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.
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.
Did you channel your edgy 15 year old self for that? That’s incredibly arrogant and self absorbed.
It’s simply the truth. Go around and ask 20 people if they’ve read a single piece of poetry in the last year, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
It’s not even being edgy. Most people don’t get high concept art in general, and there’s nothing wrong about it. I certainly don’t understand classical dance, or abstract paintings. You need some degree of competence in any art form to truly appreciate it. To think otherwise is incredibly arrogant.
Or, there simply isn’t anything to “get”.
Art is often enough deliberately made in such a way that you can’t know what was meant, without knowing beforehand what the artist meant. Framing that as some form of sophistication is simply delusional gatekeeping. It’s the attempt to set the own class apart, nothing more.
These are memes. Symbols that only make sense, if you know the reference. Treating these as indicators for anything is just an attempt to create an in-group.
I don’t think it’s worth it to argue with a person of such worldview. Maybe someone with more patience than me will reply.
So you’re out of arguments and resort to ad hominem?
Well, that’s not very poetic of you.
Actually, your comment is.
I write poetry, and I don’t care if an AI can write it ‘better’. Because I enjoy doing it and sharing it with other people that enjoy it.
It’s art. Not a Big Mac. I make it to feed myself and other people that enjoy it. Not to sell billions of burgers or books.
Lol, that was what the study implied.
If I’m remembering correctly, one of the reasons that participants of the study rated human-written poetry more poorly was because it was “more difficult to understand”. Conversely, the AI-generated poetry was easier to understand.
And this is coming from someone who doesn’t read poetry, lol