KI-generierte Poesie ist nicht von von Menschen geschriebener Poesie zu unterscheiden und wird positiver bewertet

Abstract: “As AI-generated text continues to evolve, distinguishing it from human-authored content has become increasingly difficult. This study examined whether non-expert readers could reliably differentiate between AI-generated poems and those written by well-known human poets. We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001).

Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.”

EDIT: weird upsetting formatting

Remember when whether or not art was good was left up to asking people who didn’t know anything about it? Me neither. That’s never been how it was or is. Most of it takes effort to understand.

This is garbage science anyway. And it’s useless except to convince people that they shouldn’t value art because it can also be done by a machine. Come on. We just elected a fascist oligarch tool of foreign governments who’s bent on undermining education and weakening the US and now we have to read this crap.

AI poetry is more accessible, which is why it probably rates more favorably with a general audience. I asked AI to write a song in the style of Taylor Swift about my profession and it was good and fun, but definitely had to massage some of the clunky phrasing.

I would just like to say all the anti-ai people are darkly amusing because they confidently say things like ‘AI generated garbage will never be as good as art made by a human’ during the tiny period in history when we can still tell the two apart.

We’re in the early stages of AI development. Currently, it might impress a novice which often means most people in whatever category, not just poetry. But it will improve over time, and it will become more difficult to separate the artificial from the organic. This might not be a popular opinion, but I believe this will become the eventual outcome.

I mis-read this as “pottery” and was extremely curious if they’d had an AI throwing pots with robotic arms or just doing photography of finished pots.

As a teacher, and published poet:

Yeah, OK. Sure. Whatever…