I don't need an AI to do art so I can wash the dishes. I need an AI that can do the dishes so I can do art. - Someone else on twitter.
Maybe washing dishes is harder than doing art, who knew?
AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
71–80 of 217 posts
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is a great example of a clearly very bad poem that would sound "good enough" to people. Some things rhyme, but there's very clearly no plan.
Yeah, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, lines are very clunky and sound horrible read aloud with oddly placed syllables. The "view" and "choose" rhyme is horrible (the 3rd line's first rhyme is barely a rhyme at all). The line breaks are just as bad with poor examples of enjambment.
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#73Could someone link me to a poem that an LLM did that they personally find in some way remarkable or beautiful or moving? Something with a bit of truth and/or beauty in it?
Not something that "rhymes" or has a rough poetic structure. I have only seen complete and utter garbage from LLMs in the poetry realm, not just a bit bad, but jarring and unfeeling. Which is fine, I don't hold it against them personally, ya know. Just it really has been pisspoor.
Which wouldn't be a bother at all, except along with the "poem" there often is someone saying "wow, look what it did! such a good poem!", which has made me suspicious that the person doesn't know how LLMs work nor how to read poetry - only one of which is a really serious loss for them, I suppose.
Anyway, that sounds like I want someone to send me something so I can sh*t on it, but I'd sincerely and happily read anything with an open mind! Is there some excellent poetry hiding out there which I have missed?
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#74I don't need an AI to do art so I can wash the dishes. I need an AI that can do the dishes so I can do art. - Someone else on twitter.
Washing dishes is more human and certainly more important than doing art.
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#75Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#76Could someone link me to a poem that an LLM did that they personally find in some way remarkable or beautiful or moving? Something with a bit of truth and/or beauty in it? Not something that "rhymes" or has a rough poetic structure. I have only seen complete and utter garbage from LLMs in the poetry realm, not just a bit bad, but jarring and unfeeling. Which is fine, I don't hold it against them personally , ya know.…
Just for kicks, I asked 3.5 Sonnet to write some sentences that didn’t exist in its training data. I googled the output and sure enough they appear to be unique. Most were semi meaningless strings of words, but I thought this one was quite poetic:
“Vintage umbrellas hosted philosophical debates about whether raindrops dream of becoming oceans or if puddles remember their cloudborn youth.”
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#77I don't need an AI to do art so I can wash the dishes. I need an AI that can do the dishes so I can do art. - Someone else on twitter.
Washing dishes is more human and certainly more important than doing art.
Would you rather wash the dishes than enjoy a favorite book, or piece of music or whatever form of art best floats your boat? Seriously?
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#78Are we just deluding ourselves by thinking this won't happen in every single domain of human endeavor?
I believe this will happen in many human domains, but it doesn't really matter. Nobody is going to stop writing poetry because of this and I doubt there's much of an audience for AI generated poetry.
There's really not much an audience for human poetry either (if you exclude music lyrics).
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#79Previously posted here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42155026
My comment on that thread:
> We propose that people rate AI poems more highly across all metrics in part because they find AI poems more straightforward. AI-generated poems in our study are generally more accessible than the human-authored poems in our study. In our discrimination study, participants use variations of the phrase “doesn’t make sense” for human-authored poems more often than they do for AI-generated poems I think this says more about the state of (English based) poetry over the past 150 years than it does about the ability of AI to generate competent poems. With the advent of Modernism, the poetry-industrial complex's ideas about what constituted a Good (English) Poem diverged significantly from what the general (English speaking) population expected a poem to be, how it was constructed, presented, etc. Teaching these new forms of poetry schools left generations of people confused and disinterested. Yet people need poetry in their lives; they found that poetry in popular music and Hallmark card verses.
Of course, popular poetry isn't dead. Poetry book sales in recent years (in the UK) has "boomed"[1][2]. I'll not argue the merits of the poetry being generated by the latest crop of Poet Superstars; at the end of the day their work sells because people find comfort and joy in it - and that is a positive outcome in my view!
> Given people’s difficulties identifying machine-written texts, and their apparent trust that AI will not generate imitations of human experience, it may be worthwhile for governments to pursue regulations regarding transparency in the use of AI systems.
I think AI does threaten the careers of current Poetry Superstars. Building a website to pair an AI generated outline image with some cozy AI generated verses about a given situation/emotion/discovery should be an easy project to build. Allowing users to personalise the output so they can use the results as a gift for loved ones etc might be a viable product?
But I don't see much value in forcing anyone using AI to produce creative assets to label the output as such. For one thing, there's no guarantee that anyone using those assets will maintain the labelling. A much better approach would be for poets who don't use AI to help them craft poems to label their work as "100% Human" - in the years to come it might even become a positive selling point!
[1] - https://www.thebookseller.com/spotlight/poetry-on-course-for...
[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/dec/24/poetry-sales-b...
Re: AI poetry is indistinguishable from human poetry and is rated more favorably
#80Ernest Davis has an outstanding and definitive rebuttal of these claims: https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/GPT-Poetry.pdf The basic problem is that GPT generates easy poetry, and the authors were comparing to difficult human poets like Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson, and rating using a bunch of people who don't particuarly like poetry. If you actually do like poetry, comparing PlathGPT to Sylvia Plath is so offensi…
I don't see how the authors are dishonest about it, or that the rebuttal refutes any of the actual claims made. They make it clear in the paper that they're specifically evaluating people who aren't especially interested in poetry, and talk at length about how and why this is different from other approaches. I suppose the clickbait title gives a bad first impression. To summarize the facts: when people were asked to…
> I don't see how the authors are dishonest about it, or that the rebuttal refutes any of the actual claims made.
Suppose I prepared a glass of lemonade and purchased a bottle of vintage wine—one held in high regard by connoisseurs. Then I found a set of random bystanders and surveyed them on which drink they preferred, and they generally preferred the lemonade. Do you see how it would be dishonest of me to treat this like a serious evaluation of my skill, either as a lemonade maker or a wine maker?