I can understand the skeptisism. I don't care if you believe me that Xam exists or not. Xam has over 3000 pages of text to write from, and over 400 issues/other items (Short stories, news articles, other short stuff) of experience. I typically run him, hence getting testing output and data points, 5-10 times a day. It's very tedious. The team I have to help me is phenomenal, and there is no way I could have done it all myself. You should understand that the first issue you see was not in fact written the day it was posted, but a few months prior when I was just having fun. The following issues are catching up to date. I admittedly should have said as much. Xam himself has been in the works since November of last year. I have poured my heart and soul into this project, working upwards of 6 hours a day on this guy.
You must also understand that Botnik, while impressive, is a predictive text generator. It just takes a datafeed and tries to guess the next word, all the while a human is controlling it. It's like what you have on your text messenger for a phone.
Xam is similar in some aspects, but takes the human out of the equation while writing. It then spits out something, depending on what template I tell it to use, and I then get to label it as a good job or a bad job. If it is bad, it reverts to the previous setting, if it is good, it keeps the current settings and tries again.
Again, I never thought Xam would come this far. I also think that what you see is biased by me picking my favorites to share with you, and by issues being slightly easier to format that say, a story, because there is a standard for it. You should see some of the crap it comes up with. Like "Meanwhile, Sally jumps because the lemon is in the basket" I don't post it because it doesn't fit into GI. Perhaps I'll do a factbook for it. Idk. It also doesn't seem to distinguish between proper nouns and objects, which is why having it handle the @@randomname@@ produces better results. However, you will still end up with an irate window now and then. Not entirely sure what it has against windows.
On this note, I will admit that issue 7 did surprise me. (in fact at this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone tampered with it to pull one over on me, but no one is saying anything.) NOTHING it has come up with, past or present, comes close to matching it. I'm still trying to figure out what happened as to cause this. It's latest iteration came up with @@randomname@@ eating too much and falling into a waterfall. Not sure where the waterfall came from, but okay.
Also, please do understand that I can show you what it spits out, I can show you the source text(If you're into reading thousands of pages of text), I can show you the templates, but I cannot show you the code, simply because doing so would forfeit my ability to submit him to competitions as anything on the internet is no longer fair game as they can't trace it back to me, or prove it was originally mine. So I understand doubt. I really do.
So there's my perspective, make what you want of it. I have no reason to lie, no benefit. I'm just someone trying to have a bit of fun in their overwhelmingly stressful life.
Chan Island wrote:*Notes how the bot has written an issue that involves bots*
Skynet confirmed.
But otherwise that's pretty neat. I have no problems believing that draft 7 was written by your bot, and indeed still see plenty of room for improvement. Issues are very formulaic, which is different from a novel (hence why bots are still pretty poor at coming up with fiction stories- yet), but convenient for a robot.
Looking forward to seeing the next iteration. Want to feed it on a couple of my accidental duplicate drafts? I'll happily TG them to you.
Thank you for the support! I would love to get some of your accidental double drafts in there. Wonder what that'll result in.