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

Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

theredhandfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#51

Post by jdmoreira »

Fraterkes wrote: post #47
MiguelVieira wrote: post #7

"AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1

Theres a couple million works of poetry sold every year. If you have real faith in this study, this seems like a trivial way to make some millions. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Because those books are mostly sold because either:

1. Readers wanting to virtue signal. Either to others or themselves

2. Authors + Publishers marketing

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#52

Post by Fraterkes »

I usually see a lot of respones to this kind of thing that dismiss it as wishfull thinking or "coping", but consider that this also applies in the opposite direction: wouldn't it be convenient/reassuring if these talented people where brought low by technology, if we could be absolved from practicing.

And yet Midjourney has been out for a while and very few of you have used it to make succesful games or webcomics. You can cope by telling artists the future will bury them, but they at least will have had their moment in the sun.

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#53

Post by jdietrich »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #17
diggan wrote: post #3

> Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. Maybe I misunderstand this part, but it sounds like the author feels like it's required to suffer in order to produce something creative in the first place, and other artists that haven't suffered "enough" but produce things…

Put more simply, he's saying art is the product of, and the expression of, human emotion and experience. Suffering just happens to be a common element of that, but it's not essential. Maybe because it most commonly produces good or great art. People generally don't make art about how their love life is perfectly fine, instead they express their experience of devastating heartbreak. Nike Cave is just one strand of the…

>People generally don't make art about how their love life is perfectly fine, instead they express their experience of devastating heartbreak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aunVlekXjkE

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#54

Post by [deleted] »

Smeevy wrote: post #30
MiguelVieira wrote: post #7

"AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1

I'm guessing that at a plurality of those non-experts thought that "Big Bang Theory" was a good TV show. There's no shortage of crap for those mouth-breathers already. If all art and entertainment is made to curry their favor and satisfy their appetites with as little effort as possible, then I guess there's even more dreck out there to be ignored.

[deleted]

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#55

Post by Fraterkes »

jdmoreira wrote: post #51
Fraterkes wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres a couple million works of poetry sold every year. If you have real faith in this study, this seems like a trivial way to make some millions. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Because those books are mostly sold because either: 1. Readers wanting to virtue signal. Either to others or themselves 2. Authors + Publishers marketing

I know you wish that were true, because it would excuse your incuriosity. It isn't. We share the world with people who genuinely love to write and read poetry, and ignore them at our own expense.

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#56

Post by [deleted] »

jedimastert wrote: post #10
diggan wrote: post #3

> Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. Maybe I misunderstand this part, but it sounds like the author feels like it's required to suffer in order to produce something creative in the first place, and other artists that haven't suffered "enough" but produce things…

Art requires life experience, and a lot of people are under the unfortunate impression that the only "real" life an artist can have is that of suffering, that if they are not suffering then they aren't having "real" experiences. As far as I can tell, they seem to see the fact that our society does not value artists and specifically extorts them, and takes this as reality instead of a collective choice

[deleted]

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#57

Post by getlawgdon »

fullshark wrote: post #38
getlawgdon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "copium?" Is it one of those meme words (slang, we used to call it) used by people who haven't spent much time reading or writing? Or who can't detect how AI slop is nothing like actual writing? And why do you use the word "honestly" in your terse response? Would you otherwise have been lying? Or is it a crutch that you hope makes you more authentic? Honestly, I'd like to know. And why is there no punctuation…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/copium Pretty good internet discourse word actually, cause there is a lot of rationalization everywhere you look online.

Usage exemplified by the venerable "@nrmaggs" and "FoxMcChief", but also Craft Brewed Sports! Honored authorities that will stand the test of time!

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#58

Post by dav_Oz »

diggan wrote: post #3

> Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. Maybe I misunderstand this part, but it sounds like the author feels like it's required to suffer in order to produce something creative in the first place, and other artists that haven't suffered "enough" but produce things…

I think the underlying assumption is that we all suffer i.e. challenges and struggles in life.

Say first time heart-broken, some people really lean into it, and some of those people decide to do a deep dive into their chaotic feelings in order to retrieve a meaningful and personal perspective on a otherwise supposedly trivial thing, which they can finally articulate in an art form.

Put it differently: One can go through the motions and mostly copy paste the cultural wealth on a given topic or one can choose a very idiosyncratic route, depending on your craftsmanship the former will most certainly "resonate" with more people the latter only really resonates with you at first, normally it stays that way. But you can refine the process further going through a lot of cycles and with some luck get noticed for your individual/novel/fresh approach, an arduous process and the perseverance mostly comes from the art created being a very personal thing i.e. self-exploring. I think the hardest part is not getting lost when suddenly you manage to garner a lot of attention.

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#59

Post by Swizec »

tarr11 wrote: post #36
Swizec wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, everyone creates things from their own perspective and context, but it kind of feels like a trap that somehow suffering is essential to the artistic process, which I personally don't feel would be a healthy perspective for myself as a musician at least. Suffering may be too strong a word. You have to feel something to make good art. There needs to be at least a kernel of something raw and real. That’s th…

I suspect that it wasn’t trained well enough on your art, or even trained to reproduce a generic style. With enough data and training you might be convinced.

> I suspect that it wasn’t trained well enough on your art

No no, it’s not that the style wasn’t mine, the subject was generic.

ChatGPT did the typical thing that messes people up when they draw: It was drawing a representation of the thing, instead of the shapes it sees. The AI clearly went “AH! That’s a venus flytrap. Here is a drawing of a venus flytrap”. But it wasn’t _that_ venus flytrap :)

Re: Nick Cave's thoughts on a ChatGPT poem (2023)

#60

Post by jdmoreira »

Fraterkes wrote: post #55
jdmoreira wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those books are mostly sold because either: 1. Readers wanting to virtue signal. Either to others or themselves 2. Authors + Publishers marketing

I know you wish that were true, because it would excuse your incuriosity. It isn't. We share the world with people who genuinely love to write and read poetry, and ignore them at our own expense.

Yes, except those people are orders of magnitude less than the ones buying the books. I'm Portuguese and had to read and analyse a lot of poetry in my younger years. I'm not an ignorant that has never been expose to any of this stuff.

I will bet you thousands of dollars that if I was already a poet with distribution I could publish a book where 80% of it was done with current llms and pass it as an my own original work.

It would still require skill and taste to prompt and filter the corpus but I'm certain it can be done with the current state of llms, let alone future ones.

Post reply on HN