"AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably"
If all art and entertainment is made to curry their favor and satisfy their appetites with as little effort as possible, then I guess there's even more dreck out there to be ignored.
In my language, the poetry I've gotten LLMs to generate far surpasses the human generated slop sold in local bookstores.
I fully expect current 'poets' will start using this and the lines will be forever blurred.
What kind of gatekeeping is this? Parent mentioned they're read poems from their local bookstores, does that mean they don't/do understand it "as an art form"? Does their opinion become more or less valid if they do understand it "as an art form"?
If you ask an LLM to "Write me a poem", expect the equivalent of what others are calling analogous to hotel art: generic and inoffensive. However, if you inject your personalized soul and suffering into the context window, there's no reason not to expect the transformation of that soul into indistinguishably human-like prose.
I won't share the full content, because it was personalized to me and my moment.
I am quite curious though, how art without an author will grow into society.
I am ABSOLUTELY gatekeeping whether their opinion should hold weight when opining on the trajectory of a millenia-old art form.
1. Readers wanting to virtue signal. Either to others or themselves
2. Authors + Publishers marketing
I will bet you thousands of dollars that if I was already a poet with distribution I could publish a book where 80% of it was done with current llms and pass it as an my own original work.
It would still require skill and taste to prompt and filter the corpus but I'm certain it can be done with the current state of llms, let alone future ones.
Really? This sounds like a huge exaggeration to me, but I know next to nothing about poetry. Just compared to how many books are sold this seems ridiculosly high.