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.
  • leisesprecher@feddit.orgEnglish
    136·
    17 days 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.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      71·
      17 days ago

      I do get the sense sometimes that the more extreme anti-AI screeds I’ve come across have the feel of narcissistic rage about them. The recognition of AI art threatens things that we’ve told ourselves are “special” about us.

      • leisesprecher@feddit.orgEnglish
        53·
        17 days ago

        Correct.

        And especially artists, or people aspiring to be artistic, are suffering from an inferiority complex which they try to hide behind grandiose “higher values” of art.

        AI threatens to expose that art is meaningless unless you can use it to distinguish yourself from the plebs, or those you deem plebs.

    • treefrog@lemm.eeEnglish
      63·
      17 days ago

      Art is in the act of creating it. Not in the final product to be bought and sold on the market.

      A kid coloring is making art. The joy they get in the making is the art and is the point.

      I feel sorry for so many people in this thread who keep approaching this from the point of view of consumer markets. It doesn’t matter if someone can determine an AI colored picture from a child’s. The AI derives no joy in the creation. It’s not art, but a copy.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        24·
        16 days ago

        Art is in the act of creating it.

        This is just your opinion.

        Not in the final product to be bought and sold on the market.

        This isn’t inevitable or necessary.

        Personally I enjoy generated art (mostly scifi/fantasy) and I never pay for it.

        On the other hand I try to support actual artists because they’re most often struggling under capitalism much more than some person using midjourney or wahtever.