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.
  • Mr_Blott@feddit.ukEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I’ve noticed in recent times

    Poetry doesn’t rhyme

    And even when it can

    It doesn’t scan

    It’s shit, it’s true

    I blame haiku

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.worldEnglish
      01·
      2 months ago

      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

      I use to do it all the time!

  • DuckWrangler9000@lemmy.worldEnglish
    01·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      AI isn’t human, so it can’t do anything other than copy or simulate.

      There’s no such thing as “AI”.

      But computers can also generate art through averaging. It can average the feelings, impact, etc. That’s part of why generated art is popular. It’s still people creating new works from the old. It’s still “art” by any reasonable definition.