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

Are we just deluding ourselves by thinking this won't happen in every single domain of human endeavor?

I wonder how well experts in poetry would do? It seems like a strange area to use non-expert humans for evaluation because these days most people reading any poetry are at least enthusiasts.

The headline is misleading. The actual text says:

> Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems

There is clearly a significant difference between AI generated poems and human generated poems.

A random group of people probably do not read poetry. It would be be interesting to see what people who do read poetry regularly do on this. Also, which they rate as good, rather than just "human authored".

I find with both the little AI generated poetry, and the AI generated paintings that show up in my FB feed, both look a bit rubbish. FB is pretty good for experiencing this because the work (usually an image) shows before the cues that it is AI generated in the text and comments.

Every domain where the judgment comes from the 99%, sure. The 99% is uncultivated.

AI poetry IS human poetry.