“Why do you put these sayings upon me?”
Angelo in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure (II.ii.135)
AI generated content
It’s been many long years since I’ve had this discussion, but I learned, early on in my authorial career, writing horoscopes, writing as the Fishing Guide to the Stars, writing as myself (Kramer Wetzel), and through syndications, publications, and then related decades on the web itself?
There’s only one of me.
Although the term now in current vogue is “Aye-Eye,” the web has been subject to scrappers, violators of copyright, and other assorted infringing misdeeds for many long years.
Working on another entry, I recalled how a piece I had written, in my own style, was used as an example of what not to do, in a class. Mocked, not quite in full, but mocked nonetheless. I think the teacher made a knowing nod to me.
I’ve since been mocked many times.
However, I’ve yet to see someone try to cover fishing, star gazing, and astrological prognostications with a layer of Shakespeare, and latent hippie Austin redneck folded into the mix. A little twang, and some classical scholarship with dose of homespun (something).
Many suggest seasoned with a liberal dose of healthy organic male bovine byproduct.
More than three decades of experience, and at least the same in archives online? I have a style, complete with typos, run-ons, and a host of other grammatical errors all my own. It’s a style. It’s my style. It can be attempted, but I’m pretty sure I don’t have to worry too much about an AI version of me. Take my old material? Sure, it would be easy enough to do, but how would that fare, moving forward?
AI generated content
I’m not worried about being replaced by a piece of software. As it is, there are numerous software, app-based, astrology-driven programs that mix and match based on sun/moon, and other factors in a chart. The greatest problem being? There’s no room for the human brain interaction, the interpretation, the art of the science.
Where the planets are? Where what astronomical unit currently resides? That’s plain science, astrophysics. There is no magic.
What it means to us on the planet? That’s an art, and so far, the machines can only do the heavy lifting, but none of the nuanced meanings.
AI generated content
“You’re not going to make a canoe out of me!”
(Let’s see a computer figure that one out.)
Barefoot Astrology
Horoscopes by Kramer Wetzel
AI generated content
“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”
(Romans 12:14)
Maybe a dozen years back, I stumbled onto another horoscopic website, but rather than generate new content each week? The site’s in-house astrology writers just let random content pop up. Seriously, it was a random number generator, like a modern slot machine, and there was maybe seven years of material on that site, then? Over that period of seven years or so, maybe enough entries for each sign for each week, what does that work out to? Doing math in my head…
52 week X 7 years = 364
363 weeklies X 12 signs = 4368
So a little less than 5K entries, randomized?
“Meh.”
The way I work?
I discovered, back when I was managing the horoscopes entirely “by hand,” that the notion of breaking the weekly down into bite-sized bits, with just one sign on each page was way too complex a beast.
From a Web 1.0 point, it made sense, but that was then. This is now. I’m a one-person show (again). I handle it all myself. I don’t have a back room filled with tech-savvy youngsters doing all the hard work. I twiddle the bits and bytes. There’s no long-haired Linux-guru with a black cape covered in stars, being a wizard.
Easier as there is only one boss, me.
The randomized entries, that does work, if the material is generic enough. (My material isn’t really generic enough, as I write to a specific time frame).
I’ve actually used the randomized version of the entries, and currently running at the bottom of the blog splash page, there’s a link for three random entries. Likewise, on the main site, astrofish.net, I think I placed it near the bottom, just above the footer, there’s a two or three random horoscopes, in full, with dates. Might be in the site’s index, I haven’t messed with that stuff in a while.
But the random links to the internal, existing content, serve as a reminder, and one where I’m not willing to just regurgitate the same material, over and over, still, an AI could easily scrape new material from my old stuff, and just re-assemble it in a new format. Think readers, human readers, would catch on quick enough.
The actual astrology is based on charts that show — scientifically — where the planets, the Sun, the Moon, and the various asteroids are for the time indicated in the publication date.
What that means? All based on my own observations, and those shift, change, and mutate.
Actual human readers tend to catch that.
Based on feedback, they all usually do.
