Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 217 posts

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#171

Post by guappa »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #140
gcau wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the logic of calling superhero movies lesser/unserious like this, it's very snobby. Movies and music are made to be entertaining, the avengers is more entertaining than your "arthouse cinematic masterpiece that nobody likes but it's just because they aren't smart enough to understand it". It's also lazy and ignorant to ignore the sheer manpower that goes into making a movie like that.

There is more to art than entertainment. For example Oedipus Rex [1] - distinctly not entertaining; but art, and powerful in an incomparable way, anyway. _____________ [1] Don't look it up if you don't know what that is.

A greek play that you are for some reason naming in latin instead of just using english?

If you're referring to the italian film, the original title is in italian :D

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#172

Post by netdevphoenix »

aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #48
n4r9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, that sounds a little like claiming that AI can draw pictures just as well as humans because they look realistic at a first glance. But not if you check whether the text, repetitive elements, and partially-occluded objects in the background look correct.

The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.

You are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#173

Post by Pamar »

I am an amateur calligrapher (specifically, I spent ~15 years practicing Japanese brush calligraphy).

Since April 2024 I have started setting up body calligraphy sessions (i.e. I hire a model to write on her naked body - NSFW examples here https://pa-mar.net/Study/ShoDo/BodyCalligraphy.html)

One of my sessions basically starts by discussing with the model what we will write and where - some of my past models are Japanese, so they could sometimes suggest specific poems or concepts, but I expect that these will always be outliers and most of the future collaborations will be with people that are not fluent in Japanese.

In those cases, I try to at least agree on some specific image/concept/word and then I go looking for an appropriate haiku (I also rely on help from my calligraphy teacher, who is Japanese too).

But just a couple of days ago I started asking ChatGPT to write haikus for me, based on a short description, and the results seems pretty good to me.

An example:

There is an instagram model who goes by the nick "Sensual snake". So I asked ChatGPT "please compose for me a haiku, in Japanese, about a sensual snake.

Result:

Sensual Snake

妖蛇の

密やかに這う

月の影

Translation:

The mysterious snake,

silently it slithers,

in the moon's shadow.

I do not speak Japanese, so I asked if it could be possible to just replace Mysterious with Sensual or Sensuous - while still respecting the syllable count, and ChatGPT replied:

The key word 妖蛇 (yōja) already has a layered meaning that can imply "bewitching," "sensual," or "mysterious.”

I also showed this to my teacher and it looked legit to her too (I informed her about how I got this only post-facto).

So, even if it is definitely too early to tell, it looks like AI can do a decent job in the admittedly "rarified" context of Japanese Haiku.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#174

Post by wruza »

aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #48
n4r9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, that sounds a little like claiming that AI can draw pictures just as well as humans because they look realistic at a first glance. But not if you check whether the text, repetitive elements, and partially-occluded objects in the background look correct.

The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.

Why is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the same step on the ladder. I find this facet of a deep-shallow distinction completely synthetic and (imo) coming from a limited technical-ish view on music. Vivaldi, AC/DC, Blackpink — it’s all an art of a genius level, just differently flavored.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#175

Post by spacechild1 »

netdevphoenix wrote: post #172
aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.

You are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?

If all, they are assuming the opposite.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#176

Post by n4r9 »

wruza wrote: post #174
aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.

Why is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the sam…

I'm a bit confused about this AC/DC vs "Carla Frey" comparison. For starters, I can't find any musicians by the name of Carla Frey. There is however a free jazz pianist named Carla Bley. It feels like OP has maybe selected a niche artist that they're personally fond of. I had a listen and it's the sort of stuff you'd get in hotel lobbies. It's nice, and it probably means a lot to people who are really into jazz, but I suspect that few people will ever hear of this artist. Conversely, Angus Young of AC/DC is extremely musically gifted and I suspect that songs like Thunderstruck will have a large social impact for years to come. There's nothing dumb about their songs. Though I don't put much stock in Spotify listens, it has 1.6 billion vs Bley's most popular "Lawns" having around 2 million.

Sure, there are cases where great artists are not well known in their own time - from Mozart to Nick Drake - but recognition generally follows in the subsequent decades. If Carla Bley is who they inteded to refer to, they've had over 50 years to become recognised.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#177

Post by eesmith »

MR4D wrote: post #25
kusokurae wrote: post #20

Maybe my logic is choppy but I'm unconvinced that it is useful to use (inexperienced) popular sentiment as a marker of some kind of reference for cultural quality here. The average person has read at most 100 poems; people who really like poetry will be reading quite a bit more, and that experience has relevance in a context such as this. I'm more curious what happens when we look at specifically those humans who eng…

Just for fun, I had ChatGPT rewrite your comment as a poem. Here’s the result: ———— My logic may be choppy, but I’m not yet sold, That popular sentiment should be the gold, For judging culture's worth or depth or art, When most have seen so little, played no part. The average person, read just a hundred lines, While those who love the craft cross many signs, With pages turned, they gain a richer view, That shapes wha…

Just for fun, I also rewrote the comment as a poem:

  Perhaps my logic flounders, but I'm unconvinced
  That popular opinion can be the test
  Of how we should judge our culture's best.

  Can we who think that poetry's a bore,
  And haven't even read five score,
  Place ourselves above those who adore?

  I laugh at memes and share the swill.
  Of course I like the muck and fill
  At the bottom of the hill.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#178

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

guappa wrote: post #171
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more to art than entertainment. For example Oedipus Rex [1] - distinctly not entertaining; but art, and powerful in an incomparable way, anyway. _____________ [1] Don't look it up if you don't know what that is.

A greek play that you are for some reason naming in latin instead of just using english? If you're referring to the italian film, the original title is in italian :D

I'm Greek. English. Italian. It's all Latin to me.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#179

Post by guappa »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #178
guappa wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A greek play that you are for some reason naming in latin instead of just using english? If you're referring to the italian film, the original title is in italian :D

I'm Greek. English. Italian. It's all Latin to me.

I still don't know if you refer to the original play or the italian film about it.

Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably

#180

Post by defrost »

guappa wrote: post #179
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Greek. English. Italian. It's all Latin to me.

I still don't know if you refer to the original play or the italian film about it.

Probably the Stravinsky/Cocteau Opera/libretto combo to properly bastardize the mix by throwing in some gratuitous Russian and French flavour.

Unless they're thinking of some Korean or Japanese New Wave productions such as Oldboy or Funeral Parade of Roses.

Post reply on HN