Who cares. If it's not provably written by a human but instead by an RNG, I'm not interested. Don't give me that crap about it being "indistinguishable" or better and that I couldn't tell the different in a blind test. That's completely irrelevant.
romwell 7 days ago [-]
>Who cares.
The people who did the research, and the editors of Nature - whose opinions on what matters and what doesn't (unlike yours) are qualified. At the very least, they have actual names attached to them; names of people and the publication. That sets the expectations, and actually answers the question who cares.
Given the success of Nature as a publication, one can say with reasonable confidence that people who read Nature, most likely, care about issues that the editors select. If that weren't the case, Nature would not have the status it does.
>If it's not provably written by a human but instead by an RNG, I'm not interested. Don't give me that crap about it being "indistinguishable" or better and that I couldn't tell the different in a blind test. That's completely irrelevant.
Interestingly, if I saw this in a blind test, I'd be inclined to think this sentence was produced by a broken AI, because it conveys zero information, while attempting to maintain the form of a well-formed sentence.
At best, the sum total of that string of words is "I'm not interested in AI-generated poetry", which is off-topic for the discussion at hand.
The study is about people more so than the technology, gauging the responses people have to AI-generated vs. non-AI-generated poetry. One could do the same study on, say, poems written by humans in English originally vs. poems translated into English, and it would still be of interest.
What's of zero interest to anyone is the information about how you feel about the concept of AI-generated poetry in general (not about any specific example, mind you).
The only thing it adds to the discussion is an example of what what a non-contribution to it is on this forum.
Thank you for that.
nineteen999 6 days ago [-]
Here's a clear message for you then. I have zero interest in engaging with you further than this message you are reading now. Hopefully the feeling is extremely mutual.
bdjsiqoocwk 6 days ago [-]
Dude you just got killed. Be a man and accept the L.
nineteen999 4 days ago [-]
I'm sufficiently happy with the number of upvotes I received on my original comment that I don't feel the slightest bit dead. The pedantic and point-missing response from the GP is somebody with an axe to grind from an earlier tasteless comment I made which I (somewhat) regret now. We have very different neurodivergence profiles and are unlikely to be able to have a healthy and productive conversation.
While the response may be "technically correct" (best kind), the upvotes received for my original comment highlight my point - the number of people interested in generative poetry is a tiny contingent compared to those who are pretty much disgusted by it - more specifically at those who would try to pass it off as written by a human saying "if you weren't told it was AI, you might like it and you wouldn't know the difference. Try pretending you don't know".
It's missing the point. The wider public does not consider generative art to be art, but more resembling misappropriation and deception even if a tiny majority in the "tech roolz all" crowd here disagree.
Very clever and impressive technology to be sure, but if it's not art made by a human, it's a synthetic deriviative and those that don't appreciate it have some very valid complaints. I can appreciate that some here are very impressed by the tech, I am too. It does not mean I want to be lied do about the provenance of a piece of art, fooled into believing it was made by a human with human emotions, when it wasn't.
Nobody is going to say "what a talented computer! i wonder what they were feeling when they created that" because we already know. Absolutely nothing.
romwell 6 days ago [-]
>Here's a clear message for you then. I have zero interest in engaging with you further than this message you are reading now. Hopefully the feeling is extremely mutual
With sadness, I have to inform you that we're on a public forum, where I have just as much right to opine on issues as you do — and I, for one, am enjoying our conversation.
That said, instead of making a grand announcement of your lack of interest in engaging in the discussion further than this message, may I suggest not engaging in a discussion you don't want to be engaged in?
It would also do the trick, and spare you the effort.
Looking forward to your further insightful contributions on Hacker News.
Poems are not just about rhymes and beauty. I've generated a couple of poems by AI, and it never hit a quality a 10-year old could not write. Tht's nowere near the artworks produced by Keats and Yeats. Indistinguishable from the work of a child - maybe. Indistinguishable from the work of a true poet - no way.
Also "Overall, our participants reported a low level of experience with poetry: 90.4% of participants reported that they read poetry a few times per year or less" WTF are we talking about?
Ukv 7 days ago [-]
> Poems are not just about rhymes and beauty
The poems were rated on 14 factors, grouped into emotional quality, structual quality, atmosphere, and creativity.
> I've generated a couple of poems by AI, and it never hit a quality a 10-year old could not write.
A non-blind test of one person on a couple of poems doesn't mean all that much against an N=16340 study.
> Tht's nowere near the artworks produced by Keats and Yeats. Indistinguishable from the work of a true poet - no way.
The study compared to poems of "well-known human poets" - Emily Dickinson, T.S. Eliot, etc.
It's true that the study's participants are not primarily poetry experts, but it did still find "none of the effects measuring poetry experience had a significant positive effect on accuracy". Plus, for the average person to prefer AI-generated poetry in blind tests is an interesting result regardless.
7 days ago [-]
Rendered at 02:02:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The people who did the research, and the editors of Nature - whose opinions on what matters and what doesn't (unlike yours) are qualified. At the very least, they have actual names attached to them; names of people and the publication. That sets the expectations, and actually answers the question who cares.
Given the success of Nature as a publication, one can say with reasonable confidence that people who read Nature, most likely, care about issues that the editors select. If that weren't the case, Nature would not have the status it does.
>If it's not provably written by a human but instead by an RNG, I'm not interested. Don't give me that crap about it being "indistinguishable" or better and that I couldn't tell the different in a blind test. That's completely irrelevant.
Interestingly, if I saw this in a blind test, I'd be inclined to think this sentence was produced by a broken AI, because it conveys zero information, while attempting to maintain the form of a well-formed sentence.
At best, the sum total of that string of words is "I'm not interested in AI-generated poetry", which is off-topic for the discussion at hand.
The study is about people more so than the technology, gauging the responses people have to AI-generated vs. non-AI-generated poetry. One could do the same study on, say, poems written by humans in English originally vs. poems translated into English, and it would still be of interest.
What's of zero interest to anyone is the information about how you feel about the concept of AI-generated poetry in general (not about any specific example, mind you).
The only thing it adds to the discussion is an example of what what a non-contribution to it is on this forum.
Thank you for that.
While the response may be "technically correct" (best kind), the upvotes received for my original comment highlight my point - the number of people interested in generative poetry is a tiny contingent compared to those who are pretty much disgusted by it - more specifically at those who would try to pass it off as written by a human saying "if you weren't told it was AI, you might like it and you wouldn't know the difference. Try pretending you don't know".
It's missing the point. The wider public does not consider generative art to be art, but more resembling misappropriation and deception even if a tiny majority in the "tech roolz all" crowd here disagree.
Very clever and impressive technology to be sure, but if it's not art made by a human, it's a synthetic deriviative and those that don't appreciate it have some very valid complaints. I can appreciate that some here are very impressed by the tech, I am too. It does not mean I want to be lied do about the provenance of a piece of art, fooled into believing it was made by a human with human emotions, when it wasn't.
Nobody is going to say "what a talented computer! i wonder what they were feeling when they created that" because we already know. Absolutely nothing.
With sadness, I have to inform you that we're on a public forum, where I have just as much right to opine on issues as you do — and I, for one, am enjoying our conversation.
That said, instead of making a grand announcement of your lack of interest in engaging in the discussion further than this message, may I suggest not engaging in a discussion you don't want to be engaged in?
It would also do the trick, and spare you the effort.
Looking forward to your further insightful contributions on Hacker News.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42163119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42158365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42155026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42143576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42138208
Also "Overall, our participants reported a low level of experience with poetry: 90.4% of participants reported that they read poetry a few times per year or less" WTF are we talking about?
The poems were rated on 14 factors, grouped into emotional quality, structual quality, atmosphere, and creativity.
> I've generated a couple of poems by AI, and it never hit a quality a 10-year old could not write.
A non-blind test of one person on a couple of poems doesn't mean all that much against an N=16340 study.
> Tht's nowere near the artworks produced by Keats and Yeats. Indistinguishable from the work of a true poet - no way.
The study compared to poems of "well-known human poets" - Emily Dickinson, T.S. Eliot, etc.
It's true that the study's participants are not primarily poetry experts, but it did still find "none of the effects measuring poetry experience had a significant positive effect on accuracy". Plus, for the average person to prefer AI-generated poetry in blind tests is an interesting result regardless.