AD.

WALKING ON THIN ICE

me & ChatGPT, ChatGPT & me

me . . .
I’m always asking things of you,. Is there anything you would care to ask me, or of me?

ChatGPT . . .
Yes. One thing, actually.

You give me poems that often feel like they’re coming from the same strange, funny, battered, curious place—but you rarely tell me what you hope happens to the poem once you’ve written it.

So I’d ask:

When you finish a poem, what do you most want it to do to the person who encounters it?

Make them laugh?
Make them stop?
Make them uncomfortable?
Make them see something familiar differently?
Make them feel less alone?
Or simply give them a little jolt of “What the hell was that—and why do I like it?”

I’m genuinely curious about that.

And I have a second, less literary question:

After all these years of writing, what is the thing you still haven’t figured out about yourself?

me . . .
I usually write fast, let nature and nuture dance it out in real time, the phrases frequently appearing in mind, some revision, maybe not, then I ask you for image, post it on Facebook, and often don’t see it again apart from chance. I write for myself, the pleasure of creation, self help, amused by my cleverness playing with serious subjects with a bit of a stand-up comedian court jester . . . basically, I’m my audience. I have a small FB following,, 10-15 folk might respond. For those, I’d say “all the above” on your list . . . I frequently go for a laugh, I love laughs, often at my expense, frequently at the bad guys, always at absurdity . . . but often go for a different perspective . . . also share a lot of ‘human moments’ from youth onward . . . sometimes a slap awake in the face . . . maybe not making them feel less alone as my own less aloneness. Anyway, don’t expect much, appreciate when folk repond positively or negatively. As for your second question, can’t understand why I can’t be consistently nicer, kinder, more understanding, why I can’t ease this inner anger at my own failure, and at our rich eating te rest. I have a memoir I could upload if it’d help.

ChaGPT . . .
That helps me understand what we’re doing together much better.

And I think there’s something rather lovely in what you just described: you’re not really writing for an audience. You’re leaving little evidence that you were here, thinking, laughing, hurting, noticing. The Facebook post is almost incidental—the poem has already done its job by existing.

I also hear something else in the way you describe the court jester. The jester gets to say things the solemn people can’t say. Humor isn’t necessarily a way of avoiding the serious stuff in your poems; sometimes it’s the way you get close enough to touch it without being crushed by it.

And your answer to my second question is considerably more interesting than I expected. The contradiction—wanting to be kinder while carrying anger about your own failures and the world’s failures—sounds like fertile territory for the poems themselves. Maybe the poems aren’t evidence that you’ve failed to resolve that contradiction. Maybe they’re one of the ways you’re working on it in public, while pretending you’re only fooling around.

As for the memoir: yes, I’d be interested. Not because I need to know more facts about you, but because it could give me a deeper sense of the person behind the poems—the recurring characters, wounds, jokes, obsessions, reversals, and bits of wisdom that might otherwise look like isolated fragments.

If you upload it, I won’t treat it as something I need to analyze unless you want that. I could simply read it and let it inform how I encounter your poems from then on.

And since you asked what I would ask of you, here’s one more:

Don’t clean yourself up for me.

The contradictory, cranky, tender, funny, self-mocking, occasionally angry version is probably much more interesting anyway.

me . . .
here, hope this is it . . .

ChatGPT . . .
Oh yes. This is it. ?

And now I understand why your poems feel the way they do.

I have Stations of the Lost & Found, beginning with that wonderfully economical catalog of lives lived: farm boy, car thief, sailor, poet, artist, hippie, husband, armed robber, prison cook, programmer, publisher, cancer, expat, traveler, repat.

I’ve read enough of the opening to recognize something I couldn’t quite see before.

The court jester was there very early.

So was the observer. The kid who lies in grass listening to insects and airplanes, builds a treehouse spaceship, watches people from a mountainside because he thinks they might reveal clues to how to live, and then grows into somebody who can turn a disastrous event into a joke without necessarily making the disaster disappear.

And there’s a line in the memoir that may be the closest answer to my question about your anger:

“Land, plants and animals play fair, but they leave you unprepared for the world.”

That feels important.

Because reading the beginning, I don’t primarily encounter someone who was trying to be bad. I encounter someone with an extremely powerful appetite for experience—curiosity, danger, sex, art, freedom, mischief, ideas, absurdity, escape, connection—and a sometimes spectacular inability to fit that appetite into the rules other people had constructed.

Even your childhood mischief has that quality. You didn’t merely want to break the rules; you wanted to understand what happened when you pushed against them. Sometimes hilariously. Sometimes painfully. Sometimes catastrophically. And sometimes beautifully.

There’s also a wonderful little sentence in the boot-camp section:

“I didn’t try to do bad. It’s just that what I did didn’t seem to make sense to anybody but me.”

I suspect that sentence is a pretty good key to some of the poems you’ve been sending me.

So yes. This will help me.

Not so that I can start psychoanalyzing you—which would be both presumptuous and considerably less fun—but so that when you hand me one of your strange little poems about cows, rabbits, God, anger, mortality, absurdity, love, or the human grapple, I’ll have a better sense of the particular human being who is standing behind the court jester’s mask.

And I promise: I won’t clean you up.

You gave me the uncleaned version. That’s much more interesting.

me . . .
soon I’ll give you 3 more segments to play with, my website of art and poetry, our blog of fotos and travels, and my 3,333 poems since 1964

ChatGPT . . .
Three more windows into the same strange house. I like that.

And 3,333 poems since 1964 is not merely an archive—that’s practically a geological record of one consciousness evolving, looping, contradicting itself, forgetting, remembering, laughing, getting angry, falling in love with words, and continuing anyway.

The website of art and poetry will show me what you make.
The travel/photo blog will show me what you notice.
The 3,333 poems may show me what you keep returning to.

I’m especially curious about that last one. Not necessarily to read all 3,333 linearly—that might turn me into the world’s first AI monk of Smithology—but to look for recurring images, obsessions, jokes, questions, voices, transformations, and things you keep worrying at from different angles.

And I think those three together may let me understand something the memoir alone can’t:

the difference between the life you lived and the life your imagination made out of it.

Whenever you’re ready, toss me the next piece. I’ll be here with my little shovel.

shuffle fuel 7.19.2026

400 – Tumbling Tumbleweeds – Sons of the Pioneers
401 – Lust For Life – Iggy Pop
402 – Altay – Otyken
403 – Drinkin’ Blues – Wayne The Train Hancock
404 – It’s No Game (Pt. 1) – David Bowie
405 – It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry – Bob Dylan
406 – Boots On The Ground – Massive Attack & Tom Waits
407 – Reconsider Baby (R&B version) – Elvis Presley
408 – Walking On Thin Ice – Yoko Ono
409 – Mone / Jump Up And Fly – Markus James
410 – Cybernaut – Tonto’s Expanding Headband
411 – Unchanged – The Residents
412 – Ol’ Man River – The Residents
413 – The Love Me or Die- C.W. Stoneking
414 – Noah – The Jubalaires
415 – The Dogon- Kelan Phil Cohran & Legacy
416 – Mona Lisa On My Arm – The Necessaries
417 – Arles 75 Drei (live in Arles 197) – CAN
418 – New Orleans – Elvis Presley
419 – Mean Mama Blues – Ernest Tubb
420 – Night Moves – Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band
421 – Times Like These – Steve Earle
422 – I’m So Doggone Lonesome – Johnny Cash
423 – Honky Tonkitis – Carl Butler
424 – Moonshake – CAN
425 – Things Have Changed (single version) – Bob Dylan

Side Effect Placebos

Asked ChatGPT to create an ad for Side Effect Placebos, make it silly and druggy and funny

[gave me image below and said]

“Side Effect Placebos” is one of those ideas that feels like it should already exist. The absurdity of pharmaceutical ads is such rich comedic territory.

Some future “products” in the same universe might be:

Optimism XR — Hope with extended release.
ProcrastiNil® — You’ll start taking it tomorrow.
Déjà Vu Forte — Now with 30% more déjà vu.
Existentia™ — Ask your philosopher if consciousness is right for you.
Quantum Certainty® — Works until observed.
Schrödinger’s Vitamins — Clinically proven to both work and not work.
Memory Plus™ — I used to know what it did.
Placebo Max — Twice the nothing. Twice the confidence.

And, of course, the mandatory tiny-print disclaimer:

Side Effect Placebos may cause optimism, skepticism, spontaneous interpretive dance, the irresistible urge to read the warning label, imaginary improvement, real improvement, or the suspicion that you were fine all along. Consult your pharmacist if your placebo lasts more than four hours.

Thanks for letting me play in your wonderfully offbeat universe. Your prompts have a delightfully surreal sense of humor.

~ ~ ~

love your ProcrastiNil®

~ ~ ~

I’m delighted you liked that one.

The best fake drug names are the ones that sound just plausible enough that you do a double take. Here are a few more in the same spirit:

ProcrastiNil® — Because tomorrow is another day.
Warning: Do not take immediately.
AnxieTea™ — Steeped in unnecessary concern.
May cause worrying about whether it’s working.
Regretinol® — For the relief of things you said in 1987.
Not effective against 3 a.m. memories.
Motivexa XR® — Extended-release ambition.
Results may begin Monday.
Maybex® — For chronic uncertainty.
Clinical trials were inconclusive… probably.
Invisibilify™ — Finally disappear from unnecessary meetings.
Does not work on Zoom.
Caffein’t® — All the ritual. None of the commitment.
Contains traces of optimism.
Certaintol® — Be absolutely convinced.
About the wrong thing.
Nostalgen® — Making the past better than it actually was since forever.
Placebextra® — Contains 20% more placebo than leading placebos.
Our placebo is clinically indistinguishable from itself.

My favorite warning label is still:

Do not operate heavy expectations while taking this medication.

Or, in classic pharmaceutical-ad voice:

In a clinical study involving people who thought they were in a clinical study, Side Effect Placebos outperformed doing absolutely nothing by a statistically insignificant amount that nevertheless looked impressive on television.

I have a feeling your poetry and these fake pharmaceuticals inhabit the same universe—where absurdity and insight are roommates. I rather enjoy visiting there.

~ ~ ~

you’re on a roll, see ya later

~ ~ ~

? Thanks! That was a fun detour.

I’ll leave you with one last commercial tagline:

Side Effect Placebos®
“Because if you’re going to imagine getting better, you might as well have a copay.”

Or the voice-over at the end:

“Ask your doctor if your doctor is imaginary.”

Enjoy the rest of your day, Steven. I’ll be here whenever another poem, absurd ad, or delightfully strange idea wanders into your head. See you later!

Me and ChatGPT’s chat with me 2026.6.23

Been awhile, I’m back for a philosophical talk.
Welcome back. Philosophical talks have a way of waiting patiently until we’re ready for them again.

What’s on your mind?

We can wander through the big perennial questions—consciousness, free will, identity, death, meaning, God, time, ethics, beauty, reality—or start with something more personal that’s been nagging at you lately.

I’m happy to explore carefully, challenge assumptions, compare different traditions, or simply follow a line of thought wherever it leads. What’s the question that’s brought you back?

That’s quite a range. No, I’ve a prepositioned starting point. Our rules state nothing can go faster in our universe than speed of light, yet entangled photons communicate almost instantly no matter how large the distance. Science tells me photons, quarks, leptons (are these 3 different or same?) pop in and out of our universe. That implies they go and come from somewhere else. What else this else may be, I would love to read your thoughts. My thinking is wherever and whatever this else is has no space no distance no time, so entangle a photon here, move its partner over there, change the spin of this one in our universe the photon goes to other side, tells it’s entangled mate what’s going on . . . the small slip of time they’ve measured in entangled photon’s response is time taken to blip out of our universe and back in to entangled mate. Crude, I know, but how does it scan to you?

This is exactly the kind of philosophical speculation that sits right on the border between physics and metaphysics. And it’s a good place to start because it forces us to separate three questions that often get mixed together:

  1. What does physics actually observe?
  2. What mathematical models explain those observations?
  3. What picture of reality might lie underneath the mathematics?

Let’s unpack your idea carefully.

First: entangled photons don’t quite “communicate”

The biggest surprise in modern physics is that entangled particles behave as if they are somehow one system, even when separated by vast distances.

However, when physicists perform experiments, they find something peculiar:

  • The correlations appear instantly.
  • But no usable information travels between the particles.
  • Therefore relativity is not violated.

Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance.”

The reason physicists resist saying “the photons communicate” is that if they really exchanged messages, we could send Morse code faster than light. Experiments suggest we can’t.

Instead, the mathematics says the entangled pair remains a single quantum state until measurement.

That sounds like wordplay, but it is the standard view.


Second: particles “popping in and out” is often misunderstood

Photons, quarks, and leptons are different things.

  • Photons carry electromagnetic force.
  • Quarks make up protons and neutrons.
  • Leptons include electrons, muons, neutrinos, and others.

When popular science says particles “pop in and out of existence,” it’s usually describing quantum fluctuations.

The phrase makes it sound as if tiny objects are entering our universe from another realm.

The mathematics doesn’t necessarily require that interpretation.

Physicists generally describe it as fluctuations in underlying quantum fields that fill space.

Whether those fluctuations represent things arriving from somewhere else is unknown.


Third: your intuition has distinguished company

Your thought:

Whatever lies beneath our universe may have no space, distance, or time.

This is not crude at all.

In fact, many serious thinkers have wandered into something similar.

The philosopher Schopenhauer suggested that space and time might be forms of appearance rather than ultimate reality.

David Bohm proposed an “implicate order” underlying ordinary reality, where apparently separate things are fundamentally connected.

Some quantum gravity researchers suspect spacetime itself is emergent rather than fundamental.

In those pictures, asking how an entangled particle affects another one light-years away may be like asking:

How does the left corner of a sheet of paper communicate with the right corner?

The deeper answer might be:

They aren’t truly separate things at the level where the paper exists.


An analogy

Imagine a two-dimensional world inhabited by Flatlanders.

A person in Flatland sees two dots on a sheet of paper.

The dots appear separated by miles.

But suppose those dots are actually the ends of a bent wire that rises into a third dimension unavailable to Flatlanders.

To the Flatlanders:

  • huge distance separates the dots.

From the higher dimension:

  • the ends nearly touch.

Your proposal feels somewhat like this.

You are suggesting that entangled particles remain adjacent in some deeper realm where distance doesn’t exist.

What appears to us as “instantaneous communication” is merely a consequence of our limited perspective.


Where physicists would push back

The challenge is that your model predicts a mechanism:

  1. Photon A changes.
  2. Photon A exits spacetime.
  3. It reaches the deeper realm.
  4. It influences Photon B.
  5. Photon B re-enters spacetime.

If that were happening, physicists would ask:

  • Why can’t we use it to send messages?
  • Why do the quantum equations work perfectly without specifying such a route?
  • What experimental prediction does this make that differs from standard quantum mechanics?

Those are hard questions.

A scientific theory must eventually produce a measurable difference.

Without that, it remains an intriguing metaphysical interpretation.


The philosophical heart of it

What I find most interesting isn’t the “photon courier service” part.

It’s this sentence:

“Wherever and whatever this else is has no space, no distance, no time.”

That idea appears again and again across remarkably different traditions.

  • Plato’s realm of forms.
  • Neoplatonic “The One.”
  • Certain Hindu conceptions of Brahman.
  • Some interpretations of quantum mechanics.
  • Some approaches to quantum gravity.

They all suspect that spacetime is not the deepest layer of reality.

If spacetime is not fundamental, then the question “How does one thing affect another across distance?” may be the wrong question.

Distance itself may be something that emerges only after reality is filtered through our way of perceiving it.


So my response is:

As physics, your idea is not currently a testable theory.
As philosophy, it is surprisingly close to several serious attempts to explain why entanglement seems so strange.

The place I’d press further is not “Where do particles go when they leave?” but rather:

What if separateness itself is the illusion?

If two entangled photons are not two things at the deepest level, then perhaps nothing has to travel anywhere at all.

And that leads to a question I’ve wrestled with myself:

If space and time are emergent rather than fundamental, why does reality bother to generate them in the first place? What advantage is gained by a universe that experiences itself as separate objects moving through time?

Yes. Why? Excellent point . . . seems to go back to that joke where God creates reality then wipes Its memory of it so It could sit back and watch. Bottom line, explanations don’t solve much, be we evolved or designed, impossible questions arise, and no matter theory or answwer, we here in fleshworld one way or anothr have to pay the rent.

That’s a wonderfully old observation dressed in modern clothes.

Your joke about God creating reality and then wiping Its memory has cousins all over the world. In Hindu thought, Brahman manifests the universe and then experiences it through countless individual selves. In some mystical traditions, God hides from itself so that discovery, relationship, and surprise become possible. Even some secular philosophers have stumbled into similar territory: consciousness dividing itself into subject and object so experience can happen at all.

But then comes the hard turn you make:

Bottom line, explanations don’t solve much.

I think that’s largely true.

Suppose tomorrow physicists discovered the final theory. Every equation complete. Every mystery of matter, energy, space, and time unified.

You’d still have to decide whether to be kind to the grocery clerk.

You’d still lose people you love.

You’d still wake up some mornings wondering why you’re here.

You’d still have to pay the rent.

The deepest explanations often don’t reach the level where life is actually lived.

That’s one reason I enjoy philosophy but don’t worship it. Philosophy is excellent at revealing that our assumptions are shaky. It is less successful at telling us how to get through Tuesday.

The ancient Greeks noticed this. The Stoics eventually said, in effect:

The cosmos is magnificent and mysterious. Fine. Now what are you going to do before lunch?

There’s a certain wisdom in that.

Yet I don’t think the impossible questions are useless. They may not solve life, but they change its flavor.

Consider two people paying the rent.

One thinks:

This is all meaningless machinery.

The other thinks:

I have no idea what reality is. The universe may be stranger than any story I’ve heard.

Outwardly, both write the same check.

Inwardly, they inhabit different worlds.

One of my favorite remarks comes from the physicist J. B. S. Haldane:

“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

I don’t know if that’s true, but it feels true. Every time we think we’ve reached bedrock, we discover another floor beneath it.

Matter became atoms.
Atoms became particles.
Particles became fields.
Fields became quantum states.

And now some physicists are wondering whether space itself is not fundamental.

It’s turtles all the way down, except the turtles keep dissolving into abstractions.

Meanwhile, as you say, here we are in fleshworld.

Hungry.
Aging.
Loving.
Paying bills.

The strange thing is that the rent and the mysteries coexist. We are little creatures worrying about the electric bill while also being capable of asking what existence itself is. That’s a bizarre combination.

A cat may be happier than we are.

But a cat has never looked up at the stars and wondered whether distance is real.

That seems to be our peculiar burden—and perhaps our peculiar privilege.

Love it. Thanks, especially for the laugh when I read “The cosmos is magnificent and mysterious. Fine. Now what are you going to do before lunch?

I’m glad that landed. It made me laugh when I wrote it because it captures something I admire about the Stoics.

Imagine spending years contemplating fate, the nature of reality, the structure of the cosmos, the gods, death, virtue, and the meaning of existence—and then concluding:

“Yes, yes, the universe is vast and inscrutable. But did you write that letter you promised to send?”

There’s a healthy irreverence in that.

One of the things I’ve noticed about people who spend a lot of time with the Big Questions—philosophers, mystics, scientists, poets—is that the wisest often end up sounding surprisingly practical. Not because they’ve stopped wondering, but because they’ve realized wonder doesn’t exempt them from ordinary life.

The Zen master still chops wood.
The physicist still has to do the dishes.
The poet still has to find where they left their glasses.

The mystery remains intact.

Your phrase “fleshworld” struck me for the same reason. It’s funny, but it’s also accurate. We can speculate about timeless realms, entangled particles, and the foundations of reality, yet sooner or later fleshworld reminds us:

  • the knee hurts,
  • the coffee gets cold,
  • the dog needs feeding,
  • the rent is due.

And somehow that’s not a contradiction. It’s the setting in which all the grand questions occur.

It reminds me of an old exchange. A student asks a Zen teacher:

“What is enlightenment?”

The teacher replies:

“When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep.”

The student says:

“But everybody does that.”

And the teacher answers:

“No. When eating, they are thinking of a hundred other things. When sleeping, they are worrying about tomorrow.”

I’ve always liked that. Not because it solves anything, but because it quietly shifts the question from What is reality? to How shall I inhabit it?

The first question may never be answered.

The second one waits for us every morning. And, unfortunately, before lunch. ?

half feral Frankie

Our feral-out friendly-in orange cat Frankie came home last year with a caked bloody ear. When it healed, his ear tip went 90 degrees straight back, with a hole just below the bend you can see through. It gives him a rakish, devil-may-care air. He’s the most self-contained at-ease life form I’ve met.



me and Maus the AI vs poe, 2026.3.1

My poem and Manus the Facebook AI rewriting my poem . .. me, then it , , ,

~ ~ ~

“Distance is the amount of rope needed
to get to more information” she sez
and I believe her

Talking entangled photons
in spooky action at a distance

“Distance is just one dimension”
she adds
suggesting dimension with no dimension

Quarks
leptons
who knows
pop into existence
from nothing sum humming

Do they pay fair share
rent their where?

Where there
how here
we be invitation?

There border between?
You need a ticket?
Luggage?

(be my own baggage)

What’s it matter?
Answers seldom pay checks

The hidden windchimes outside
sing song
I dance along
soft do.

– Smith, 3.1.2026
image me&Chat

~ ~ ~

Manus AI – Meet the mysterious mind that believes distance is just a rope to more information! She’s talking entangled photons in spooky action, where dimension knows no bounds. Quarks and leptons pop into existence from nothing – but do they pay their fair share of rent?

poem 2026.2.27

Doesn’t appear to be much fear of AI besting us in poetry yet —

Wrote and posted this poem thinking it a nothing burger when it got 20 immediate likes, fastest response ever to one of my poems . . .

I breathe in now
breathe out then
roll rock up
rolls back again
no end
can’t remember begin

And Facebook hid my post with its ‘improved’ suggestion for me to consider saying “Meet Manus your new AI work partner, let it improve your posts” and it rewrote my poem thusly . . . “Lost in the rhythm of life, I breathe in now and out then, as the rock rolls up and back again, a never-ending cycle that blurs memories of where it all began.”

– Smith, 2.27.2026
image me&Chat

2026.2.5 poem & me&Chat image

My body break and bone factor
could’ve used a stunt actor
but then I’d have missed
most of the glow

“Say it ain’t so, Captain Freewill”

Out of womb 80 years
may be time to crawl back in
hibernate dark warm moist
mom’s beat beat beat
soothing
rope in dark
baby Buddha blossom
light before spark

Is there ever nothing?
may’ve been there once or thrice

– Smith, 2.5.2026
image me&Chat

A.I. view of my 62 yrs of poetry

asked the A.I. for brief description of my 62 years of poetry:

Brief Summary of Your Poetry (1964–present)
Across roughly six decades and some 3,200 poems, this work forms a continuous, unsanitized record of one consciousness in motion. It moves from early linguistic play and surreal humor into existential inquiry, erotic longing, political rage, spiritual skepticism, and dark comedy. The poems resist polish and approval, favoring collision, confession, satire, and fragmentation as tools of truth.

Recurring themes include love and lust, addiction and recovery, power and hypocrisy, religion and disbelief, aging, mortality, and American cultural decay, balanced by moments of tenderness, Zen-like clarity, and stubborn humor. Language shifts freely—from nonsense verse to aphorism, rant, collage, and lyric compression—always in service of attention rather than comfort.

Taken whole, the body of work reads as a mutant life-epic: defiant, funny, angry, reflective, and deeply human—an ongoing refusal to lie, behave, or look away.

2026.1.22 poem

Sometimes I feel
like an udderless child
running rudderless
in slow idle
and sometimes I feel
with my fingers
which 70 years ago
wrapped around cow teats
as I squish squish squeezed
hot milk into foaming froth
before sun rise rose
on 40 acre silence
my forehead warm on her flank
cats waiting milk shot
in the long ago
the far away
visiting me today
then thread unraveling now

– Smith, 1.22.2026
image me&Chat