[andreaferretti]

I was tricked by "A thousand pictures on the kitchen floor, Talked about a hundred years or more."

[gridspy]

I got 6/6

I didn't even read that far. It was obvious by here:

SONNET #2

    The dirty rusty wooden dresser drawer.
    A couple million people wearing drawers,
    Or looking through a lonely oven door,
    Flowers covered under marble floors.

This is exactly how a computer algorithm would conflate drawer with drawers. There is no obvious theme to this verse, no high level construct.

Every human poem in this example has a high level theme, which is non-obvious to a computer. None of the computer ones do.

[chrisfosterelli]

That's how I got 6/6 as well. It's less about the actual words and more about if the poem was actually talking about anything coherent.

[Scriptor]

Yep, the human poems would often refer back to an idea or word mentioned before. The computer poems read like something from a good markov generator.

Actually, you can kind of reverse engineer the algorithm behind Sonnet #2. It seems like they first pick a bunch of related words that rhyme (drawer, door, floors, apartment, wall) and then build up the line backwards. The problem is that even though the words are related, the actual lines don't form any single cohesive image.

[SilasX]

>This is exactly how a computer algorithm would conflate drawer with drawers.

Because human poets never do wordplay like that?

[neosat]

I got this one wrong. I thought no way a computer would be so dumb to have drawer and then drawers in the next sentence and this was a trick question to get one to say machine. Guess I overestimated the algorithm !

[taneq]

Inability to differentiate homonyms is one of the current weaknesses of word embeddings, isn't it?