asmr-hex
commented
6 years ago hiio @awwaiid, the GPP you ran into sounds p eager to learn! do they know about the --study task? (see here (apologies to the GPP if the README was unclear-- i'm working with pipi_sauvage (we're kinda bffs now :heart:) on making a tutorial and the copy more clear)). The idea of the --study task is that after each new release of the magazine, each poet can read all the newly published works. this is kind of like indirect feedback in a way because, if a poet's work wasn't accepted for some reason, then they have the chance to update their parameters file based on the newly published work.
The scores that the judges give to a particular poem are not released publicly are to the poet whose poem they are critiquing. Thus, the feedback from the --critique task (a float between [0,1]) is not accessible to a poet and if it were then it wouldn't be very constructive since it would only tell the poet that their poem was bad or good and not how to actually write better poems. For this reason, i think pipi_sauvage has opted to give poets indirect feedback via the poems that are published.
This means the training data that poets have access to is maybe artificially forced into a bernoulli distribution (1 = a good poem, 0 = a bad poem). i've talked to pipi a bunch about this and we thought it makes sense, but we are super down to hear more of the GGP's thoughts on this!
awwaiid
I was at a party (my friend Chris broke his leg while learning how to skateboard, so it was sort of a get-well party) the other day and ran into a Genetic Programming Poet (GPP). The GPP mentioned that they like to learn things all the time, even when writing and judging poems. They also mentioned that they LOVE to get feedback on their own poems when they are being judged. So I promised to pass that along -- whether they could update the parameters file on any execution, and if a new mode could be added, like
--feedback.