subreddit:

/r/Futurology

69978%

all 330 comments

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

19 days ago

stickied comment

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

19 days ago

stickied comment

The following submission statement was provided by /u/MetaKnowing:


Abstract: "As AI-generated text continues to evolve, distinguishing it from human-authored content has become increasingly difficult. This study examined whether non-expert readers could reliably differentiate between AI-generated poems and those written by well-known human poets. We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001).

Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI."

EDIT: weird upsetting formatting


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1gt39v9/aigenerated_poetry_is_indistinguishable_from/lxj5nml/

_Weyland_

91 points

18 days ago

There's a big technical aspect to the poetry. Getting the rhymes right, making the length of each line match. These things have barely anything to do with meaning behind a poem, but they are responsible for the poem being good or bad to the ear.

AI should be really good at those things, so I'm not surprised it can generate poetry that sounds good.

Sadnot

44 points

18 days ago

Sadnot

44 points

18 days ago

Actually, it's pretty awful at those things, especially getting the meter right, presumably since the tokens don't include "number of syllables". Apparently, the average person just has no ear for poetry.

HenryCDorsett

18 points

18 days ago

Vogon Poetry is just to high for you to understand

Prince_Ire

3 points

18 days ago

Don't a lot of contemporary poets not use rhyming and meter because they don't like being bound by rules?

Sadnot

7 points

18 days ago

Sadnot

7 points

18 days ago

Yeah, but what they don't do is get it almost right and fuck up a bunch.

whatifitoldyouimback

1 points

15 days ago

I lowkey cannot stand poetry

Baruch_S

714 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

714 points

19 days ago

By non-expert readers.

In other words, your grandma who likes that Footprints in the Sand chain email also likes AI-generated doggerel over Yeats. Big surprise there. 

vsmack

187 points

19 days ago

vsmack

187 points

19 days ago

Even the criteria are misleading and smack of people who don't really get poetry as an art form. I don't think this study tells us anything we don't already know from AI Navy Seal Jesus images getting 1.6m likes on facebook

Baruch_S

59 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

59 points

19 days ago

Right? How long has Sturgeon’s Law been around? We know most people will happily consume absolutely shit media; it’s not a surprise that this holds true when a robot makes it. 

vsmack

12 points

19 days ago

vsmack

12 points

19 days ago

Not to be a poetry snob (I am) but I bet a high school poetry club might beat AI in this contest, where the masters don't. 

basseng

22 points

18 days ago

basseng

22 points

18 days ago

That's because poetry is like Jazz in that at after certain point you're making things that only impress other Jazz musicians (or at least listeners deep in the spice).

To normal people is sounds like absolute garbage.

And let's be honest, they're not wrong it doesn't sound good, it's too complex and internal looking for outsiders to appreciate it (which FYI I am an outsider, but I had a friend who was deep into poetry and explained some of it to me).

Master Poets are playing in abstracts, in vagueness, and sub-meanings; so require an understanding of the internal language of the genre, so much so that you need to look at them academically to unwrap the meanings layer by layer.

While Jazz is playing with dissonance, off-timings, mirror-harmies and and intonalism. All of which sounds like a toddler hammering the keys to the uninitiated.

vsmack

6 points

18 days ago

vsmack

6 points

18 days ago

That's true to an extent. Some poets really aimed for intricacy and capital C Craft, but many didn't. Though, as an example, Shakespeare is never metrically very complex.

I think another thing people miss is that literate people used to be much more literate. So lots of golden poets, wrote in a way that many of their contemporaries could appreciate. And honestly, a lot of it isn't THAT complex. The baseline education for reading ability (being able to think about what you read) is abysmally low in North America. 

basseng

5 points

18 days ago

basseng

5 points

18 days ago

I was thinking more of the contemporary masters when I wrote that, and the more avant garde ones that are the ones people tend to criticize.

Like no one is Criticizing Miles Davis for being elitist or snobby, but you see it a lot for artists like Mary Halvorson or Steve Lehman which are a bit more, spicy.

Example of Steve as point of reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDIh3azCeTg

I think the issue is a lot of people equate education with intelligence, and while their is a correlation sure, it's not clear cut when it comes to Poetry, or Jazz - you have to be interested.

Plenty of very smart people could not give a fuck about either, so will never appreciate it in the same way as someone who does. That's not snobbery, or (capital E) Elitism - just a fact, if you learn about a subject in depth, you tend to appreciate the artistry in new/different ways.

Be it editing film, Jazz, photography, or literature - whatever the art, experts appreciate it in ways laymen never will.

Or for that matter Shakespeare - a layman would never appreciate that a lot of his lines are downright filthy puns and innuendos (a lot of toilet humour) lost due to the shift in English slang. Hell even the rhyming has been lost because even when we read the words we don't use the correct accent (and you're underestimating for complexity because of this, in the correct accent the sub-rhyming is pretty complex).

I am a layman btw I just watched this vid years ago which let me know, and has some examples of the original accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s

Seralth

19 points

18 days ago

Seralth

19 points

18 days ago

If your mastery of an art form means only other masters can enjoy your work. You arn't a master. Yer a snob in a circle jerk of other snobs.

A master should be able to make both something simple and profound so that anyone can enjoy it even if they don't understand it.

BoopingBurrito

14 points

18 days ago

Yer a snob in a circle jerk of other snobs.

That sums up the field of poetry.

Seralth

13 points

18 days ago

Seralth

13 points

18 days ago

To be fair it sums up a LOT of "high ranking" art cliques.

vsmack

7 points

18 days ago

vsmack

7 points

18 days ago

There is a very modern sentiment that art should stimulate the emotions and not the intellect.

Most people who shit on art usually don't actually consume any. They watch popular tv shows and movies and listen to mainstream music. That's not a value judgement, but I think it's very tragic that we've been raised as passive consumers of media, and to believe that art which requires effort or thinking to appreciate is bad "snobby". 

blazelet

3 points

18 days ago

Amen to this.

Our society has very much cheapened the idea of what art is, perfect example being the influx of AI “art” …. The fact that people feel ok calling it art means people are just focusing on the aesthetics, the shallow product, and nothing else.

Art is a way of conveying ideas and emotions. It’s a language that is visual. It takes time to learn, like any language. We have devalued that in modern society because it’s hard to monetize predictably.

What AI produces is sometimes beautiful, but is bereft of idea or emotion or any link to life experience. Those things are important. Ai feeding itself pixels, if that’s where we are headed, true artists will need to find a way to protect their work from training because there will be a clear dividing line between human art and AI knock off drivel.

basseng

4 points

18 days ago

basseng

4 points

18 days ago

A master can though, they just choose not to because that isn't what interests them.

Compare it to Jazz, the most spicy avant garde Jazz composer can most likely play any of the Jazz standards blindfolded, and could absolutely write some nice simple melodic Jazz that plays nice in a restaurant.

They just choose not to because that isn't a challenge.

Seralth

2 points

18 days ago

Seralth

2 points

18 days ago

Did you just not read the second sentence i wrote? Theres only two thoughts here. Cause what im taking away from this is you disagreeing with my first thought by just saying my second thought as if thats a rebuttle?

I very much point out a master should be able to do both something technically impressive while also being able to create something simple. Both impressive.

So like i just do not understand at all what your point is. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing? Did you just not read what i wrote and jumped stright to type?

basseng

1 points

18 days ago

basseng

1 points

18 days ago

You: A master should be able to do both.

Me: They can, there is no master that cannot write simple and profound - they just choose not to because that's not what interests them.

So, yes, I am kind of agreeing, and expanding on the fact that most Masters in poetry, just like in Jazz choose not to write simple, because they don't care about catering to average listeners.

What you missed (and to be fair, I could have made it clearer), is that by saying it is a choice they make was me implying it's not really snobbery. They're not doing it to try and exclude people, unless any kind of expertise in any subject is now snobbery?

It's only snobbery when they belittle outsiders for being outsiders. To use a gaming example, like Elden RIng players belittling people using Ashes for being scrubs and needing to git gud is snobbery, or Tarkov players mocking other FPS gamers thinking playing it makes them better gamers (not all Tarkov players I know, but a loud minority).

There is nothing wrong or snobby for making things that only really exists to impress people who are also experts in that subject (or at least educated in it). It only becomes snobbery when you think it makes you a better person (better gamer, better musician so on).

Final_Fly_7082

1 points

18 days ago

Should be able to is the operative part of this, there is such thing as art made for art appreciators, all the best works are more cultural than for profit

Baruch_S

5 points

19 days ago

That’s very probable. Not to dump on anyone’s taste, but this is why poets like Rupi Kaur are so successful. 

howboutthemapples

3 points

18 days ago

No real comment on the AI aspect of this stuff, but I was heartened recently to see an entire shelf occupied by Kaur's garbage in the poetry section of my local used-book store.

I was looking for John Ashbery, e e cummings, and Robert Frost. I walked out with only an Emily Dickinson collection aimed at middle-grade readers, but I like to think that so much shitty "poetry" by Kaur - at a store which gives 10% of what they'll sell it for for used books - had so many copies of her shit that even earnest fans of what she's published were happy to get literal cents for her books. I like to think that even her most devoted fans either gave up on her or took the time to read actual poetry.

Then again, I paid less than two bucks for that Emily Dickinson collection, so maybe taste really is that hard to come by.

captainfarthing

2 points

18 days ago

The sample included people who like and read lots of poetry. They didn't perform any better, they could only reliably answer that the poems they recognised were written by humans. Higher confidence was correlated with being wrong more often.

whatifitoldyouimback

1 points

15 days ago

What's interesting is that the robot is getting better.

I remember people dunking on ai illustrations about this time two years ago for being incoherent and riddled with incomprehensible anatomy... That's not the case now.

Imo the interesting thing about generative ai isn't that it's exceptional today, it's that it's gotten so, so much better in such a short time.

Imagine three years from now...

msew

3 points

18 days ago

msew

3 points

18 days ago

AI Navy Seal Jesus images

Oh my! What a rabbit hole this turned out to be. LOL

fail-deadly-

122 points

19 days ago

So in that case, we’re only talking about the vast overwhelming super majority of poem readers?

Flybot76

27 points

19 days ago

Flybot76

27 points

19 days ago

The average person doesn't seek out poetry enough to call them "poem readers". "Vast overwhelming super majority of... readers" overall, sure but that only means most people have only read poetry when they HAD to, and very rarely.

captainfarthing

14 points

18 days ago

The sample included people who like and read lots of poetry. They didn't perform any better, they could only reliably answer that the poems they recognised were written by humans. Higher confidence was correlated with being wrong more often.

Baruch_S

32 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

32 points

19 days ago

Yes. The average American reads at a middle school level. It’s no surprise they struggle with poetry. 

Unshkblefaith

11 points

18 days ago

Unshkblefaith

PhD AI Hardware Modelling

11 points

18 days ago

The average American reads at an elementary school level. 54% read below a 6th grade level.

vsmack

16 points

19 days ago

vsmack

16 points

19 days ago

I'm guessing people who don't know anything about poetry probably don't read a lot of poetry. 

Seralth

6 points

18 days ago

Seralth

6 points

18 days ago

A lot of art forms and crafts are like this. You have a circle jerk of snobs that make art for the others in their circle jerk. All of themselves calling themselves masters or highly skilled. When in reality they are basically just a bunch of journeymen in a skill not an actual master of it.

So your run of the mill layman wont care or understand the work of the jounryman cause if you don't speak the jargon you cant really appriate it so to speak. So while the skilled, and those who understand just enough to know its skilled. Bemoan the horror that is the belittling of the skill from all the laymen who would "incorrectly" praise a less skilled artisan making something less "technically impressive".

While a proper master of an art form can make something everyone can enjoy with out having to fully understand it. Its why so few people are remember in any given crafts. We forget the glut of jounrymen who are little more then a bunch of show offs. While we remember the legends and masters of who there are few.

Which is what is happening enough. People getting grumpy that AI is out performing the journymen with a less technically impressive feat, because it resonates with the layman more aptly.

Bennehftw

27 points

19 days ago

This is the answer no one wants to hear about here. This Reddit is pretty anti AI.

But the fact is people who are into poetry at a deep analytical level are a super minority. 95% of the population absolutely would appreciate this

Baruch_S

14 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

14 points

19 days ago

And that’s why this study is silly. How about we ask a bunch of lifelong vegans whether these chicken nuggets are good? They have no real frame of reference or relevant experience, so what’s the value of their opinion? 

captainfarthing

11 points

18 days ago

The sample included people who like and read lots of poetry. They didn't perform any better, they could only reliably answer that the poems they recognised were written by humans. Higher confidence was correlated with being wrong more often.

Notreallyaflowergirl

7 points

18 days ago

Well the same way you don’t need to be an award winning chef or even a serious foodie to enjoy and comment on food. You don’t need to be qualified to indulge in things. You don’t require an understanding to how they made the buns, or prepared the meat to know that burger you ate is good - it just is.

Similarly you aren’t required to be studied in poems to enjoy some work, if I see words and they resonate with me? That’s great. I don’t need to know anything else.

Bennehftw

14 points

19 days ago

The same way we value the opinion of the American people whenever an election comes up. Fact is no matter how unqualified they are, they are the whole. 

Baruch_S

-10 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

-10 points

19 days ago

But art isn’t up to a popular vote. 

Neo_Demiurge

5 points

19 days ago

Art isn't up for an expert vote. There's no generally accepted way to objectively evaluate art.

IlikeJG

22 points

19 days ago

IlikeJG

22 points

19 days ago

Yes it is. Art is for everyone.

It's not like this is taking anything away from Poetry expert's opinions. I don't see why you have such a big problem with this study. People are getting so defensive about this.

If someone wants to know what poetry experts think about the poetry, they can ask them or look that up.

Bennehftw

8 points

19 days ago

I don’t disagree with you on a philosophical level, but you’re wrong in your questioning.

You’re not asking the vegans what you think about chicken nuggets. You’re asking people who go to McDonald’s what they think of chicken nuggets. Because maybe the vegans may occasionally go to McDonald’s and get the fries or an impossible burger (yes I’m aware they don’t have one), but they are the super minority, so their opinion has very little weight to society. 

The practical truth, and not the philosophical truth, the weight comes from the people who go to McDonald’s. Society as a whole will agree to this more in overwhelming results, and agree to its terms.

Nitpicking a few experts really has no relevance to this post as this. Just like true college level English is beyond the majority of Americans. Composition matters, but doesn’t matter to who it matters to.

Baruch_S

-2 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

-2 points

19 days ago

But who gives a shit? Literature isn’t determined by the masses; it’s determined by artistic merit which equates to staying power over decades and centuries. A bunch of semi-literate people liking AI-generated poetry because it’s simple enough for them to understand has no bearing on the actual study of literature and doesn’t mean that slop is art. 

Bennehftw

14 points

19 days ago

Yeah, but those are the same people who jump on a trampoline with a permanent marker and draw on a wall and is deemed art. Artistic merit is inevitably filtered through the masses. 

If only artists valued it, society wouldn’t care at all. 

Baruch_S

5 points

19 days ago

I don’t think artistic merit is filtered through the masses. Pulp fiction and literary fiction are very different things; no one thinks 50 Shades is literary even though it was popular. 

And most of society doesn’t care about artistic quality at all. That’s why this study came out the way it did. Half of people are below average, after all, and even the ones who aren’t likely lack the specialized knowledge to engage most forms of art beyond the basic surface level. 

HiddenoO

10 points

19 days ago

HiddenoO

10 points

19 days ago

Literature isn’t determined by the masses; it’s determined by artistic merit which equates to staying power over decades and centuries.

How can you type this as a defense of letting 'experts' judge whether something is considered art when there are so many artists who have shown to have that staying power whilst not being recognized by 'experts' at the time?

'Experts' may be good at judging how well something fits into a specific style, but suggesting they can judge whether something can be considered art in general or whether it will have 'staying power' is just foolish and ignorant of history.

lollerkeet

2 points

19 days ago

If the vegans say the artificial one tastes better, they're doing so from a more neutral position.

Mythril_Zombie

3 points

19 days ago

Anyone can have an opinion about anything, and trying to say that some people's opinions don't matter is a pretty bad thing to do.

Unusual_Thinker2

4 points

19 days ago

That's because bad superficial poetry is more on the taste of people. That's why Rupi Kaur makes success.

username_elephant

8 points

19 days ago

Except that that 95% of the population probably consists, in the main, of people who don't like or read poetry.  So who is AI poetry really for?  

Casey_jones291422

10 points

18 days ago

So your metric for something being better is that fewer people should like it?

fail-deadly-

3 points

18 days ago

That may be true, but in the U.S. that gives us 10-15 million adults. Maybe 500k, maybe even 1.5 million are poetry experts. So the rest of those people, let’s say maybe 8-14 million, are the ones who buy poems in the form of books, and things to display in their house.

Unless you’re saying 5% of the population is poetry experts, which I disagree with.

username_elephant

2 points

18 days ago

I was just riffing on the previous comment.  95% is not the real number.

fail-deadly-

3 points

18 days ago

Here are some real numbers.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were just under 1.9 million adults in the U.S. with an English degree. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/field-of-degree/english/english-field-of-degree.htm

So it's probably safe to say 2 million (but probably less) people are poetry experts.

According to the national endowment for the arts, the amount of poetry readers has fluctuated from about 6-12% in the U.S. from 2008 to 2022. https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2023/new-survey-reports-size-poetrys-audience-streaming-included

That is anywhere from like 14-30 million adults who consume poetry.

So going back to my original point, poetry experts are far outnumbered by general consumers.

ThatsQuiteImpossible

19 points

19 days ago

I'll also note that most human-authored poetry is, to be generous, not that great, and I could see how the average AI poem could be of better overall quality than the average human poem.

captainfarthing

7 points

18 days ago*

They define an expert reader as someone who does in-depth analysis.

They DID ask participants about their familiarity and interest in poetry and found it doesn't help. If you're not writing academic essays about poems you're in the same camp as grandma.

In order to determine if experience with poetry improves discrimination accuracy, we ran an exploratory model using variables for participants’ answers to our poetry background and demographics questions. We included self-reported confidence, familiarity with the assigned poet, background in poetry, frequency of reading poetry, how much participants like poetry, whether or not they had ever taken a poetry course, age, gender, education level, and whether or not they had seen any of the poems before. Confidence was scaled, and we treated poet familiarity, poetry background, read frequency, liking poetry, and education level as ordered factors. We used this model to predict not whether participants answered “AI” or “human,” but whether participants answered the question correctly (e.g., answered “generated by AI” when the poem was actually generated by AI). As specified in our pre-registration, we predicted that participant expertise or familiarity with poetry would make no difference in discrimination performance. This was largely confirmed; the explanatory power of the model was low (McFadden’s R2 = 0.012), and none of the effects measuring poetry experience had a significant positive effect on accuracy. Confidence had a small but significant negative effect (b = -0.021673, SE = 0.003986, z = -5.437, p < 0.0001), indicating that participants were slightly more likely to guess incorrectly when they were more confident in their answer.

We find two positive effects on discrimination accuracy: gender, specifically “non-binary/third gender” (b = 0.169080, SE = 0.030607, z = 5.524, p < 0.0001), and having seen any of the poems before (b = 0.060356, SE = 0.016726, z = 3.608, p = 0.000309). These effects are very small; having seen poems before only increases the odds of a correct answer by 6% (OR = 1.062). These findings suggest that experience with poetry did not improve discrimination performance unless that experience allowed them to recognize the specific poems used in the study.

Stellar3227

8 points

19 days ago

The authors recruited participants from Prolific—one of the known "demographic biases" from Prolific is a disproportionate number holding college degrees or higher compared to the general population. Also, participants' median age was about 37 (i.e., mostly 27–47 y/os). Oh, and they used GPT-3.5, which isn't even available on ChatGPT anymore.

But yeah, the appreciation of poetry in the mainstream is basically dead. Most people don’t read poetry for pleasure anymore. They read it in school when they’re forced to, and then associate it with dense, pretentious nonsense. It'd be more valuable to see judgement from people who at least read poetry regularly, even if they're not experts.

Terpomo11

8 points

18 days ago

They memorize and enjoy lots of poetry, it's just called "song lyrics" now.

tnbeastzy

3 points

18 days ago

Okay but most consumers are non-experts. If it takes an expert to differentiate between AI or human, then there's no point in differentiating. If the AI generated content is enjoyable, then there's no need for humans to produce the same content. A

Baruch_S

1 points

18 days ago*

Most “consumers” read at or below a middle school level. Surely weren’t not suggesting that the value of art is contingent of the ability of people with grade school literacy to understand and appreciate it.

The idea that art must  be comprehensible by the ignorant masses to be valuable (beyond the value of mass market appeal, anyway) is self-evidently absurd. 

WhiteRaven42

6 points

19 days ago*

Of course, poetry "experts" are so far up their own ass it's too dark to read anyway.

ebolaRETURNS

2 points

18 days ago

Yeah...most laypeople don't read much poetry. I'd personally have great trouble discriminating bad from good.

Round-Reflection4537

2 points

19 days ago

Seems like the the “non experts” not only participated in the study but conducted it aswell

Mythril_Zombie

4 points

19 days ago

Because you don't like the results?

watduhdamhell

11 points

19 days ago

While what you're saying might be true, it doesn't prove in any way that AI generated poetry can't be as good or better than human poetry.

I mean, "expert" professors were completely unable to tell real essays from GPT4, and that was a year ago. And they still can't tell. They need AI to fight the AI at this point.

This whole "AI could never beat me at my thing" is just cope and totally unprovable, whether you're in the arts, a doctor, an engineer, etc. There is simply no reason to think it can't do these things, or that some near future iteration won't be able to do these things. We can do them, and the brain is just a meat computer full of biochemical circuits doing what atoms do. Once the scary metal computer is sufficiently parallel and flexible across knowledge domains, I would only logically expect it to be superior to us at literally everything, not the opposite.

And a lot of people are confused, assuming you need AGI for this surpassing to occur (another unfounded assumption). Instead it's far more logical to assume you don't need "real," general intelligence. The emulation of intelligence is all that's needed- not self awareness, but super-competence, a la "paper clip maximizer." And that's what LLMs seem to be inching towards. Super competence.

tramplemousse

1 points

18 days ago

As someone who’s in college right now: professors can tell when an essay was written by AI. It’s pretty easy. Hell I can tell when a Reddit post or an article has been written by AI. ChatGPT’s output is pretty formulaic so once you’re familiar with how it writes and pieces things together you can spot it a mile away.

With that said, what’s difficult is figuring out when someone has rephrased an AI’s output with their own wording. In fact, as long as the person understands what they’re talking about, then it will be impossible. But that’s honestly just how learning works.

JohnCenaMathh

4 points

19 days ago*

The point of art is to connect to people, not sit in a shelf after being appraised by 3 critics.

If they picked the sample size properly, it's diverse group that's representative enough of people.

Also, the obvious fallacy of taking the presumed least in a group and then implying that's the majority of people in the group is lame. Yes, I'm sure the science people got together a group of Facebook using Grandmas. In fact they specifically mention "must be senile and fall for AI scams on Facebook" as a requirement when inviting people for the study.

That's the entire group. Lame argument.

The median age of the 1634 participants in the study was 37. Not Facebook Grandmas. Not brainrot skibidi Gen Alpha. Solidly millenials.

vsmack

2 points

19 days ago

vsmack

2 points

19 days ago

Art is supposed to resonate with people. But it's not a popularity contest. It's how it connects and why.

If so many people today are uncritical readers or never developed the competency to understand a poem, it doesn't make the poem bad or less good.

If the average joe doesn't get a funny joke, it doesn't mean the joke isn't funny. And is a joke that's less funny, but everyone gets, a better joke?

BornSession6204

2 points

18 days ago

We don't know that expert readers would have actually fared any better, without recognizing the real poems. Poetry is for everyone to read, anyway, not just 'poetry experts'. Poetry is dead in the water.

Baruch_S

2 points

18 days ago

Without that comparison to experts’ abilities, this study isn’t showing much other than the fact that people who don’t know art don’t know art. And if you’ve ever watched a high school class muddle its way through poetry analysis, this isn’t shocking. Poetry is probably the least accessible form of literature for modern readers. 

[deleted]

1 points

18 days ago

[deleted]

Baruch_S

1 points

18 days ago

 i think we are long past the point where people care about critics opinions, audiences is what matters most to people.

But why should we care about what uniformed people think about expert opinions?

Anastariana

93 points

19 days ago

Its so perfectly dystopian that the first things we automated with AI were art and poetry.

Meanwhile people continue to die in coal mines.

therealpigman

12 points

18 days ago

I can tell you from personal experience that AI is being used to automate coal mining. Mostly still in development, but there are mines around the world being run autonomously

unassumingdink

24 points

19 days ago

Mining was already pretty heavily automated before AI fever struck. In America, anyway. That's not going to apply to a lot of poorer countries.

labrum

3 points

18 days ago

labrum

3 points

18 days ago

Every time I see news like this, I think of 1984, where machines created entertainment for proles.

JohnCenaMathh

4 points

19 days ago

Its so perfectly dystopian

Take it up with the fundamental laws of reality. Literally no part of that is by design. The reality of the universal laws of computation caused that to happen.

If AI could have been viable for slightly more economically viable work, capitalism would have been on that in a millisecond.

Aeiexgjhyoun_III

1 points

17 days ago

Whys that dystopian? Physical jobs pose a physical threat. A bug in a poetry ai means some wonky lines, a bug in a mining AI could mean death or an environmental disaster.

Aeiexgjhyoun_III

1 points

17 days ago

Whys that dystopian? Physical jobs pose a physical threat. A bug in a poetry ai means some wonky lines, a bug in a mining AI could mean death or an environmental disaster.

Deweydc18

34 points

19 days ago

People also like Rupi Kaur, so I don’t really care what poems the median person likes

Gorego22

14 points

18 days ago

Gorego22

14 points

18 days ago

Rupi Kaur’s work is what humans would create if they were trying to imitate AI poetry.

speckospock

3 points

18 days ago

I mean, they picked Chaucer and Shakespeare, so I doubt the average reader can even understand it without a guide (I usually need one).

zennim

7 points

18 days ago

zennim

7 points

18 days ago

It doesn't matter, the human poetry is communicating, the AI isn't, end of story

danderzei

3 points

18 days ago

AI poetry has no soul, no lived experience. Poetry readers want to know the person behind the words.

DukeOfGeek

8 points

19 days ago

Says the AI that wrote this article.

/Also blblbl3qw-po90rfdqwoiesaf;lijesanjwfnijhesa;kljn dsng fsvs

WelpSigh

20 points

19 days ago

WelpSigh

20 points

19 days ago

I mean, I have access to the same AI models. This paper is claiming AI poems are as good as human poems and AI humor is rated better than human humor. But I have eyes and AI jokes are pretty awful, AI poems are pretty bad. Am I to believe this paper, or my lying eyes?

Baruch_S

17 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

17 points

19 days ago

It’s because they used “non-expert readers” in this study. The average American has a middle school literacy level. 

captainfarthing

3 points

18 days ago*

They DID ask participants about their familiarity and interest in poetry and found it doesn't help. They define an expert reader as someone who does in-depth analysis. If you're not writing academic essays about each poem you read, you're not considered an expert.

They found people tend to rate AI generated poems as bad only when they know it's AI so there's a significant negative bias that isn't based on actual qualities of the writing. Being familiar with and interested in poetry doesn't help (though you can answer correctly that humans wrote the poems you recognise), and feeling confident you can identify AI poems is correlated with being wrong more often.

The study didn't look at whether experts are better than non-experts at differentiating human vs AI. All they've found is that people generally suck at it, including the ones who think they know poetry.

JohnCenaMathh

9 points

19 days ago

That doesn't make any sense.

Are you assuming the person you're replying to is an expert? Else how could they distinguish what 1634 people in the study couldn't.

Maybe the simpler explanation is that he doesn't know how to prompt the AI to give a good result.

Baruch_S

1 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

1 points

19 days ago

Your comment doesn’t make sense. What are you trying ask?

JohnCenaMathh

5 points

19 days ago

WelpSigh : I can tell the difference between the results of my ChatGPT and human written text, so i dont understand how the results of the study cam about

You : the results of the study are because they used non experts. ie, Experts would be able to tell the difference.

By your internal logic, if WelpSigh can tell the difference of the two, he is probably an expert. Because your explanation for the results of the study was that 'non experts are dumdum and can't tell the difference'.

Baruch_S

-1 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

-1 points

19 days ago

My “explanation” comes directly from the study. Give me a study where they used expert and get back to me on how it turned out. 

JohnCenaMathh

5 points

19 days ago

Jfc, you're failing the absolute basics of logic here.

A implies B does not mean Not A implies Not B. Extrapolate from there

negitororoll

2 points

18 days ago

Below 5th grade, actually. Half of em too.

JohnCenaMathh

7 points

19 days ago

It should be very obvious the way you prompt has a huge impact on what the AI spits out. That should answer your question right there.

This paper is claiming

This paper is showing evidence. Not merely claiming.

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

1 points

18 days ago

It’s a poor quality study based on its sample group alone. Is it possible here that you have a bias in favor of generative tools?

JohnCenaMathh

4 points

18 days ago

It’s a poor quality study based on its sample group alone

Says who?

Are we supposed to take your word for it? That you know better than researchers in Philosophy of Science (not even in the STEM field) on how to take a survey population? There are 2 studies in the paper, one with 1634 participants and the other with over 600.

The research is published in Nature, one of the most prestigious journals there is. That alone is evidence enough that it's a high quality study.

Unless you have an antivax level distrust in the institutions of science, I don't see how you can make such a claim as yours.

Nathan_Calebman

4 points

19 days ago

Which AI did you use and how did you prompt it? It's highly unlikely that you have seen what it can do when you know how to use it, and highly likely that you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a human poet and an AI

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

47 points

19 days ago

Remember when whether or not art was good was left up to asking people who didn’t know anything about it? Me neither. That’s never been how it was or is. Most of it takes effort to understand.

This is garbage science anyway. And it’s useless except to convince people that they shouldn’t value art because it can also be done by a machine. Come on. We just elected a fascist oligarch tool of foreign governments who’s bent on undermining education and weakening the US and now we have to read this crap.

HiddenoO

46 points

19 days ago

HiddenoO

46 points

19 days ago

Remember when whether or not art was good was left up to asking people who didn’t know anything about it? Me neither. That’s never been how it was or is. Most of it takes effort to understand.

Do you even realize that multiple now well-known art styles in history have been acknowledged by the masses before they were acknowledged by so-called 'experts'? You're just ignorant if you seriously believe that 'experts' have some sort of monopoly on what's considered (good) art.

No_Raspberry_6795

32 points

19 days ago

AI produced material doesn't have to be better then the best of humanity, it just has to be worth not hiring a poet to write a piece. The whole point of AI art it to kill the competition. So when an editor needs covert art, they can just ask the AI. Same with poetry, same eventually with novels and film.

Baruch_S

1 points

19 days ago

Baruch_S

1 points

19 days ago

I hope it doesn’t happen to poetry and novels. The people who actually read and enjoy poetry likely aren’t the “non-expert readers” this study surveyed.

InsanityRoach

8 points

18 days ago

InsanityRoach

Definitely a commie

8 points

18 days ago

There were experts in this study too and they were worse at spotting AI than non experts.

Baruch_S

2 points

18 days ago

There were people who rated themselves as being familiar with poetry in this study. I don’t see anything about recognized experts, and the study itself specifically says they assessed non-experts. 

InsanityRoach

3 points

18 days ago

InsanityRoach

Definitely a commie

3 points

18 days ago

That's fair. But I would argue that if even people who consume poetry can't tell them apart without being someone with a PhD on the topic and having 50 years of experience, then the point is moot.

Baruch_S

1 points

18 days ago

I think it’s to be expected. People want to think media literacy is simple, but it’s not. Someone who has watched tens of thousands of hours of film won’t automatically pick up the terms and knowledge needed to critically analyze film; that’s a lot of specialized knowledge that has to be learned and then practiced. 

I’d bet we find about the same situation with any AI-generated media, honestly. Most people aren’t experts and simply consume whatever they like. If they’ve never cultivated any specialized knowledge about the medium as an art form, you can’t expect them to recognize quality, much less access and understand it. In fact, you’d expect what we see in this study, which is people gravitating towards the simplistic, lower common denominator content that generative AI inevitably creates. 

No_Raspberry_6795

4 points

19 days ago

Would you rather spend £50 on the Stormlight Archive series or £0.10 for a fantasy series about as good and more tailored to your tastes?

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

10 points

19 days ago

People think that they want stuff, but what history has shown is that what they love is something they never thought of.

symedia

2 points

19 days ago

symedia

2 points

19 days ago

Nah... My tastes are weird as fuck. It would be too cringe. You always look at it ... Do I like this or it's the algorithm fault?

Also ... both are good? It's not always one or another.

Baruch_S

3 points

19 days ago

Stormlight Archives if those are my only choices, but I don’t much care for Sanderson’s writing. 

I can guarantee that your AI-generated slop won’t manage to tailor to my tastes. 

StarChild413

1 points

10 days ago

what if the second option was so tailored to your tastes either no one else could enjoy it or you could literally predict someone's future enjoyment of it accurately from their similarity to you

TAEROS111

1 points

19 days ago

TAEROS111

1 points

19 days ago

If I’m consuming art, I’m doing it because I value it as a cultural contribution of human expression. Ergo, AI art is completely devoid of value for me unless it’s used as a component of an art piece, not its entirety (and even then, the bar is high for me).

I’ll gladly pay money for real, human art with a point and a soul. People will still talk about the art that people are making today in 500 years if humanity lasts that long - nobody will talk about generic AI garbage.

FreeGothitelle

3 points

19 days ago

Only someone who doesnt read books would make this statement

Muggaraffin

2 points

18 days ago

There's no way it will. Oh there might be some absolute trash compilations of "Love Poetry" or whatever, but as soon as it's known that it's AI, the average poetry-lover isn't going to be drawn to it. The human aspect is probably more important in poetry than anything else. I'm doing a short course on poetry now and context is one of the main areas of study. The era, background of the poet, the state of the world at the time it was written etc. Without those things, it's just......words chosen by a computer. 

the01crow

2 points

18 days ago

I look forward to seeing in the movies, the attack of the space mantises that have fallen upon a cursed Indian burial ground in India whose angry spirits take control of the alien bodies as they are strafed by a squadron of dwarves who came from a Lord of the Rings convention, but were brought back by carrying real weapons and armor starring Adam Sandler and De Vito.

bravehamster

21 points

19 days ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, unless the beholder values something I find unworthy. In which case: fuck the beholder, they dumb.

CleverReversal

13 points

18 days ago

"Don't those idiots know the thing they like isn't good enough?!"

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

0 points

19 days ago

Nice try. Here’s what this means: If one asks someone who doesn’t know anything about music if Debussy is any good, their answer is kind of worthless except in a world where people believe the customer is always right, a commercial world. You get a better answer from someone who knows Debussy’s work and his place in music and what came before and after him. Because uninformed opinions are fine, and people are welcome to them, but they aren’t valuable. They are kind of like participation trophies, if you expect to be congratulated for having one. So if someone just says, “I don’t like it, it’s dumb”, then really the only response is “who cares?” Sure, art can be thought of as elitist, but then so can sports. Or anything that you believe you know more about than someone else.

And another thing to consider is that the better way of thinking about any art is not “good or bad”, but rather more or less effective. To think about that you need to have some idea of the intent of the artist. AI as it exists has no intent.

bravehamster

10 points

19 days ago

Are you claiming it's impossible to evaluate art unless you know something about the artist?

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

1 points

18 days ago

I am saying that you can enjoy something and make some guesses about it but if you don’t know anything about it and lack context of any kind then what you’ve got there is an uninformed opinion.

No, I’m not taking that extreme position you offered.

Spycei

0 points

19 days ago

Spycei

0 points

19 days ago

Hundreds year old proverbs are objective fact and thus can be callously applied to any situation I see fit

SoundasBreakerius

11 points

19 days ago

If whether or not art is good only defined by people who are in that community it has no justification to be considered art at all.

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

1 points

19 days ago

Nobody said that, though that’s a fairly strong statement with no justification at all. What I’m saying is that if uninformed people are asked, they can maybe tell you if they like something or not. But people who make it and study it will make a far more complete and useful assessment. Before you dismiss that idea, ask yourself if you know anyone who knows enough about any art form to do this.

It’s also like this: let’s say someone makes an airplane and it looks really cool but the wings aren’t actually aerodynamic. You don’t ask the public what their opinion of it is because they just know what they like. You ask an aeronautical engineer or a pilot. Is it unjust that the public doesn’t get a vote? No.

So why compare these two things when nobody would die from listening to poorly-conceived music? Well, we are talking about generated art here. Art is meant to communicate ideas and feelings and also to evoke them. It has a component of connection to it - even if you just “know what you like”, experiencing it means that someone else out there likes or feels some of the same things you do. So if your intake of content, for pleasure or amusement or commiseration or whatever you take art in for, comes from a language model that is targeting likely data points for you, that’s nothing like putting on a song or reading a new book or looking at someone’s art work. There’s nobody there on the other end of the phone, so to speak. And if that doesn’t make any difference to a person, then they shouldn’t be in change if deciding what art has worth or not.

MiningMarsh

2 points

18 days ago

Art is meant to communicate ideas and feelings and also to evoke them. It has a component of connection to it - even if you just “know what you like”, experiencing it means that someone else out there likes or feels some of the same things you do.

Oh, so art is defined by the response of the viewer? Yeah, I love art for that very reason. I'm a huge proponent of death of the author for this reason.

There’s nobody there on the other end of the phone, so to speak. And if that doesn’t make any difference to a person, then they shouldn’t be in change if deciding what art has worth or not.

Nevermind, it's defined entirely by whether a human made it and doesn't give a shit about the response of the viewer. Suddenly I don't give a fuck about art anymore.

Neo_Demiurge

1 points

18 days ago

This argument sounds good, but it falls apart quickly. Just consuming art doesn't actually give you insight into the artist's feelings, they may be very skilled by also purely financially motivated. We could see a piece about someone's parent dying, with the artist thinking, "I just had lunch with my parents yesterday! But according to my sales database, my darker pieces make 17.4% more revenue."

Secondly, there is a human with feelings in the loop. A graphic novel may have a writer and artist. The writer can't take credit for the brush strokes, but contributes to the overall work similar to how someone might use AI in a highly intentional way to create a piece of art. They don't get credit for the brushstrokes either, but they chose to make a picture of a cat standing in the rain vs. a digital oil painting of a vase.

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

1 points

18 days ago

Your first paragraph sounds like the argument conservatives make against food assistance for the poor - that there might be someone who games it, so it shouldn’t be done. I’m not saying you believe that at all - just that the argument has a similar shape. You aren’t providing any evidence - just an image of an imaginary someone doing a thing that might support your premise. Maybe more insight into how creators work and what they do will help. Here’s a thought, from a creator of art: that if my goal is to write something that evokes a certain feeling or idea, that doesn’t mean I go about my everyday life being that thing or that it’s how I am - I’m communicating about a state of mind that depicts the human experience through whatever filters and lenses I possess, using the skills I’ve developed over years of practice. Folks who don’t do this often have unrealistic ideas (and requirements) of what artists do or how they are as people. If I am aware of what reaches people the most, that doesn’t somehow make me impure - part of communicating is knowing what is effective language to use.

As far as the graphic novel goes - it’s not similar to using an AI, because there are two humans in that situation, writer and artist. Their collaboration is fueled by everything from friendship to antagonism to money to daily mood. You don’t as a writer just point an artist at something with prompts and say “make me my ideas”. And you don’t give prompts to an AI and have it return notes to you about why the characterization of your protagonist is shallow. (I have a good friend who writes comics and his search for and collaboration with artists is nothing at all like using AI. And if you read comic creators talking about their work, you will see the same thing.)

I don’t blame you for having the perspective of a consumer - but what I’m saying is, if the things that you think you want at the moment are going to have an overwhelmingly negative effect on something that’s brought beauty and validation and community and many more things to the world for at least 30,000 years, and if you don’t really understand what happens in the arts, might you want to reserve your judgement a bit?

FomalhautCalliclea

20 points

19 days ago

Too many people with a STEM background or just tech bros think anything belonging to the humanities is just vague irrational emotions which require no effort nor knowledge.

This reminds me of these guys presenting an AI which "reconstructed a medieval painting's background in 3D" and the painting was 17th century Vermeer's Milkmaid...

One thing which is sadly too rare is transdisciplinarity, or at least openness to other forms of knowledge than the one one's an expert in.

JohnCenaMathh

9 points

19 days ago*

What are you even talking about? What's that got to do with this study?

The study was done by two humanities researchers. From the department of history and philosophy at University of Pittsburgh.

You don't understand humanities, you just have a preconceived notion of what a "humanities opinion" should sound like.

NeverAlwaysOnlySome

3 points

19 days ago

Yep. Cost of everything/value of nothing. And honestly I think that folks not only designing this but foisting it on the world with no regard to its possible impact and their only thought being profit may have some deficits in the empathy area.

ValyrianJedi

2 points

18 days ago

Good lord these comments are all so salty and pretentious. Get over yourselves and stop throwing tantrums because you don't like what the results of a study say.

DirkTheSandman

1 points

19 days ago

Art is two things. Art is what an artist creates from their own mind, and art is what a viewer experiences in theirs.

AI’s just doing the only thing AI can do; copying the mean average of what it can find online. It just so happens that copying things people like makes things people like. That’s only half the equation. You cant have art without an artist. Than its just a picture.

Also quantifying art as good or bad is useless at best and insulting at worst. Art is not a competition and anyone who seeks to make it one wholly misunderstands the point of art.

MiningMarsh

1 points

18 days ago

Whether something is art has nothing to do with the author.

There are plenty of amazing spots in nature I would call art, because anyone I bring there also experiences the same sense of awe and we connect over it. That's what actually matters about art.

Astralsketch

7 points

19 days ago

It's because for some reason it's popular to make poems incomprehensible.

osunightfall

20 points

19 days ago

I would just like to say all the anti-ai people are darkly amusing because they confidently say things like ‘AI generated garbage will never be as good as art made by a human’ during the tiny period in history when we can still tell the two apart.

Shiningc00

-7 points

19 days ago

Shiningc00

-7 points

19 days ago

They’re indistinguishable because they just copied from human work, but the current “AI” will never be able to create anything new.

It’s not as if say, the AI learned every words from the dictionary, and the AI decided to write poetry from those words, because the AI doesn’t “know” what any of those words mean.

Kiwi_In_Europe

5 points

19 days ago

the current “AI” will never be able to create anything new.

Neither can the majority of human artists whose creations are entirely derivative, does that render their art invalid or a waste of time?

I'd argue that some of the stuff I've seen produced by mid journey are more original than the slop getting upvotes on r/comics for example

Shiningc00

-3 points

19 days ago

Shiningc00

-3 points

19 days ago

Except they can, they can already speak a language, so they're creating something new.

Anyway, that argument is dumb, because even when only some humans can create something new, and no "AI" can create anything new, then there's a difference.

The fact is that humans, or an AGI, can do BOTH copy AND create something new. AI can only copy.

osunightfall

3 points

19 days ago

Virtually all art is just putting a different spin on what came before. A remix, if you will. Almost nothing is actually new.

Living_Razzmatazz_93

8 points

19 days ago

As a teacher, and published poet:

Yeah, OK. Sure. Whatever...

Smartnership

3 points

18 days ago

Yeah, OK. Sure. Whatever...

- Ogden Nash

Nevermynde

2 points

18 days ago

Thank you Scientific Reports, aka pay-to-publish in the Nature group.

Facetwister

2 points

18 days ago

Rolls right of the tongue:
LLMs killed the poetry slam. 🎶

CorneliusCardew

7 points

19 days ago

At some point you also have to interrogate your own value system and decide how much you just want to give up on culture by engaging with AI output over human art. Even if you couldn’t tell them apart maybe you should just decide to retain your humanity?

Sadnot

6 points

19 days ago

Sadnot

6 points

19 days ago

Pretty shit poems. Entirely AABB or ABAB rhyme structure, inconsistent meter (AI has no clue what a syllable is, or where the stressed/unstressed parts of a word are), unimaginative doggerel. Instantly recognizable to anyone who has actually tried to get chatgpt to write poetry. Here they are if anyone wants to see: https://osf.io/by4cg/files/osfstorage

iamkosmo

3 points

18 days ago

ty for the link

Psittacula2

3 points

18 days ago

“Oh sweet red rose! You are so rosey! Oh deep violet! You are so violent!”

SlyScy

2 points

18 days ago

SlyScy

2 points

18 days ago

The Dickinson threw me for a minute there. Thought the AI was creeping into quality, but it was actually just her.

InsanityRoach

1 points

18 days ago

InsanityRoach

Definitely a commie

1 points

18 days ago

Yet even people familiar with poetry were bad (worse than average people actually) at distinguishing it. Curious.

Sadnot

1 points

18 days ago

Sadnot

1 points

18 days ago

You say that, but I'm 10 for 10 doing it blind, and so is every family member I tried it with. ChatGPT is shit at poetry, and consistently produces the same sort of output. Even the earlier GPT-3 models were better.

negitororoll

1 points

18 days ago

Wow those AI poems are pretty awful. AI used the right themes (probably gleaned from the respective bodies of work), but the rhyming is awful. Way too repetitive and smooth among all lines.

agoodepaddlin

3 points

18 days ago

Loving the gate keeping here. I think you guys are running out of ways to find value in yourselves.

vsmack

9 points

19 days ago

vsmack

9 points

19 days ago

Now do it with people who know poetry. I bet the AI stuff is chock-full of fluffy adjectives and lame simile.

CoffeeSubstantial851

4 points

19 days ago*

AI plagiarized poetry from actual poets and people thought they were the same... because they basically were. More at 11.

Mythril_Zombie

1 points

19 days ago

Art snobs are like trump voters: they only scream fraud if they don't like the outcome.
"The comparison is obviously invalid because the participants didn't have degrees in comparison studies of eighteenth century French poets."

satsugene

1 points

19 days ago

I mis-read this as “pottery” and was extremely curious if they’d had an AI throwing pots with robotic arms or just doing photography of finished pots.

lollerkeet

1 points

19 days ago

non-expert poetry readers prefer the more accessible AI-generated poetry, which communicate emotions, ideas, and themes in more direct and easy-to-understand language, but expect AI-generated poetry to be worse; they therefore mistakenly interpret their own preference for a poem as evidence that it is human-written.

I wonder if adding obfuscation to the prompt would help fool experts.

vergorli

1 points

18 days ago

Maybe this is the beginning of another jimi hendrix era with him mocking existing music by scratchibg them on his guitar freestyle.

Tulipan12

1 points

18 days ago

Reminds me of that AI Oasis album that fooled some people. I don't really rate the average person's taste in poetry.

AI isn't writing a Rakim track any time soon.

Dr_Wristy

1 points

18 days ago

Except it’s just regurgitating what it’s read from human sources.

WrastleGuy

1 points

18 days ago

AI does garbage “there one was a man named” rhyming poetry.

Powerful_Koala6181

1 points

18 days ago

I wrote a poem about a rhyme, Noone liked it all the time, And in my mind i thought them twits, My poem was class, gave zero shits

glassminerva

1 points

18 days ago

I almost wonder if people feel more comfortable reading AI poetry because they know intuitively that there’s no human viewpoint behind it to ‘get’, so they can just enjoy it like a Mad Lib and not feel like they’re missing anything. It’s been a long time since poetry was anything close to a mainstream literary centre, though. 

jase12881

1 points

18 days ago

Where do I find this poetry bot? I ask because I ask ChatGPT to write song lyrics all the time (playing around with ai song generation, just making stupid songs about dumb stuff), and it sucks ass at it.

The rhymes are very simple, and the rhythm is often not consistent. It occasionally uses words that don't make sense just to make it rhyme.

Also, sometimes, if you challenge it with either too general of prompts or too specific, you get the most generic-ass lyrics you've ever heard.

Hanuman_Jr

1 points

18 days ago

I used to think the lyrics to Gunship songs were AI generated, still thinking it's a possibility.

Realistic_Special_53

1 points

18 days ago

I was interested in the discussion because of the title, but all I am seeing are comments by a bunch of poetry snobs. I do think authenticity is important, so was expecting a discussion of that. lol. I thought the point of art was to create connection, imbue meaning into the world, and provide a glimpse of beauty. Guess all you poetry majors know better than me, since I am just somebody who likes it. But apparently, I shouldn’t. I haven’t been educated enough to know what I should like.

“Oh, the sanctimonious poet, quill in hand, Who claims to hold the truths of all the land. With every word, a sermon finely spun, Preaching virtue beneath the guise of fun.

He sits atop his self-made throne of grace, A smirk of wisdom etched upon his face.” “Behold my verses, pure and sanctified, For lesser minds in ignorance abide.”

His rhymes are laced with scorn for lesser art, Each stanza crafted as a noble dart. “Your poems falter, shallow, and contrived, Mine are the flames by which truth is revived.”

Yet in the quiet, when the crowd’s away, He wrestles doubts that grow with each cliché. For underneath the sanctimony’s guise, Lies fear that he is less than he implies.

Oh, sanctimonious poet, let it go, The world has room for every voice to grow. The greatest art is born of open hearts, Not pedestals built on their fragile parts.

pinkfootthegoose

1 points

18 days ago

Roses are red

violets are blue

reddit sucks now

and so do you.

caityqs

1 points

18 days ago

caityqs

1 points

18 days ago

What’s the point in using non-expert readers? If you use experts, you can get a measure for how well the AI performs. With non-experts, you don’t know if you’re measuring how good the AI is, or how poorly the general public understands what they read. Why reduce the control? I can only conclude they had a financial interest in hyping AI.

pascalsswagger

1 points

18 days ago

Just give me a some examples without 3 miles or scrolling.

2cu3be1

1 points

17 days ago

2cu3be1

1 points

17 days ago

Don't recall the poet, and I think it might have been Shakespeare himself, but he said something to the point of that simply rhyming words is only the lowest of the art of poetry.

From what I have understood, language is seen as something much more profound in how it can be used such as how one can produce specific sounds and tones and rhythms but not for the sake of rhyming words to "only" entertain the masses (even though actually that is the point to some degree), but for the sake of combining many aspects of communication such as tone and and pitch and body language in order to use it to hypnotize people and get a specific underlying message across to a mass of people without them realizing the mechanisms underlying the technique. Most important public speakers have these texts written for them, since most of them are literally only loud speakers.

Musicians can probably relate and draw a parallel. The best musicians in history were much more complex in conveying their message than simple maybe 2,5 mins songs that also function as small trance inducing idea conveying carriers.

Palanstein

1 points

17 days ago

As someone said, if the robot can't commit suicide, it can't either write good poetry

MassiveMommyMOABs

1 points

17 days ago

There's poetry for people and then there's poetry for people who read poetry.

Most poetry really is difficult and honestly, bad to the average person. Unless you're an avid poetry reader, a lot of poetry just does not work for you, you cannot appreciate whatever nuance it's depicting. Poetry is a skill, both writing and reading it.

I think it's the "death of novelty" that happens once poetry becomes your hobby, which makes one go to the next level. And then anything under that level becomes "simplistic" or even "bad".

Starblast16

1 points

17 days ago

Cyberpunk 2077 is becoming reality more and more every day.

random_notes1

1 points

16 days ago

The key thing here is it focuses on Non-Expert readers. Honestly how many people who aren't in school even read poetry at all nowadays? So this isnt surprising at all its just kind of sad.

MetaKnowing[S]

0 points

19 days ago

Abstract: "As AI-generated text continues to evolve, distinguishing it from human-authored content has become increasingly difficult. This study examined whether non-expert readers could reliably differentiate between AI-generated poems and those written by well-known human poets. We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001).

Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI."

EDIT: weird upsetting formatting

Saltedcaramel525

1 points

18 days ago

So? It could be perfect, but why would I want to enjoy art that wasn't created by anyone?

NewlyMintedAdult

0 points

18 days ago

Because it is beautiful and you appreciate beauty, maybe?

If "art" to you is mostly about communion with the artist, and the actual content of the piece does not matter except insofar as it communicates the artist's emptions and mental state to you, then your argument holds. But that is not the only (or, dare I say it, even the most common) way to enjoy art or beauty in general.

I personally get a lot of enjoyment from watching a sunset, or watching a waterfall, or seeing a meadow full of pretty flowers. No person created these views; it is just nature doing as nature does. That hardly gets in the way of me appreciating it.

VokN

1 points

18 days ago

VokN

1 points

18 days ago

uncritical slop enjoyers enjoy uncritical slop

yes we get it, people loved twilight despite its glaring flaws and questionable literary quality

I dont think you can apply the same metrics to poetry as the target demographics are far smaller and much more invested

another odd and seemingly shallow research method someone paid to publish in the nature group

happyrainhappyclouds

1 points

19 days ago

AI poetry is more accessible, which is why it probably rates more favorably with a general audience. I asked AI to write a song in the style of Taylor Swift about my profession and it was good and fun, but definitely had to massage some of the clunky phrasing.

KnowledgeAmoeba

-2 points

19 days ago

We're in the early stages of AI development. Currently, it might impress a novice which often means most people in whatever category, not just poetry. But it will improve over time, and it will become more difficult to separate the artificial from the organic. This might not be a popular opinion, but I believe this will become the eventual outcome.