That just proves that poetry is quite misunderstood.
Poetry means different things to different people, but most just see it as dilly-dally where I'm at.
Maybe that contributed to this result?
@emollick.bsky.social I haven’t read the paper yet, but could you clarify whether the poetry was entirely generated by a language model, or did some writers use GenAI as an assistant in crafting their own poetry?
Entirely GPT-3.5, after extensive monkeying with its parameters. "It is important to note that" they chose specific poems to mimic. The assignment wasn't to write entirely original poetry; it was to emulate each of a specific set of poems to the point that they scrape by a Turing test (near chance).
Comparison human poems: Geoffrey Chaucer (1340s-1400), William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Samuel Butler (1613-1680), Lord Byron (1788-1824), Walt Whitman (1819-1892), Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), T.S. Eliot (1888-1965), Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997), Sylvia Plath (1932-1963), and Dorothea Lasky (1978-
Do they have the AI poems for comparison? Because the AI lyrics in Suno/Udio are all unmitigated tripe, so it makes me wonder what material people are judging here.
People who don't like and don't read poetry prefer AI to the poems of Samuel Butler. "New words, with little or no wit: /
Words so debas'd and hard, no stone / Was hard enough to touch them on; /And when with hasty noise he spoke 'em, /
The ignorant for current took 'em"
So, this is really a paper about how they finagled Chat-GPT 3.5--which I know from experiment is, out of the box, utterly addicted to rhyme and tapestries and can't write a decent poem to save its GPUs--into mimicking specific poets well enough to scrape by a Turing test given to non experts. 1/
"However ... the below-chance performance and the significant agreement between participants led us to conclude that participants were not answering entirely at random; they must be using at least some shared, yet mistaken, heuristics to distinguish AI-generated poems from human-written poems." 2/
Comments
Poetry means different things to different people, but most just see it as dilly-dally where I'm at.
Maybe that contributed to this result?
Words so debas'd and hard, no stone / Was hard enough to touch them on; /And when with hasty noise he spoke 'em, /
The ignorant for current took 'em"
Don't we all? 3/