this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
50 points (83.8% liked)

Technology

59415 readers
3175 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
50
AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably - Scientific Reports (www.nature.com)
submitted 3 hours ago by arrakark@10291998.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Who the fuck wants poetry written by a machine? The whole point of poetry is that it’s an original expression of another human. It’s not a non-fiction book or decorative art. It doesn’t exist because we think it’s perfect. It exists because it’s a connection to another person.

Like, who gives a shit if a machine can churn out something like Langston Hughes “The Negro Speaks of Rivers.” . His life is what gives the poem its meaning.

I’m all for LLMs writing stuff but when people say it can create certain types of art, I want to use one to make a dismissive_wank.png image.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 9 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

If it's literally indistinguishable from human poetry, about as many people want to read it as there are people wanting to read human poetry. And that's about 12.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 3 points 34 minutes ago

Literally dozens of them.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 2 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

I don’t give a fuck if it surpasses human poetry to a focus group or if poetry is popular enough for you to care. I’m making a larger point that it’s a misuse of technology. Some things are pointless without a human personally taking time to craft it. We have loads of inefficiently produced things that exist because they’re “handmade” or came from the heart.

It’s like when Google screwed up during the Olympics with that commercial where Gemini made a little girl’s fan letter for an athlete. The whole point of a fan letter from a little girl is that it’s personal and took time. It’s not supposed to be perfect and efficiently produced. It could be 80% misspelled and written in crayon and be more meaningful than anything a machine produces.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 1 points 6 minutes ago

Or maybe accept that this idea was crap all along?

You desperately try to create some form of human superiority, just to feel important. That superiority doesn't exist. There's no value in anything just because it's made with "love", that's an illusion.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 25 points 2 hours ago

They're called large language models for a reason, creating patterns of words is exactly what they do. And poetry would be "easier" to do better since a human reading it may try to find meaning where there isn't. Unlike writing a story or something factual where a mistake is more obvious.

[–] DuckWrangler9000@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

The thing I really hate about AI is when they say it can make art. For centuries, art has been a form of expression and communicating all sorts of human emotions and experiences. Some art reflects pain or memories experienced in life. Other art is designed out of intellectual curiosity or to evoke thought. AI isn't human, so it can't do anything other than copy or simulate. It's artificial after all. So it makes images. But there's no backstory or feelings or emotion or suffering. It's truly meaningless.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago

I think there's an argument about art being the emotions it invokes in the viewer rather than the creator. Humans can find art in natural phenomena, which also has no feelings or backstory involved.

I'm not really defending AI slop here, just disagreeing with your definition of art and the relation to the creator rather than the viewer.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Or, maybe, we have to accept that art and all the grandiose and deep narratives around it are bullshit. It's an illusion, it's just a tool so some of us feel more important.

All that crap about not being made by humans is just the fear that the illusion of grandeur of humans might collapse.

[–] JamesBean@kbin.earth 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

They specify in the study that the participants were "non-expert poetry readers." I'd be interested to see the same experiment repeated with English professors, or even just English majors. Folks with a lot of experience reading poetry. With exposure to its history, its notable works, and its different styles.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago

This. Marvel superhero movies are also more popular with the general public than art films, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 19 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

It actually makes quite a lot of sense if you think about it. Poems generally follow a structure of some sort; a certain amount of syllables per line, a certain rhyming scheme, alliterative patterns, etc. Most poems as we know them are actually rather formulaic by nature, so it seems only natural that a computer would be good at creating something according to a set of configured parameters.

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 23 minutes ago

I don't follow poetry, but there could be a resurgence of abstract or non pattern following poetry, just like most art has movement that move along with what is happening in the world.

[–] LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And knows all the words and how they rhyme.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Poetry is about the message and sentiment so now anyone can be a poet as long as they can generate something that resonates with a group of people.

Although most modern poetry is something like copyright for ads or maybe a video game. So I am sure companies will try to reduce staff on that and pay for this.

I still don't buy they are a replacement for humans doing it tbh though based on the graphic art you around. Even when it is "right" it still has this generic slop vibe.

Peoper editing likely could reduce that feel.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Peoper editing

hehe

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

Oh man there’s nothing i like better than rating some poetry.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Oh man, that doesn't say anything good about poetry in general, where something that, by definition, has no imagination and cannot come up with something original, outdoes you.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean if it has to rhyme and fit certain meters or rhytmic parameters that can make it far easier to calculate and contrive a pleasing sounding poem with zero regard to the actual intrinsic qualities of the content itself

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

A sestina based on the rules is, formally speaking, easy. Ask me to write one that will be studied after centuries, and you’re asking for Petrarch.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 3 points 2 hours ago

The difference is the intent and the background behind it.

Sure for maximum mass adoption the computer can out-research any human and just find the blandest set of rules which cater to the highest percentage of the majority.

What it still will have a hard time doing, and I predict it will be for quite some time - probably until we have quantum computers - is to come up with a new way of doing poetry which is not just copying what humans did but better.

I think of AI like it's China, they are super efficient in copeing things and gradually making them better and cheaper but the setup of their society makes it impossible to really innovate.

And yeah I'm saying that it's the setup, because in Taiwan they are able to innovate at a much higher rate.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't appeal to the masses.

Most people don't "get" poetry. That's why you don't see many people sitting around reading books of poetry.

Many people would probably also choose a short story written by AI over one written by a professional author.

Heck, I'm sure comments written by AI generally get more upvotes than comments written by humans.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 points 58 minutes ago

Most people don't "get" poetry.

Did you channel your edgy 15 year old self for that? That's incredibly arrogant and self absorbed.