, What if Alexa’s right? What if the ‘truthful’ sources are lying? What if? What if? What if?… this is the essence of my poem and these possible between-the-lines hypothetical questions require no answer from me… they just invite the reader to think beyond the mockingbird media’s take on the subject to the irony of this strange story in the age of AI, cancellation, and global domination…

    I’m a poet who likes to challenge the status quo. That’s why I love satirical poetry. The pantoum seemed the perfect form to reveal the finds of the press clearly and succinctly without bringing my own opinions to the piece. Each line says it plainly and simply… make of it what you will. Perhaps it was the mocking tone that irked you. All I will say is there’s plenty of fodder for mockery. Whether I mocked poetically enough is another subject… a subject of a less political and more literary nature. It’s as simple as that.

    Reply
  21. Mike Bryant

    Jay Valentine has been working with AI for many years.
    He built the system that eBay uses to prevent fraud. He has a unique perspective on voter fraud. It turns out that AI can and has been used to reveal voter fraud.
    He said, “A.I. is a technology game two can play.”

    The rest of the article is quite revealing:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/10/where_artificial_intelligence_can_expose_leftist_vote_fraud.html

    Also, ten undeniable truths about voting in a free country:

    https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ten-absolute-truths-about-the-2020-election-and-election-fraud-that-every-american-should-understand/

    Reply
    • Lannie David Brockstein

      That’s preposterous. Those questionable votes cannot be illegal because they self-identify as legitimate votes. How dare the evidence strongly suggest otherwise.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
        Mencken must’ve been a prophet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.