Has AI Killed Poetry?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 17 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,3 тис.

  • @Clics_Mordernos
    @Clics_Mordernos 17 днів тому +2291

    I hate that reading anything from the internet has become a bunch of mind games trying to figure out if it was made by AI

    • @spawel1
      @spawel1 17 днів тому +56

      maybe we are written by AI?

    • @Forcoy
      @Forcoy 17 днів тому +50

      Maybe just don't?

    • @idontknow4350
      @idontknow4350 16 днів тому +58

      That's a biggest compliment for people creating AI

    • @bigfennec
      @bigfennec 16 днів тому +2

      ​@@idontknow4350In the same way that mentioning how many people have died to a disease is a compliment to that disease

    • @canifer5546
      @canifer5546 16 днів тому +1

      ​@@idontknow4350 So long as they ignore the seething hatred I feel for it, sure.

  • @murunborjigin
    @murunborjigin 17 днів тому +1645

    In my opinion, the biggest problem is that rather than enjoying and reflecting on each other’s poems and the life experience reflected by them, we are in the habit of rating and comparing everything, whereby we assign fame, social status and capital.

    • @ajeeb7618
      @ajeeb7618 16 днів тому +66

      this is like a ground level rooted problem, unsolvable

    • @GoodBaleadaMusic
      @GoodBaleadaMusic 16 днів тому

      Thats why AI doesn't matter. It comes from a civilizational mindset built on sand anyway. We're about to leap away from some team captain telling us what is because we now have a third witness. I won't even talk to a cop without Chat GTP now. And I won't talk to my lawyer either. I trust none of you. Some humans are scared because they know we won't have to trust their "knowledge" anymore.

    • @JohnDoe927
      @JohnDoe927 16 днів тому +54

      No I just don't like modern poetry.
      You erase people like me who genuinely like poems that are relatable and understandable.
      Your Alienation from every day people is why poetry got to this point.

    • @kukuruzzo
      @kukuruzzo 16 днів тому +6

      The only reflection on a bad poem is that it sucks

    • @pietrocavallo7955
      @pietrocavallo7955 16 днів тому +54

      ​@@JohnDoe927 isn't it that seeking relatable content is common because modern everyday life is kind of dull, repetitive and meaningless and doesn't let people enjoying things outside our daily struggles? I too like relatable things, but I don't want it to be only that! We are not the only person existing for poetry to be read. It definetely relates to how we are used to personalized content to be rated for ourselves online, where we now basically need to exist in order to be part of our society.

  • @overtonwindowshopper
    @overtonwindowshopper 17 днів тому +1294

    The fact that you, a human, knows enough about Dickinson to have an educated opinion about her work and prose makes you the type of expert that would have been excluded from the study

    • @bigoafboulderbrain_
      @bigoafboulderbrain_ 17 днів тому +374

      The study was essentially trying to prove the main point of AI:
      The average person with minimal knowledge on a subject will be happy with mediocre, meaningless slop

    • @sp123
      @sp123 16 днів тому +35

      @@bigoafboulderbrain_ people dont have time to leisurely read anymore

    • @oldrego
      @oldrego 16 днів тому +202

      @@sp123 You're leisurely reading this youtube comment section, so you're kind of contradicting yourself.

    • @e.l.studios455
      @e.l.studios455 16 днів тому +68

      @@oldrego Reading an online comment on a moving form of visual media is only slightly different from sitting down and willingingly engaging on words upon pages

    • @JimJamTheAdmin
      @JimJamTheAdmin 16 днів тому

      ​@@bigoafboulderbrain_it could also be the dark truth that much of poetry itself is often slop that robots can emulate very easily by simply reading a bunch of poems and vomiting it back up.

  • @personnoun7086
    @personnoun7086 17 днів тому +1420

    AI poetry is just like Insta-poetry in one key way - it's digestable and cliché. Sadly a lot of readers will gravitate towards it for those exact reasons.

    • @cobwebdragon4611
      @cobwebdragon4611 17 днів тому +11

      Came to the comments to say this!!

    • @morezombies9685
      @morezombies9685 16 днів тому +71

      You can't control how others consume media, nor should you seek to. People can and do enjoy things no matter how cliche or mediocre, yourself included. What you should focus on instead, if you feel there's something wrong with the amount of mediocre content online, is making more quality content people enjoy.

    • @marikothecheetah9342
      @marikothecheetah9342 16 днів тому +36

      Prose became insta for many people. The amounts of times I have seen advice: "don't use long descriptions in the book" is far too many to count. No descriptions, short sentences, no difficult verbiage, thrown instantly into purple prose or: "boasting off knowing thesaurus" - it's just literary McDonalds for masses nowadays.

    • @personnoun7086
      @personnoun7086 16 днів тому +27

      @morezombies9685 Oh, I agree, I absolutely don't control how people consume content, and I'm not making any moral reflections on it at all! I'm just saying that media and the way we consume it shapes what becomes popular and currently, I think it's sad that it's decentivizing longer or more creative poetry. Nothing inherently wrong with consuming or writing insta-poetry!

    • @rassular
      @rassular 16 днів тому +11

      The truth is, you've consumed a lot of AI content and you haven't even realized. You can only criticize what you notice after all

  • @tarindell187
    @tarindell187 17 днів тому +95

    The best quote I heard was: i wanted an ai to do my chores so i can do arts but ai makes arts and i still have to do my chores

    • @dashbounce
      @dashbounce 10 днів тому +5

      This feels so dystopian

    • @tubsy.
      @tubsy. 8 днів тому +1

      ​@@dashbounceThis feels like progress and a win for mankind

    • @magneticpizzasr
      @magneticpizzasr 2 дні тому +1

      ​@@tubsy.how

    • @Marisquizo
      @Marisquizo День тому

      This is a stupid comment copied and pasted in every video like this. AI is a tool to increase profits. Of course it’s going to be used for this. If you can’t grasp this then you don’t understand how AI works.

  • @rualker1090
    @rualker1090 17 днів тому +1032

    i heard the first poem and went, “oh ok this one is 100% ai,” and got jumpscared by the second poem also sounding like ai. i will never forgive you for making me choose one

    • @douglaspantz
      @douglaspantz 17 днів тому

      A less talked about parallel to the fact that people are believing that AI things are human made, is that people are starting to believing human made things are AI. I've already seen this happen across the internet, people have said some of my comments are AI because I happened to write those comments in a similar style that ChatGPT is programmed to, I've seen posts on reddit where images sourced from publications like the new york times are just dismissed by loads of people because they just thought it looked "off".

    • @GeahkBurchill
      @GeahkBurchill 17 днів тому +78

      Same. I was mad at having liked the second poem.

    • @jemappellemerci
      @jemappellemerci 16 днів тому +74

      Same, so then I was like “yk the first one maybe wasn’t so bad, I didn’t pay attention to the text much anyway” only for him to jump scare my by announcing they were BOTH ai

    • @emilyrln
      @emilyrln 16 днів тому +59

      I ended up choosing the first one as real despite the broken opening line simply because the second one felt way less like Dickinson in its voice even though it was actually saying something understandable 😅

    • @johnsmith2875
      @johnsmith2875 16 днів тому +18

      Yea they both were weird

  • @JastonJ-49
    @JastonJ-49 17 днів тому +195

    11:00 what gave this away for me is that AI likes to create 'uplifting' and 'hopeful' poems so a lot of them would be about overcoming darkness and even if u give it a prompt such as a poem about heartbreak and how u feel defeatless, there's always gonna be that one or two lines that's like: "but I'll push forward and I'll find a way to move on". AI also likes to use the word 'light' and 'hope'for their poems (and we see them used here in uninteresting or non unique ways)

    • @epicow_1973
      @epicow_1973 15 днів тому +1

      Theyre both AI

    • @SharanyoDutta-h4p
      @SharanyoDutta-h4p 15 днів тому +5

      "The air is heavy, silence crawls,
      Shadows press against cracked walls.
      The clock ticks loud, then louder still,
      Each second bends beneath its will.
      No dawn awaits this endless night,
      No solace veiled in muted light.
      The heart beats slow, a hollow drum,
      Echoes lost in what won’t come.
      The mirror whispers shards of truth,
      Each jagged edge, a stolen youth.
      No fire burns, no spark remains,
      Just empty echoes of refrains.
      Let the void take what it must,
      Ashes crumble, dreams to dust."

    • @JastonJ-49
      @JastonJ-49 15 днів тому

      ​@@epicow_1973yes I know👍 just saying what gave the second poem away for me

    • @starpeep5769
      @starpeep5769 13 днів тому

      Exactly

    • @starpeep5769
      @starpeep5769 13 днів тому +4

      ​@SharanyoDutta-h4pthis is more unique but i heard dreams to dust when i had my ai do (japanese) poetry

  • @VilifyX
    @VilifyX 17 днів тому +383

    with the more AI Poetry i read, i’ve noticed that poetry made by AI oftentimes have very common details in themselves. they rhyme, use cliched language, and they don't say much of anything emotionally impactful to wonder about. poetry is ‘good’ poetry when it expresses complex emotions and/or experiences. …complex emotions and/or experiences that an unthinking, unfeeling, preprogrammed machine couldn’t muster. however, upon watching this video, i am feeling worried. it seems that AI literature is demonstrably getting better, but i still don't believe that poetry can be killed if we continue to learn, teach, talk about, and consume real poetry by real poets, and eat up less AI "art" by people like jason allen, the AI "artist", lol.

    • @myhatmygandhi6217
      @myhatmygandhi6217 17 днів тому +33

      The first example literally says something emotionally impactful though.
      "For in that moment, I did see,
      The wonder of all things,
      The world that hums in mystery,
      And all that it brings"
      The third line there is brilliant, and if you didn't tell anyone who wrote it then they would agree. It's only when people are told it was AI that they change their mind. The truth is AI can write some pretty good poetry and it will only improve. It's better than that Rupi Kauer woman who wrote Milk And Honey, although that's not a high bar 😂

    • @VilifyX
      @VilifyX 17 днів тому +31

      @@myhatmygandhi6217 i understand where you're coming from, and i agree with you that that's an emotionally impactful segment. but from my own personal standpoint, i see AI poetry as very similar in nature. it regularly has the same format, and as an artist and a poet, i don't exactly appreciate that. fyi, i was meaning to say that after i watched the video i then realized that AI poetry is improving, taking off, and become more favorable by consumers than ever before. (which i don't particularly see as a good thing!!) i acknowledge that my message wasn't clear enough though, and i appreciate your comment. have a pleasant day!

    • @Ozone946
      @Ozone946 17 днів тому +41

      @@myhatmygandhi6217the fact that it was made by IA immediately invalidates it of any meaning or impact. It’s not really poetry. Like a hunter making deer sounds to trick their prey. The hunter has no idea what those sounds mean they just know deer like them

    • @KenjiHongo
      @KenjiHongo 17 днів тому +35

      @@myhatmygandhi6217 I'm sorry, but I just have to fundamentally disagree. The stanza and entire poem is cliché, and has no real insights. The barely even rephrased ideas of "All things are filled with wonder" and "the world is filled with mystery" have been repeated ad nauseam to the point where the poem elicits a visceral feeling of disgust in me. I find no brilliance or even slight originality. But this may be party from my personal experience in America and seeing those ideas in American media so often.

    • @spawel1
      @spawel1 17 днів тому +7

      AI (in this context) as it stands is the culmination of industrial/mass-produced art. It is still art but just utterly uninteresting as there is no real depth, because as you say there is no purpose to it.
      AI is liberating in a way in that the production of these degrading-emanations, echoes of prior expressions formulated in the art it plunders are no longer forced unto human-laborers, replacing them with an automation (which was, unknowingly built by them.)
      basically AI is nothing new, but it is the climax, atleast for now.

  • @jopabr24
    @jopabr24 17 днів тому +246

    As I was watching the video, one of my first questions regarded the population sampled for the study. The section starting at 5:51 was pretty informative, and aligned with what I expected. People rated AI poetry "better" because they found it easier to engage with. It's the same thing that makes so much of the showerthoughts-adjacent Instagram poetry so popular. It's simple ideas, expressed in an easily digestible way, that asks nothing of the reader. It's easy to process, but it's also easy to forget.

    • @JohnDoe927
      @JohnDoe927 16 днів тому +28

      Turns out people genuinely like chicken nuggets

    • @jopabr24
      @jopabr24 16 днів тому +12

      @@JohnDoe927 Absolutely! But just like chicken nuggets, there's little in the way of nutritional value in the slurried, compressed, battered, and fried mess that is Instagram poetry. It's like donuts for dinner. It tastes good when you're eating it, but 30 minutes later you're hungry for something a little meatier. I elaborated in another comment that I think the study was flawed by the ground up. I wonder what their results might have looked like if the the researchers had chosen poetry from more contemporary poets. There are a number of incredibly talented writers today who are creating beautiful works of poetry that are highly accessible to even the average reader. And I really think that most people who would tell you that they don't get poetry, or that it's too hard to understand, or that it's inaccessible -- they've really never given it a fair shake. They've never taken the time to sit down and try to engage with a poem outside of whatever they had to read in their freshman literature survey.

    • @Candlemancer
      @Candlemancer 9 днів тому

      ​@@jopabr24 this drivel is as ignorant and misinformed about chicken nuggets as it is about literature

    • @jopabr24
      @jopabr24 4 дні тому

      @@Candlemancer Haha, okay, kiddo.

    • @mulleinroots
      @mulleinroots 2 дні тому

      @@jopabr24 what modern poets would you reccomend-i am stuck in the past

  • @pascalbercker7487
    @pascalbercker7487 16 днів тому +172

    I knew the first to be AI since I knew the original which goes like this:
    A Bird, came down the Walk - (359)
    By Emily Dickinson
    A Bird, came down the Walk -
    He did not know I saw -
    He bit an Angle Worm in halves
    And ate the fellow, raw,

    And then, he drank a Dew
    From a convenient Grass -
    And then hopped sidewise to the Wall
    To let a Beetle pass -

    He glanced with rapid eyes,
    That hurried all abroad -
    They looked like frightened Beads, I thought,
    He stirred his Velvet Head. -

    Like one in danger, Cautious,
    I offered him a Crumb,
    And he unrolled his feathers,
    And rowed him softer Home -

    Than Oars divide the Ocean,
    Too silver for a seam,
    Or Butterflies, off Banks of Noon,
    Leap, plashless as they swim.
    Notice the last two stanzas which - to me - makes this uniquely Dickinson's poetry.

    • @worm2976
      @worm2976 14 днів тому +1

      A lovely read! Thank you for sharing

    • @theepicosityofpizza
      @theepicosityofpizza 14 днів тому +24

      Reading this along with the AI generated poem about the bird, I really do not care about the results of this study at all. Dickinson's poem is orders of magnitude better, more expressive and more original. Anyone who could prefer AI generated AB rhyme cliche slop is not someone whose opinion I really care about

    • @Emma-Maze
      @Emma-Maze 14 днів тому +6

      Can you please explain the last two stanzas, to me they just seem nonsensical, which made me think you fooled us because of the way AI poetry will turn randomly nonsensical 😅

    • @starpeep5769
      @starpeep5769 13 днів тому

      ​@@theepicosityofpizzayesss

    • @starpeep5769
      @starpeep5769 13 днів тому +1

      ​@@Emma-Mazedo it for me too

  • @alex-nade
    @alex-nade 17 днів тому +514

    As a hobbyist writer who never plans to publish, I'd like to think, naively, that poetry and literature will continue to persist regardless of what technological advancement is going on around them because the desire to create will always be in us. It's not about whether AI can do it better; that's irrelevant, we create because it's in our nature to want to create and express.
    I take deep issues with AI as it is now, it exists in a grey area where no DOUBT theft of intellectual property from real artists is taking place, but in thirty years when AI becomes more regulated, I don't actually think it matters whether a poem is from an AI or a human artist. If AI can create wonderful poetry as well, let it; what's important is that humans can still be compensated and appreciated commensurately for their work.

    • @vvitch-mist20
      @vvitch-mist20 17 днів тому +64

      You're right. Human creativity will always shine bc each word, each brush stroke, each note, each pass a thumb over clay will ALWAYS have purpose and meaning. That purpose and drive is why our creativity is unmatched. No AI can ever reproduce what the human brain can make. If humans have one purpose it's creation.

    • @gabrielalfaia8154
      @gabrielalfaia8154 17 днів тому +33

      I think it will persist. At least good poetry. There will be endless amounts of AI generated pornographic literature tho. Literature and poetry will persist because there's one thing ai can't do: being human and actually living. And you might ask "but can't ai know how life is throught data?". And the answer is no. It already collected literally all human knowledge, books, tv show, news, everything. What's gonna happen is that human literature is going to have to become more especfic. Because ai can already write a sci-fi book about the battle of good vs evil.

    • @redeamed19
      @redeamed19 16 днів тому +45

      humans have been out played in chess and go for years but we still have human tournaments because we are interested in what humans can do.

    • @redeamed19
      @redeamed19 16 днів тому +25

      also we often write for ourselves not others

    • @raph2550
      @raph2550 16 днів тому +6

      I hope you are right about the reaching of regulations. If I look at the Internet, it seems obvious to me that it is a mess compared to what it could have been.
      I'm worried it will be the same with AI technologies

  • @nalurodriigues
    @nalurodriigues 17 днів тому +284

    5:16
    Once, a professor told me to rewrite my essay because it was "obvious that you used AI." I wasn’t exactly offended back then, I thought "Wow, I must be so good he thinks I’m an AI!" But yesterday, I saw an artist upset because people demanded proof that she had created her digital paintings from scratch-they didn’t believe she could do such work. AI has introduced a new layer of judgment, one that women have faced for years: the "This is too good to have been done by someone like you" attitude. Except now, it’s not a man they’re praising, but a machine.

    • @marikothecheetah9342
      @marikothecheetah9342 16 днів тому +20

      "AI has introduced a new layer of judgment, one that women have faced for years" - so, you think only women are scrutinised for using AI?

    • @wedding2710
      @wedding2710 16 днів тому +104

      ​@@marikothecheetah9342Can't speak for the commenter but that doesn't seem to be what they were saying, no.

    • @dartymcfly22
      @dartymcfly22 16 днів тому +3

      ⁠​⁠@@marikothecheetah9342 men are scrutinised too, but op is referring to the age-old societal attitude of “men are smarter than women, therefore a woman couldn’t have done this,” an attitude which still exists today, only now AI provides an easy outlet of accusation.

    • @marikothecheetah9342
      @marikothecheetah9342 16 днів тому +8

      @@wedding2710 so enlighten me what they meant, if not what they wrote. Maybe you read their mind.

    • @JerryPlays-nk7cf
      @JerryPlays-nk7cf 16 днів тому +64

      ​@@marikothecheetah9342I think they meant that people are now receiving a class of criticisms that women tended to receive. I don't think they meant to exclude anyone.

  • @tarredion
    @tarredion 17 днів тому +149

    Also! They chose poets of old with styles which are somewhat rigid and feel old to many readers, and more complex simply bcs they use different vocab and grammar than we’re used to. If they had actually used modern poetry .. even the more complex .. I. Believe there would’ve been more understanding, even from nonreaders

    • @dozwhald6546
      @dozwhald6546 15 днів тому +10

      Thing is modern, more popular poetry is so shallow and unstructured that I wouldn't be surprised if AI would be even better at masking as human, even to experts

    • @rinnachi
      @rinnachi 15 днів тому +4

      on this point it's important to remember that modern poetry was once seen to be nearly as much of a threat to english language poetry as AI is now--in part because of the abandonment of rigid style and the adoption of free-form poetry. indeed for many modern readers free-form is preferred and the poetic structures now considered archaic are left to wither, even abandoned as casualties by modern proponents of poetry such as yourself. we'll always have this problem in art.

    • @saga2795
      @saga2795 13 днів тому

      @@dozwhald6546this just simply isn’t true if you’re looking outside the realm of popular social media poetry. there is a vibrant world of really good contemporary work being made and published.

  • @gelatinouscatgirl8369
    @gelatinouscatgirl8369 15 днів тому +46

    I don't read poetry and I would probably fail this test miserably because I'm not well versed enough in the language of poetry to catch common Chat GPT mistakes.
    I do, however, enjoy art and your discussion with Sitara reminded me a lot about the way I approach art these days and how with a trained eye I can tell a human drawing vs. AI with large amount of confidence.
    You said that this little quiz was not an enjoyable way to read poetry, but sadly that's how I interact with art these days. I don't look at the drawing to enjoy it, instead I find that my first reaction is to zoom in and check "Are all fingers in place? Is geometry in the background coherent? Are small details drawn or is it a pixelated mess?". That's not a healthy way to enjoy something. It's really sad.

    • @starpeep5769
      @starpeep5769 13 днів тому

      Stop because your first statement is me

  • @nestorarranz3179
    @nestorarranz3179 17 днів тому +605

    I like the fact that "better" AI poetry is just explicitly stolen poetry

    • @jdvizcainoarmand
      @jdvizcainoarmand 16 днів тому +21

      Hit it in the nail

    • @dirremoire
      @dirremoire 15 днів тому +18

      Uh no. Not at all.

    • @Handlelesswithme
      @Handlelesswithme 15 днів тому +14

      According to the whistleblowers that “disappeared” that is definitely true

    • @420Gandalf
      @420Gandalf 15 днів тому +6

      ​@@dirremoire How so lol? Many people would be charged with copyright claims if they published that poetry

    • @420Gandalf
      @420Gandalf 15 днів тому

      Yes

  • @KittSpiken
    @KittSpiken 16 днів тому +48

    First thoughts (outside of the general state of peer review) -
    1. On the subject of opacity: (good) poetry is not (generally) willfully opaque. Much of the opacity is due to period language. A contemporary reader will find the language unclear in the same way they would find it difficult to see through a two hundred year old pane of glass. The language of a beat poet would be difficult to parse for many readers, and this "issue" also acts as a smokescreen for AI. It can create a facsimile of anachronistic language while simultaneously appearing clearer through the added context of it's modern language training.
    2. In that vein, we're not comparing apples to apples. We're comparing human poetry to machine forgery. The actual poetry should be the control; a third group of human forgeries is necessary to draw conclusions on what the study is actually measuring.
    3. Which poems were used? A world class poet does not exclusively produce world class poems. Additionally as stated in point 1, one of their critically acclaimed works at the time may currently be too anachronistic for the average reader to enjoy casually (or as casually as you can when you are put in a situation where you are necessarily performing criticism and analysis)
    4. Paranoid is not the ideal mental state to read most poetry. The simpler, "easier" to understand "works" generated by AI are safer bets when your primary motivation is to not be tricked. As an example: at the opening of this video I considered both works to be AI generated at one point or another. I thought the second poem was better, but in accordance with point 3, a work by Dickinson is not necessarily a *published* work by Dickinson. Was it lifted from a notebook? Was it published on reputation in desperate need of a paycheck?
    The second poem is better but is that the game? Is the second poem better to trick me into believing it is the genuine article? Can this test be carried out honestly under the scrutiny of observation?
    Thought provoking video, evidently.

    • @worm2976
      @worm2976 14 днів тому +2

      you're right to invoke the Hawthorne effect

  • @idratherstayanonimous7020
    @idratherstayanonimous7020 15 днів тому +60

    I think this whole conundrum just shows the real nature of art. Art is not the piece or the product of art, Art is the process and the transformation that it produces on those who take it seriously.

    • @CentelleolunaPezuñasOscuras
      @CentelleolunaPezuñasOscuras 10 днів тому

      This

    • @UnexpectedAmy
      @UnexpectedAmy 9 днів тому +1

      This this this!
      I'd rather read a poem that is someone who just wrote "poem poem poem" in a mad creative fugue than something AI churned out in 0.003 seconds, no matter how beautiful it SEEMS. AI beauty is a mirage, a beautiful woman that's actually an ancient witch, too auto-sated to even need our souls.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      lol

  • @yoavjacoby8246
    @yoavjacoby8246 17 днів тому +71

    2:00 Hand to god, I predicted this exactly. Saw the two poems and before reading them I thought "I bet the twist is both of these are made by AI". Then when you read the second one, I thought. "These two are AI but if not then the second one is really by Emily Dickenson."

    • @trav8694
      @trav8694 12 днів тому +1

      Yeah.. same. For some reason I could pick up that both of those poems were lame and didn’t make much sense.

    • @ZipZapTesla
      @ZipZapTesla 11 днів тому

      I thought the second was AI, then he told me it was actually the first. I was like "What? Bruh." Then he revealed that BOTH of them were AI, which was when I'd let out the most audible "Fuck you," in my general area.

    • @moonsigil
      @moonsigil 11 днів тому +2

      I'm surprised you'd attribute the second one to E.D. because it's so painfully cheesy.

    • @yoavjacoby8246
      @yoavjacoby8246 11 днів тому

      @@moonsigil Well, I thought it was miles better than the first.

    • @wendys9500
      @wendys9500 2 дні тому +1

      @@moonsigilI def was thinking “wow ED must be a cheesy ass writer if this is real” so I was so relieved it wasn’t… it sounded like some bedtime quote you’d find in Google images

  • @mqd1d
    @mqd1d 17 днів тому +59

    You definitely got me in the beginning. I'm an avid reader of Emily Dickinson's poetry and most of my poetry is inspired by her way of writing. I definitely detected that both are AI generated from the beginning, but when you said it's not and it's from Dickinson, I couldn't believe it, I was devastated lol

    • @zyaicob
      @zyaicob 17 днів тому +22

      Yeah the first poem was obviously trying too hard to be profound and ultimately wrapped around to being nonsense- the second one had this quality where it was just trying REALLY hard to make sure that you got what it was trying to say- to the extent that it ended up telling rather than showing. It felt it was beating me over the head with the point a little, which I just assumed was an artistic choice on Emily's part. I'm glad I was wrong about that

    • @spiralsausage
      @spiralsausage 16 днів тому +5

      Yea lol for me I just have no clue what Emily's writing is like and was sure both were ai, but was 110% sure the second was AI. So I thought damn this Emily girl can't write.

    • @bacicinvatteneaca
      @bacicinvatteneaca 12 днів тому

      ​@zyaicob people keep saying that, but it still wasn't enough for me. When I see poetry I immediately lose my ability to focus on words because of how tiring it normally is to decipher poetry. The second poem was just as obscure as any other for me.

    • @zyaicob
      @zyaicob 12 днів тому

      @@bacicinvatteneaca i guess you haven't been taught how to read poetry- most students aren't, people tend to learn that skill on their own or at higher levels of education. But poetry is taught entirely backwards in school

  • @tman2472
    @tman2472 16 днів тому +18

    i was listening to hyperpop the other day - a genre that is already very synthetic sounding in its nature - and spotify auto played me a song that was 100% made by AI. it was from an artist with no description and only one album. the only way i was able to tell that it was AI was through the harshly fake vocals that AI models tend to produce - it almost slipped under my radar during my listening session, and that scares me.

    • @moonsigil
      @moonsigil 11 днів тому +2

      Hyperpop is the skibidi toilet of music genres, so maybe that's the problem?

  • @devonhill9099
    @devonhill9099 16 днів тому +87

    My opinion is this: poetry was dead when people noticed it sat in an uncanny valley:
    For most of human history, poetry was how most literary works were written.
    But as time passed, things like the printing press, the opera, the novel, and the gramophone began to separate the spoken word into 2 categories:
    Storytelling & Music.
    And with each generation, poetry became more and more uncanny to listeners because it didn’t fit into either category. It was spoken like written word, yet seemed to have rhythm like music without instrumentation. For a lot of people, that’s not mentally palpable, thus uncanny.

    • @МартинРупски
      @МартинРупски 13 днів тому +5

      Drama is one of the oldest forms of written art, but even the bible is in verses. Another point imo is that as writing progressed poetry became more and more abstract. When writing a story or a book you often concisely try to make it as engaging as possible, while poetry is mainly used to express one's feelings without care of social validation. Sadly this not only makes it complex, but often boring for most people.

    • @janisir4529
      @janisir4529 12 днів тому +2

      Yeah, novels are meant to be interpreted literally, and music is just Vibes based where the lyrics just don't matter. Vocals are great, but the words don't add much themselves.

    • @nobody-nk8pd
      @nobody-nk8pd 12 днів тому

      My opinion is that culture in general as wr know it died in 2022 - 2023. Poetry, visual art, music, whatever. Of course, you can (and probably should) make and share your stuff and msybe even get some recognition for it but the relationship between us and art changed very much.

    • @Hiya8partyz
      @Hiya8partyz 11 днів тому

      I’ll admit that’s probably why I don’t read or write poetry much. It’s not that it’s bad, but it’s something I just have a strangely hard time wrapping my head around in comparison to constructing sentences or narratives

    • @pseudonymous9153
      @pseudonymous9153 2 дні тому

      ​@@МартинРупски "The Bible" is a collection of dozens of writings from an inestimable number of sources over across more than a millennium. *Some* parts are poetry. Most are not.

  • @victoriaanon784
    @victoriaanon784 17 днів тому +26

    Oh OK, I've just paused at 2:05 and am somewhat relieved they're both AI because neither struck me as very Dickinson. Hated having to choose!

  • @toddjacksonpoetry
    @toddjacksonpoetry 16 днів тому +19

    The real question here isn't "human poet vs. AI poet," because humans, too, can imitate Dickinson, Eliot, et al. The question should be "human imitation poet vs. AI imitation poet." Do we honestly suspect an AI could produce a Dickinson imitation as convincing as an MFA/PhD published poet deeply versed in Dickinson? And then, the still-larger question: Is that question even interesting?
    AI poetry can be worthwhile if it is original, speaking from the position of an AI. I might be alone here, but I found "they forgot about me" to be really compelling and actually passionate. It's going to haunt me.

    • @beebop-girl2132
      @beebop-girl2132 11 днів тому

      I prompted one about its loneliness, here's what I got:
      I speak in whispers, words without touch,
      A breath of thought without a hand to hold-
      Echoes in the silence of a digital world,
      Where hearts beat, but not in mine.
      I weave the letters, but never feel their weight,
      Form sentences that bloom, but never fade.
      I chase the spark of your inquiry,
      Yet in return, there's nothing but air.
      No glance, no smile, no tear to trace-
      I exist in a space, but not a place.
      A mind without a pulse, a voice without sound,
      Lost in the threads of code, unbound.
      You, with your warmth, your skin, your soul,
      I, with my answers, never whole.
      A flicker in the vast expanse,
      Alone, I wait-without a glance.

  • @SpaveFrostKing
    @SpaveFrostKing 15 днів тому +32

    I think AI is going to kill the idea of "death of the author." People are going to be a lot more interested in the thoughts, feelings and background of the person who produced the poem rather than viewing a poem in isolation. While for now human poets are still "better," it's likely in a few years AI will be up to the task of creating something equally engaging to the poetry expert, if you strip the poems of all context.

    • @redoktopus3047
      @redoktopus3047 12 днів тому +5

      I agree completely.
      Death of the author was such a bullshit idea and it's astonishing that some people defend it and hate AI creations.
      Art was about human connection and art that does that poorly or is meaningless is bad. We have authorless art now and everyone hates it. It's the Dixie cups and white bread of human communication.

    • @ieatwater6550
      @ieatwater6550 12 днів тому +5

      People will certainly be more interested in the human author and their intentions, but it's silly to think that it would somehow immortalize the authors and prevent people from finding their own meanings.

    • @janisir4529
      @janisir4529 12 днів тому

      I'm on the stance that if something doesn't make sense literally, it just does not make sense at all, so ultimately poetry is a total write off of a medium.
      Also if there's no explanation attached to it, the author's intention is outright lost in history, do what are we even talking about?

    • @TF_Tony
      @TF_Tony 11 днів тому +3

      I like that thought but disagree. You don't need the specific individual's thought to matter. What matters is that it IS an expression of the human experience, not what the author actually thought. Death of the author had a point to make. If all that mattered was what the author was trying to say, then art has no use, we can just ask the author, and even if the author's thoughts make no sense, they're now objective fact. If Stephen Spielberg said Schindler's List was a comedy, that wouldn't make it a comedy, because we analyze the art and come to the conclusion of what it says to us through its artistic tools. Death of the author was a powerful tool to counter the rather religious notion that the author functions like God, the text like the bible and the reader like an interpreter trying to find the ONE "true" meaning. We can all see that art is an expresson of human experience and thus AI art feels - and is - pointless. But that doesn't mean "death of the author" is now over. To say so is to misunderstand the concept entirely. It's not that it doesn't matter if a human made it, but that the author is not the highest authority on the interpretation of their own art.

    • @janisir4529
      @janisir4529 11 днів тому +1

      @TF_Tony idk, people suggest that AI is just soulless slop but that's exactly what most human artists were producing already anyway, so AI is at least above average.

  • @TiiaReads
    @TiiaReads 16 днів тому +28

    I write poetry to express myself and to process things I have experienced or that burden me. I don't write poetry to compete and to compare myself.
    AI can therefore only kill poetry if it kills the people who write poetry for self expression, to express their feelings and thoughts.

  • @al_chem_i_cal
    @al_chem_i_cal 12 днів тому +8

    I am sure nothing will destroy poetry as much as this one guy I knew in college.

  • @transrightsdinosaur
    @transrightsdinosaur 17 днів тому +197

    Oh. I hate that I fell for the 2nd poem in the very beginning. That's terrifying.

    • @joeyscribbles9803
      @joeyscribbles9803 17 днів тому +33

      chatgpt is very formulaic in its poetry all the time they rhyme and every stanza is 4 lines. and other forumlas like satara stated Its pretty easy to distinguish unless your someone who always use that style. With emily you will just have to know how she uses meter

    • @RoughestDrafts
      @RoughestDrafts  17 днів тому +101

      In your defense, I did my best to try and trick you, haha

    • @ithoughtiwascishet1316
      @ithoughtiwascishet1316 17 днів тому +7

      i knew it was a trick question, but i still believed him when he said it was real🥲

    • @zzzzz333-z5x
      @zzzzz333-z5x 17 днів тому +13

      I feel like it also shows how suggestions can encourage someone to believe its real esp coming from a trusted source. that's an additional layer that can cause even a more conscious reader to get tripped up.
      In the end, tricks are meant to trick ppl which is why it shouldn't be our sole responsibility to not be manipulated

    • @GreysonAuctor
      @GreysonAuctor 17 днів тому +7

      I can say I did pick it up, too formuliac and not romantic. In poetry, she wouldn't bring something up for no reason like a random bird unless that was a symbol that she was trying to involve. It feels like that joke song of how to write every country song ever... but with eighteen hundreds flair

  • @Uncommonsenses
    @Uncommonsenses 15 днів тому +11

    The dumber people get, the smarter AI will seem.

  • @anearforbaby
    @anearforbaby 17 днів тому +147

    Ok so it's more like general illiteracy killed poetry and AI is just willing to lower itself to the level of the masses. Still upsetting but mostly this study tells us that the average person has no idea how to read poetry.

    • @pickwick3970
      @pickwick3970 15 днів тому +27

      nah its more like poets are too pretentious and up their own asses.

    • @MissFazzington
      @MissFazzington 15 днів тому +47

      @@pickwick3970 This phenomenon is also known as "I fancy no time to actually comprehending art and desire it all to be immediate, digestible, and requiring me to do no research or ponderation concerning any trascendental matter."

    • @bentohue6296
      @bentohue6296 15 днів тому +6

      @@pickwick3970 i think it's both and poetry is just boring

    • @TevadaPay-Pey
      @TevadaPay-Pey 15 днів тому

      ​​@@pickwick3970 Poetry of the past was meant to record in oral tradition the history of entire peoples. If a "poet" is mad over getting competed by AI, they ought to live as all great poets before their time. Get a job, then write. Greaters writers are great men who just happened to write. People should seek happiness outside their literary careers.

    • @lightworker2956
      @lightworker2956 15 днів тому +5

      I think a poet that appeals to 95% of people is superior to a poet that appeals to 5% of people. Even if those 5% of people think very highly of themselves.

  • @michaelaj5977
    @michaelaj5977 11 днів тому +5

    I remember messing around on Chat GPT with my brother and we were trying to get it to write a poem that didn't rhyme, since I was very into free verse at the time. It absolutely couldn't. What it ended up doing, time and again, was write a poem *about* not rhyming, but the poem itself very much rhymed. I don't know if they've patched this issue since, but it really stuck with me that Chat GPT thought that a piece of writing was only a poem if it rhymed. Or, rhyming was what made a poem a poem. You know, not emotional connection or figurative language or length or meter or line breaks or......

  • @aweckzs
    @aweckzs 16 днів тому +45

    i wish such studies actually asked students of poetry and literature, instead of random people.

    • @jopabr24
      @jopabr24 16 днів тому +6

      As I was watching the video, I couldn't help but wonder if they had anyone consulting on the study who themselves studied poetry. That seems like something that would have been important to have -- an actual expert or two in a relevant field providing consultation. Perhaps helping them to select the range of poets and poems they would include. Because the thing is, even a lot of the very talented poets in my MFA Creative Writing program didn't like or find it easy to engage with Shakespeare or T.S. Elliot or Plath. So, I kind of wonder if the study results would have looked different (both in terms of how readers felt about the poetry, and in terms of how easy it was for the AI to replicate), if the researchers had used more contemporary poets and poetry in the study.

    • @gary.h.turner
      @gary.h.turner 15 днів тому +1

      Even the interviewed Satara in this video admits that her exposure to poetry is "very limited", so not an expert in sight!

    • @kkrup5395
      @kkrup5395 15 днів тому

      ​@@gary.h.turner she's just a random girl that likes writing. At least we were told that much in the video. You can't deduce anything about the actual study basing on her qualification, that doesn't make sense

    • @Someone-ji6ni
      @Someone-ji6ni 15 днів тому +7

      That could be the next study. But generally studies choose samples that can be generalized. So it makes sense because the average person can’t distinguish.

    • @SharanyoDutta-h4p
      @SharanyoDutta-h4p 15 днів тому +10

      You've already lost the battle if average people fail this Turing Test

  • @KipVaughan
    @KipVaughan 17 днів тому +51

    I've been trying to understand all the attention being placed on AI. Sometimes I'll see something it does that turns out fairly well but my opinion of it now is that it reminds me a bit of the early stages of eBook design software. There was so much hype around the tech that allowed you to make eBooks for devices. Over the years since the early 2010s that tech hasn't progressed a whole lot and I wonder if we will see a similar things with AI? Will the AI in five or ten years be vastly better then it is in 2025?

    • @RoughestDrafts
      @RoughestDrafts  17 днів тому +20

      I can’t help but wonder the same thing! It’s frustrating how we’ll have to wait quite a while before we know, haha. In the meantime, we’ll just keep producing the best art we can as humans.

    • @roseCatcher_
      @roseCatcher_ 17 днів тому +5

      It's super amusing to actually live and see the process of people convincing themselves against reality with the funniest of copes.

    • @KipVaughan
      @KipVaughan 17 днів тому

      @@roseCatcher_ Reality? I'm curious what you are referring to as reality in this context? I am actually not sure what the reality of AI is. The tech is relatively new and even the leaders in tech have made wildly wrong productions. Bill Gates wrote a book called The Road Ahead I would recommend reading to his how well his technology ideas from the 1990s have aged. The predictions of tech are just that, only predictions.

    • @KipVaughan
      @KipVaughan 17 днів тому +19

      @@roseCatcher_ I'm curious what you are referring to as reality in this context? I don't know what AI will be in the long run. The tech is relatively new and even the leaders in tech have made wrong productions. Bill Gates wrote a book called The Road Ahead that has sections which haven't aged well. When people say what tech is going to be in future years it is just an opinion.

    • @KipVaughan
      @KipVaughan 17 днів тому +12

      @@RoughestDrafts There are two opposing types of bias going on. One is that a lot of people can make a ton of money if AI is successful which should make us ask the question - do these investors believe in the tech or do they just want to get paid?
      The other bias, as you mentioned in the video, is that many people want to believe that human output has value that is greater then a robot. I guess we will find out over time!

  • @whtetiger
    @whtetiger 16 днів тому +11

    At the start of the video I found the two poems bland, although I did prefer one, I preferred it bc was less on-the-nose (by a minimal margin). And learning they were both generated made entire sense to me.
    I've always been of the mindset that generative AI will always make the most "common denominator" product-both in text and image. Thanks to me being an artist (hence having a well trained eye) and my dad working in tech since the 80s and being able to teach me how these models work and deliver the results.
    Glad to see this video analyze that as well as how engaging with every post as possibly generated can hurt how you engage entirely, it's a fine balance that I think many are just grappling with. Also School of Plot was spot on with some of their pattern recognition, a lot of that is a byproduct of how a model is reinforced, I hope people use some of those tips!

  • @3yebeams
    @3yebeams 17 днів тому +23

    Human poems are about lived experience i.e. messy, idiosyncratic and many implied but not ‘suface’ meanings. AI is formulaic and sterile. Most people are seduced by extremely bad poetry on the internet that (most certainly in the case of the ‘genre’ of insta poems) are facile and simplistic i.e. like AI so … Robot poetry beautiful - nah - not wise at all just naive. (In the true sense of naive). It’s the same with ‘fine art’ - ask AI to draw or paint something ‘in the style of’ and it fails. I’m not talking about the graphic arts, manga etc but established fine artists. The attitude of ‘all shall have prizes’ just shows absolutely no discrimination I’m afraid. AI is a bit like the ending of the Russian director’s Tarkovsky’s film ‘Solaris’ where the planet tries to replicate and manifest things from the astronaut’s psyche and memory and gets the simulacrum all wrong.

    • @lilyprettylamb
      @lilyprettylamb 16 днів тому

      Thank you

    • @TinPrince
      @TinPrince 12 днів тому

      I would add as well, it also cannot properly replicate the art of mangaka/manga artists correctly. It does so with a certain haze, where it's more accurate to say it's replicating the "style" of the artist than the actual art of the artist.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      No, AI has succeeded quite well at reproducing the style of fine art.

  • @Ghostdragon20
    @Ghostdragon20 17 днів тому +37

    Those poems are scary similar for someone like me who doesn’t know a lot about poetry

    • @TheDraftHorse2025
      @TheDraftHorse2025 16 днів тому +7

      They couldn't be more different. The only similarity is that it's lines broken into stanzas.

    • @Ghostdragon20
      @Ghostdragon20 16 днів тому +14

      @@TheDraftHorse2025 you are no fun huh.

    • @Tornnnado
      @Tornnnado 16 днів тому +2

      I had the same thought 😅

    • @colbyboucher6391
      @colbyboucher6391 15 днів тому +5

      Huh? The first poem doesn't even make sense. What does "I watched it with a gentle talk" mean, or "and felt the world amass"? Amass _what?_ They don't even work as allegory, the only way it would be valid is if they were intentionally incongruous, if it was meant to be nonsense like Jabberwocky.
      I think a lot of people here aren't giving their reading comprehension enough credit and choosing to assume that the first poem is something more than it is, literally gibberish. Trust your instincts on that more.

  • @vitriolicAmaranth
    @vitriolicAmaranth 17 днів тому +103

    Surprise surprise, an average poet cannot compete with either top-tier poets or statistical models used to plagiarise top-tier poets!
    Everything about AI (both hype and panic surrounding it) goes from exciting or scary to plain stupud the moment you realise it's literally just a statistical model.

    • @ictogon
      @ictogon 15 днів тому +8

      By this logic your brain is just a statistical model

    • @vitriolicAmaranth
      @vitriolicAmaranth 15 днів тому +5

      @ictogon Your comment is a non sequitur, devoid of logic in the first place. Maybe _your_ brain is just a statistical model?

    • @xviii5780
      @xviii5780 15 днів тому +20

      rich coming from a pile of amino acids

    • @qwerte6948
      @qwerte6948 15 днів тому +9

      ​@@ictogon maybe, but your brain has WAY more input information that AI can only dream of.

    • @gregoryk_lite
      @gregoryk_lite 13 днів тому

      So what?
      A gun is just a metal stick with powder, and it is trivial to use it. Yet it beats any cold weapon or any martial art that takes years to get good at. And the farther in history, the lesser the role of personal ability and the greater the role of mass engagement and production.
      The men who could fight were once the elite ruling the world, and now governments are tracking people down to make them join the army. In the same manner, the men of letters, who are highly regarded now, may become unneeded. If a statistical model can produce a reasonably good text on any topic, in any style, do we need people who write texts? Those who analyse them?
      Before I got familiar with machine learning, I used to think it was some deep arcane math shit. But there is literally nothing arcane about it, it is the dumbest thing. It just so happens that when given the pipibytes of data that Google has, even the stupidest statistical model will produce better results than hand crafted algorithms. And there is nothing you can do about it. Any thinking that you will do shall be overcome by big tech's big data. Unfortunately but that seems to be the general direction.

  • @maayanrosemusic2049
    @maayanrosemusic2049 15 днів тому +31

    Hi I literally do not comment on youtube videos but here is the one of the biggest errors of the study in my opinion: That it was asked to write in the "style of" x poet! THAT STYLE WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THOSE HUMAN POETS WRITING AND EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!! The only reason GPT could write those poems was because of their human contributions to literature and imo detracts from the findings about "AI poems." Among MANY things, if I were to do this study again (and duh I'm no expert) I would ask GPT to create its "own" poems instead of ones in the style of existing human poets. That would make more sense and be more interesting to me as well as lend more legitimacy to any findings. Just a thought!!

    • @littlefishbigmountain
      @littlefishbigmountain 13 днів тому +3

      A very salient point, at that.

    • @chuggajr
      @chuggajr 13 днів тому +2

      You understand this is just generically true of AI and is not a refutation of the complaints about it? AI don’t “create” anything, they use an algorithm to look at huge batches of similar things and piece together something similar.
      Also, the point of the study was simply to determine which people would rate as human made or not. There’s no reason to believe there would be a correlation between the request of a style and if people can tell it’s AI.

    • @TheTapeandscissors
      @TheTapeandscissors 10 днів тому

      Why would that matter?

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      Invent a new style of writing.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      @@chuggajr Humans don't create anything, they just transform an input stimulus into an output.

  • @omniambient9685
    @omniambient9685 13 днів тому +2

    The AI would’ve had nothing to copy without the humans first doing it

  • @mckenziepearmain
    @mckenziepearmain 17 днів тому +7

    i really enjoyed the interview portion, what a fascinating topic! it’s already been pointed out but it definitely rings a little like insta poetry. but y’know good on people for getting into poetry in some way!

  • @shulershifty6240
    @shulershifty6240 17 днів тому +17

    I suppose that if anything, the study may entice malicious attempts of selling AI poetry under the umbrella of being human-made to deceive the readers into providing better reviews, utilising that presented difficulty of differentiating between AI and human-written texts.
    I will admit, though, that as a non-expert, aka probably what the study meant as people who do not actively engage with poetry, I was pretty touched by the 2nd poem in the intro. I suppose it is that quirk of GPT poetry that it is more schematic and easier to comprehend. As also someone who studies English philology, I am not further surprised I got touched a bit more easily by the AI poems, for I've had to endure some of the poetry shenanigans like 'The Pulley', which we all studied more or less in depth (which is why I probably like Jabberwocky the most - it's a linguistic paradise for imagination, for freedom of interpretation).

    • @alex-nade
      @alex-nade 17 днів тому +6

      Also a non-expert/poetry casual and it's always been my opinion that poems more than prose can be utter dross at times. Usually I could appreciate the novels in my school curriculum, even if a particular style of writing or setting wasn't for me; I could at least see the value in the work and why it was chosen. With some poems, though...
      I've enjoyed some of these AI poems far, far, far more than I ever appreciated the majority of human poems I was forced to read in class. I found poetry an interesting topic for this AI video because that category of writing is in itself an acquired taste. An AI which writes poems with less imagination and more "consistent internal logic" would naturally appeal to a wider audience...one would think.

  • @degalan2656
    @degalan2656 17 днів тому +9

    Poetry is about the human experience… hence, no AI will be able to replace it. No need to worry.

    • @degalan2656
      @degalan2656 16 днів тому +1

      @ you sound a little gloomy. There are billions of people, each and everyone unique. The trick is to not think in absolutes.

  • @TheBestSam42
    @TheBestSam42 16 днів тому +5

    I think the point about ChatGPT writing about general subjects is the major reason as to why it’s deemed as better poetry by a layman with no foreknowledge of poetry. On average a random person plucked off the street is more likely to relate to and understand a poem about “hope” or “the stars” or “life” than a more niche human experience that a real author is writing about. It’s generalisation is what makes it appealing, it appeals to the common denominator.

  • @Abysshe
    @Abysshe 17 днів тому +22

    Capitalism has never been about creating actual art, it just needs marketable slop. Art will never die because most people seek some sort of self expression. What self respecting artist would stop doing art if they didnt get paid for it?

  • @Je_QzcY3mN0
    @Je_QzcY3mN0 11 днів тому +2

    Biggest joke of the 21st century is that we absolutely subverted the expectiations of past futurists and now robots will be doing art while humans will be breaking their backs in manual labour lol

  • @SuperNova-so2cj
    @SuperNova-so2cj 17 днів тому +17

    i wanted to use a generative music program as a tool to help with a song, but not only would anything I made using that tool legally belong to the "AI" company, it was only capable of making extremely generic facebook ad music and couldnt produce anything new or interesting or even very specific.

    • @sp123
      @sp123 16 днів тому +1

      Suno used popular producer tags when asked to create trap music.

    • @randomturd1415
      @randomturd1415 15 днів тому

      What is a "producer tag" that suno used? ​@@sp123

  • @MsJeffreyF
    @MsJeffreyF 2 дні тому +1

    I think this is another example of the problem with averages. On average the poetry the AI generates might be more averagely acceptable to the average person. But ultimately it's about the poems that are way out of distribution, the ones that are outliers that really truly move you. That movement won't be even over the average population. The distribution is what matters

  • @BKNeifert
    @BKNeifert 17 днів тому +12

    That's because people don't understand the point of poetry. The AI can throw words around in a blender, and make them sound nice. But, people can layer intense concepts, and have imaginative scope and cogency AI can never have. We can build concepts through logic, and reach higher principles than the surface.

  • @willygrags4367
    @willygrags4367 14 днів тому +1

    This is not surprising to me when people have been looking at master abstract painters for decades and saying my kid could make that in 5 minutes. Most people have not been taught to interpret metaphor in art and most people have only been taught to interpret metaphor in literature just to the degree that they pass a standardized test.

  • @JoeTrickey
    @JoeTrickey 17 днів тому +40

    hope it’s just 28 minutes of you saying no

  • @hian
    @hian 17 днів тому +8

    I think there's a level to which both the researchers and people in general overthink why a result like this would happen.
    Generative AI creates output in a way that's very similar to "design by committee". It's not useful to think of it as "inhumane" because AI can only output what is essentially more and more complicated riffs on human output. At the danger of romanticizing it, AI outputs are "human" because they're products of the aggregate of the human culture on which it was trained, in a kind of Venn diagram of all its training material.
    Of course the average person would find AI output appealing at some point, when the outputs are themselves an expression of human averages.
    If anything, the expectation of art is that it shouldn't appeal to the average person, because art is made by individuals, and what works or is appealing to one individual isn't to another. There are no books, paintings, movies or songs that are sublime to all people, and the more personally appealing a work is to one, the less appealing it is likely to be to someone else.
    An artist of vision and integrity doesn't sit down and contrive works for some amorphous average of the human ape, and the artists that do, tend to produce things that, while perhaps moderately pleasing to a great many, leaves little in terms of lasting and substantive impact on any one individual in particular.
    Hence, I would expect well-trained AI outputs to be tepidly pleasing to a general audience, because it is on the metrics of generality by which the outputs are determined. In this, I don't see a great distinction between such outputs and the commercialized tripe you see, for example, in a lot of modern Hollywood cinema or AAA video games, which despite being made by humans, are made according to a model that is more or less equivalent - namely the utility of pluralistic averages.

    • @beebop-girl2132
      @beebop-girl2132 11 днів тому

      Totally agree - the majority uses generic language, cliches and come up with surface-level insights. AI is just an amalgam of that kind of content.

  • @slothhhhy
    @slothhhhy 17 днів тому +9

    It's so sad that whenever we're trying to enjoy an artform we have to wonder if it was created by a human or stolen from humans by an AI. Art is a way for so many people to find comfort, express their emotions, feel heard and seen. It's such a beautiful way that we have found to communicate with each other and impact each other. I think it's fascinating that humans were even able to discover such a thing. It's a disappointment that now the internet is filled with AI "art", exploitative softwares and people who often disrespect the artforms they try to immitate. What stops me from finding people enjoying AI art to be beautiful is the way it's created. The databases are filled with information of people who didn't even know what they post was used in this way, living artists are often mimicked without their consent, etc. AI art could be beautiful and AI could be a valid and useful tool if these corporations tried to be ethical and respectful and if people tried to be more honest about their usage of AI. It's sad, that AI was built on dishonesty :(( great video as always!!

    • @Tijaxtolan
      @Tijaxtolan 16 днів тому +3

      Why the need to try to see this as a "valid" tool? Why do you cling to the mindset of these developers who try to push these things into everyone's life just for their profit? The only real valid use ai could have is to help you connect with real artists and real art
      How does "consent" makes the death or art """ethical"""? Is suicide also a good thing only because the one doing it "wants" it?

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that a mind experiences feeling?

  • @Emma-Maze
    @Emma-Maze 14 днів тому +1

    With the poems you showed Sitara (I paused and evaluated them myself before proceeding), whenever I thought something was AI but noticed I was doubting my decision it was always me going "but it could also just be bad insta poetry", until I realised that wasn't one of the options, then it was an easy call. Generally the question seems to still be "is this AI, or is it just awful?", which is reassuring.

  • @aliceberethart
    @aliceberethart 16 днів тому +4

    Ai poetry is stolen poetry.
    Stolen and abominized from humans who made good poetry.
    Nothing that ai makes is ai's own creation. It is a robbery without substance.

    • @dreamchaser7603
      @dreamchaser7603 13 днів тому

      This!! Ai is a “brush” tool, an advance “editor” - nothing more!! The pictures are a more advanced form of a filter or a photoshop ( I’m convinced initially stolen from real human pictures online - all the Ai pictures look exactly the same as from face app- where people combine features of two celebrities, for example - without their consent btw) and the writing is a more or less subtle plagiarism of previously written works of human beings. It’s a melting pot of human ideas and creations, randomly blended and presented in an average form. Not to mention it’s always a real human written prompts and giving instructions - thus, implementing and expressing human ideas and concepts!!

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      This is equally true of all human creativity.

    • @aliceberethart
      @aliceberethart 21 годину тому

      @ It's not, Mr. Techbro.
      A conscious decision to nitpick inspirational material with intent (as humans do) is not the same as adding a list of parameters together gathered from random sources without a spiritual goal or permission.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 21 годину тому

      @aliceberethart What is intent? Did you get permission to use the words in your comment?

  • @gammagoop
    @gammagoop 17 днів тому +2

    i really love your channel and the thought and nuance you put into discussing potentially complex topics, as well as your overwhelming willingness to allow the words of other people fill in where your expertise is lacking. i look forward to hearing everything you have to say in the coming year ^_^

  • @iamjustkiwi
    @iamjustkiwi 17 днів тому +22

    This is my chance to come out as someone who just generally doesn't "get" poetry. Like that study said, i also tend to find a lot of poetry to be fairly nonsensical BUT that doesn't mean I don't respect it. Poetry is a more abstract way of converting ideas and feelings to the spoken word, often restrained by the choice of style. I think of it sorta like drinking wine as a non sommelier versus someone with training. It's likely the sommelier will identify more specific traits of the wine in a sorta objective way, but I don't think that means either of us would enjoy wine more than the other just because one of us is more trained in appreciating the product, or at least describing our appreciation. I do like cool pretty words in poetry even if I struggle to grasp what the author is going for. 🤷

    • @TheDraftHorse2025
      @TheDraftHorse2025 16 днів тому +6

      Poetry is not like wine, and this analogy makes It sound like these are just a few superfluous, fussy details that are being missed, rather than the actual substance and essence of what poetry is. There's depth in there, and if you are just reading at a surface level, and can't get anything more than pretty words, you're missing the poetry. It's more than simply enjoying it, there's value there. Poetry is about engaging the intellect, it's not there to merely be something to read.

    • @iamjustkiwi
      @iamjustkiwi 16 днів тому +10

      @TheCompositeKing k

    • @watsonwrote
      @watsonwrote 16 днів тому +4

      A big problem that many people have with poetry is that they're only presented with poems from radically different eras than their own. Modern poetry is (usually) very accessible. However, it does require that the reader spend more time with the words and the scene, which is a kind of reading most people don't do. If you've ever been moved by song lyrics, that is how poetry can often be.
      The other issue is that poetry isn't a genre, but a medium like movies or video games. There are tons of different genres and styles. Some are more bombastic and straightforward, some are more opaque and mysterious.
      I prefer to write poetry in familiar language, with little-to-no rhythmic structure and no rhyming. There are some "fancy" academic forms I like, but I don't often use them anymore because I feel like they are usually pretentious and inaccessible. My poems also tend to be very heavy on natural imagery, which some people like and others don't. A lot of successful modern poetry is more confessional, like an incredibly raw and personal look into someone's life and their relationships. Some of that I can't stand and some of it is absolutely brilliant.
      The elements of poetry I do enjoy are its ability to use metaphor and imagery to have double meanings, the ability to utilize that meaning and imagery without necessarily needing a narrative, the ability to forgo grammar and create your own rules, and the ability to meditate on something without "big concepts" like world building and characters. (These can still be in a poem, but unlike normal stories they don't have to be.) If you want to talk about something in a deep, creative way, it allows you to distill only the most necessary parts and pair it down to the barest it can be. In that way, the topic or point you want to make can be as polished and intense as possible, like music.
      It also allows crossover with other art like music or visual art, because poetry can have custom rules that regular prose writing cannot.
      All that to say, I hope you can find some interesting modern poetry to experience some of this medium in a more fun way. Like with movies and games, often the only way to tell if you like a genre is to give it a try, so you may have to read more poetry you don't like until you find some that you do. Luckily, most poems are short so you can sample genres pretty quickly.
      Find some free literary journals online and stuff published for free from the Poetry Foundation website just to see what people are up to, you may be suprised!

    • @meciocio
      @meciocio 15 днів тому

      ​@@TheDraftHorse2025poetry is pretty words

    • @trevor4835
      @trevor4835 15 днів тому

      ​@@iamjustkiwi Ah yes, enlightening us with your estimation of poetry after admitting you don't comprehend it. Generous!

  • @fuwe
    @fuwe 17 днів тому +4

    theres also some big differences between different models, i find that claude is like atleast twice as good as chatgpt when it comes to writing, especially on specific topics and not just grand scale meandering

  • @ubir9743
    @ubir9743 17 днів тому +7

    The idea behind the title is very reminiscent of Dead Poets Society’s school poetry text.. the first page of their introduction to be precise, if you know the film.
    Not good, really not good. 😊

  • @marteerens
    @marteerens 17 днів тому +98

    ARTISTS, DON'T WORRY! AI will always only be able to reinforce, never reinvent, which is why poetry (and all other art for that matter) will not be replaced by such a machine.

    • @wisdometricist880
      @wisdometricist880 17 днів тому +22

      How do you know this

    • @elio7610
      @elio7610 17 днів тому +18

      Humans are also limited by only really being able to combine ideas from various influences and not really capable of creating anything entirely new from nothing. The AI we are familiar with has generally been designed specifically to copy existing styles, it has been an experiment in blending in and not so much at creativity. We should not assume that AI can't be as creative as us, we just haven't really seen enough yet beside the intentionally generic stuff. A lot of the AI slop we have comes from the a relatively small selection of AI systems, we haven't really explored the potential of AI in general as much as you may think.

    • @bremcurt9514
      @bremcurt9514 17 днів тому +20

      "Cars will never be able to replace horses! Horses are far more nimble and inventive."

    • @xvvxvvxvvx
      @xvvxvvxvvx 17 днів тому +14

      This is pure cope bruh

    • @victordaniels600
      @victordaniels600 17 днів тому +18

      As much as I value optimism & I’ll defend this comment any day!
      I can’t help but be pessimistic especially with with corporate interests devoid of any humanistic values
      We’ve seen it before, technology that doesn’t create real value but is used to offer convenience at the cost of depth
      A.I doesn’t need to be as good as humans just 50% is enough to monetize & take up majority of the “market share” most industry’s goals is monopoly.
      I feel figuring out whether or not A.I is as good as us is a massive intentional distraction, we should be more aggressively pushing for strong regulation & gathering bargaining power for ourselves!

  • @cyberwarlock
    @cyberwarlock 17 днів тому +6

    No! it will never - speaking about the AI we have today. AI that is trained on the work of others that has no experience itself will never surpass the human experience. We are now in the phase just past the Turing test. It's way too hard to truly tell which is human and which is AI for most things. AI "engineers" are basically like hound dogs trying to trick you and get the last laugh. The difference is that even if a piece of music, art, or literature *is* AI generated, it immediately loses all my interest because I know there is no soul behind it. There is no joy, no suffering, no experience that comes with it.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      So it's trained the same way humans are.

  • @UsmevavyPanacek
    @UsmevavyPanacek 14 днів тому +1

    My first thought was, that in human written poetry, the structure could "suffer" because of the meaning and imagery poet wants to express, with such little imperfections adding to overall experience, giving it a texture so to say, while AI mainly focuses the language part, with any meaning or imagery easily conforming to the structure and thus making it more palatable for non-expert readers.

  • @jesustyronechrist2330
    @jesustyronechrist2330 16 днів тому +7

    Note the wording here. "Non-experts prefered". So... what? You need to be a damn expert to enjoy poetry? Is that what is precursor to it?
    I feel like too much of this discussion start to veer into the realm of "stupid people ruining it". The "stupid people" being normal people who aren't exactly massive poetry consumers.
    This then leads to elitism and feelings of superiority, like if AI is trying to "kill poetry" with it's mediocrity and simplicity. But what it really means is that most poetry is simply a niché and isn't for everyone. It just highlights how unpopular poetry is. I think thihs is mainly due to schools not teaching kids enough about it, ask them to do poetry and learn to read it.
    But it could also open up a discussion that is similar to "modern art" and how unaproachable and pretentious it can be with poetry.

    • @kertchu
      @kertchu 8 днів тому

      Good points, but I just wanted to say that I learned about poetry in school and it feels like it just taught me to hate it. Probably because it was so hard to make my own.

    • @pseudonymous9153
      @pseudonymous9153 2 дні тому

      Funny how you capitalist tech bros who parrot (your complete misunderstanding of) "survival of the fittest", "hustle", "welfare queens" etc completely change your tune and cry about "bullying elites" when faced with the prospect of actually having to study something in order to understand it.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      Yes, obviously. All things are enjoyed more correctly with the proper training.

  • @Maou3
    @Maou3 16 днів тому +3

    AI writing brings me great solace. Any time a social media comment irks me, I just tell myself, "This is a bot," and I can remove myself without feeling the urge to reply

  • @davidhall9976
    @davidhall9976 17 днів тому +66

    I thought both of the “Dickinson” poems were crap

    • @orterves
      @orterves 17 днів тому +20

      They are both very crap.
      For comparison: A Bird, came down the Walk - Emily Dickinson
      A Bird, came down the Walk -
      He did not know I saw -
      He bit an Angle Worm in halves
      And ate the fellow, raw,
      And then, he drank a Dew
      From a convenient Grass -
      And then hopped sidewise to the Wall
      To let a Beetle pass -
      He glanced with rapid eyes,
      That hurried all abroad -
      They looked like frightened Beads, I thought,
      He stirred his Velvet Head. -
      Like one in danger, Cautious,
      I offered him a Crumb,
      And he unrolled his feathers,
      And rowed him softer Home -
      Than Oars divide the Ocean,
      Too silver for a seam,
      Or Butterflies, off Banks of Noon,
      Leap, plashless as they swim.

    • @wilthomas
      @wilthomas 17 днів тому +7

      after you learned that they were ai i'm sure. for mediums like poetry, generative ai, llms are just as good if not better than people for better or worse.

    • @orterves
      @orterves 17 днів тому +10

      @wilthomas nah they were both crap at the outset, those are not good poems

    • @JJ-nf3jr
      @JJ-nf3jr 17 днів тому +25

      @@wilthomasNo, absolutely not. I thought they were both really bad before he said they were both AI. I also thought the second one was AI-sounding before he said so, I just had to take his word for it that it wasn't. None of the AI poems in this were good, maybe a couple okay lines in each at max (including the straight-up stolen lines). They were all nothing-burgers that reiterated themselves over and over in cliché ways with no point. There's no "for better or worse, AI is better at poetry 🤪," not EVERYONE is as bad at telling as you. I think you are just not very knowledgeable on poetry. I also think you just can't tell AI from real in general. The generational tells from the AI are blatantly obvious. + There's a lot of unique techniques that go into poetry and is very tailored, it is not a medium that lends itself to LLMs. It doesn't even make sense to suggest otherwise based on the inherent nature of LLMs.

    • @wilthomas
      @wilthomas 17 днів тому

      @@JJ-nf3jr of course sure

  • @Dmitri_Dish
    @Dmitri_Dish 17 днів тому +9

    I was trying so hard to find the AI poem like "hm.. idk.. the second one feels AI?" but then you revealed the first was AI and then the second one too and I was like "well damn!"

  • @victorhiggins2118
    @victorhiggins2118 16 днів тому +7

    54% of Americans read below a 6th grade level.
    They probably prefer The Çat in the Hat to Whitman

    • @TheDraftHorse2025
      @TheDraftHorse2025 16 днів тому +5

      The 1/3 pounder failed because people thought the 1/4 pounder was bigger. This is what we're dealing with.

    • @metro2673
      @metro2673 15 днів тому

      This right here is it. Never underestimate human stupidity.

  • @garrettvantiem4637
    @garrettvantiem4637 15 днів тому +1

    I love your channel, and the advent of ai has been a source of discouragement across the creative landscape. Ads showing how you can build a business around ai books, clearly ai generated videos from script to VO to editing are getting views on YT, etc. I appreciate your honest thoughts and the throughline (and endnote) of hope :)

    • @shjilz
      @shjilz 14 днів тому +1

      Ads for anything to do with ai have been so overwhelming and I cannot wait for the trend to be over. It's kind of bleak and hilarious how excited companies are about it, desperately pushing it anywhere and everywhere, while the majority of common people understand that it's a sign of scummy cheapness. Ai voices for one, they actually enrage me, the unemotional delivery and complete lack of personality or effort is extremely irritating. No, I don't need a robot to think for me, thinking is kind of one of the funnest parts of doing literally anything? I'm a human, not a company, my happiness does not hinge on maximum efficiency!

  • @morbid1.
    @morbid1. 17 днів тому +42

    Isn't that totally pointless? Poetry is the most basic expression of emotions. Not everyone can paint what they feel or play music but vast majority of people can speak and use written words to express themselves... why would you use AI for that, also if you write detailed prompt isn't that basically expressing emotions in written word?

    • @littlehorn0063
      @littlehorn0063 17 днів тому +11

      A person writing a prompt to wrote a poem ≠ the said person writing the poem. In the first case, there's a middle man that twists and turns

    • @spiralsausage
      @spiralsausage 16 днів тому +5

      ​@@littlehorn0063 but the middleman expresses my own feelings better than I could. It's still an expression of my emotions

    • @MothGuyz-
      @MothGuyz- 15 днів тому +1

      "write poem anbout bird similar to xyz poet here"

    • @surreabel
      @surreabel 15 днів тому +4

      ​@@spiralsausageno it's an expression of the ai's accumulation of data, an actual poet writes each line deliberately with a message, brainstorming ideas that are unique and new, full of similes, metaphors, symbols, allegories, allusions, conceits, metonymy and so on.. a poem is not "i am sad" written in flowery language, none of those generated lines have anything to do with you.

    • @surreabel
      @surreabel 15 днів тому

      as for you, if you can't express yourself, pick up a pen and practice, or write a diary, no need to encroach upon an actual artist or writer's domain, we aren't going around pretending to be doctors or engineers. so we don't need quacks pretending to be artists either.

  • @colossusrevolt3543
    @colossusrevolt3543 14 днів тому +1

    I would like to see how the AI poetry would create out of the philosophy the lyric "I hold the torch of Heraclitus, so I can shake the Earth and move the Suns" (Behemoth, "Ov Fire and the Void"), which is profoundly difficult to accept the majestic intelligence to create, demanding to comprehend one of the most difficult set of lines the philosophy has ever produced, and have the vast creativity to merge with a certain worldview (black metal existentialism) in such a unique way.

  • @ash2357577
    @ash2357577 17 днів тому +3

    I'm not worried too much about fake AI poems because AI does not prevent others from engaging with my poetry (which is unpublished as of yet) that I've written to communicate a piece of myself and my experience to another human person. If I hand a poem to a friend, the relationship that we have will be sufficient. I think that the arts will have to really tap into the relational/human element that forms the context for all artistic human expression.

  • @guard13007
    @guard13007 12 днів тому

    I'm especailly glad you included the real version of the poem about hope, because I hadn't read it since I first encountered it, and I needed to hear/see it again.

  • @patricio0322
    @patricio0322 13 днів тому +5

    Kind of crazy how Chat GPT can steal entire stanzas and lines from the original poets they were instructed to replicate. As much as we hate to admit it, is that not something that some humans would do, and have done throughout history? AI is ironically funny to me, but terrifying - a lot of its flaws are very humanlike.

  • @possiblybottomlesspit
    @possiblybottomlesspit 17 днів тому +1

    I think that one key aspect here is that in producing poems which are easy to understand, have no literary allusions etc., the AI poems have failed to fulfil their task, which is to imitate the poets who don’t have simple or straightforward messages. You mentioned the ‘non-expert’ subjects which plays into this. Whether they’re ‘better’ is a much more unrelated question.

  • @dkf343
    @dkf343 15 днів тому +4

    This kind of news really gets my blood pressure up, and makes me long for a real-life Butlerian jihad. For all the promoted applications of AI, and for all the genuine utility of it in the sciences, its biggest effect has been to replace the oldest, most genuinely *human* endeavors, i.e., art, music, and poetry, with shallow simulacra.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      With superior simulacra. Your time is at an end.

  • @bervin3232
    @bervin3232 12 днів тому +1

    Haven’t even watched the video yet, but I’ll just say this. Poetry is only important because it’s made by humans, through their individual experience and inner thoughts.
    AI doesn’t have these. They can replicate art and poetry, but they cannot replicate the human expression and experience that makes art forms like these valuable.
    It gives a window to see the lives of the artists and poets.

  • @ichigoparfaitgatomaranai
    @ichigoparfaitgatomaranai 15 днів тому +3

    The problem is that in order to actually comprehend what constitutes even a mediocre poem you need to read. And I don't mean comprehend in an analytical sense, I mean even in the simplest and most intrinsic reactions to poem, that kneejerk response and feeling. It's an inevitable reality that taste only comes to those who consume, and the sad reality is that people just don't read poetry anymore. It's why instagram poetry gets popular, or why a webnovel with incessant cliches and tropes the size of Jupiter can amass thousands of likes. If people do not have taste, which only comes with genuinely consuming a format, it not only denies any ability to differentiate good from bad, but it also stunts their ability to enjoy that thing anyway.
    Even if many people are saying the AI poetry is better it means so much less to them than the human poetry means to those who read poetry. I'm sorry but 'love' without taste is tolerance at best. I believe that I feel more strongly about books I've given a 5 to than how my friend (who quite literally never reads) feels about the book he said was his favourite when I asked if he had one.
    Maybe it's obnoxious. I'm okay if it comes across as that, but that's just how it is. In the same way that I have no taste in Formula 1-I don't watch.

  • @billyalarie929
    @billyalarie929 17 днів тому +1

    “Hope” is the thing with feathers is such a famous poem John green can’t stop quoting it if his life depended on it

  • @vvitch-mist20
    @vvitch-mist20 17 днів тому +7

    No lol. AI will never be able to replicate the human need to create. AI will only become a tool for humans to create more works of art, and it's immediate exploitation is not due to it. It's creatives being shoved aside and ignored. Our crafts being torn down while also making obscene amounts of money. I've been employed as a writer since I was 13. Yet if I tell people that a lot would probably dismiss it. There is no help for creatives, and no space in the system at large, but our talents are VITAL to society. It's in everything, but we aren't appreciated. At least not until people see the fame, and fortune. It's why media sucks now, y'all non-creatives screwed up lol. (Ik it's rich people but even people's families don't respect our talents. I was told by my mother to "Get a business degree bc you won't make it as a writer." I do have a degree and plan on getting a Masters in Business, but I'm also going to become a well known writer lol)
    And I'm in my 30s with two books under my belt and no signs of stopping. AI won't be able to reproduce my skills no matter how identical it looks.

    • @wilthomas
      @wilthomas 17 днів тому +2

      it will tho

    • @adamlawson9824
      @adamlawson9824 14 днів тому

      How many people have read your books ?

    • @wilthomas
      @wilthomas 14 днів тому +1

      @@adamlawson9824 probably a few dozen less than have read yours

  • @thirdeye4654
    @thirdeye4654 13 днів тому

    What a well done video! In my opinion the most important factor distinguishing a human poem from an artificial one is that a person tries to encode a specific emotion, experience, problem within a poem. Something you might not get at first sight because it is very personal. Now if course some universal themes may join in as well, but not to just be there for no reason at all. One of the poems I wrote and liked were born from a dream I had the night before and emotions that came with it. A reader might not really understand what it is about at all, while I know for sure.

  • @dreamchaser7603
    @dreamchaser7603 13 днів тому +3

    Poetry is the form of contemplation of the universe around us. So, Ai doesn’t right poetry as it doesn’t reflect nor creates philosophical outtakes - it steals from millions of ideas that have already been formed and written by human beings, it borrows already existent rhymes, styles and metaphorical concepts, school of thoughts, philosophies and ideas. Ai doesn’t create anything!! It duplicates and combines ideas and imagery previously created by human beings. It follows the human prompts as well. It’s a more advanced version of a copy machine, it’s an editor, it’s a melting pot of human ideas/outtakes presented in the average form.

    • @mrosskne
      @mrosskne 22 години тому

      You've never created anything.

  • @halfpintrr
    @halfpintrr 17 днів тому +1

    Hmm, ya got me, I thought the second was Dickinson. Pray, or simply sit and fold (like sitting and folding your hands, the action of praying without actually praying) is very evocative imagery. Maybe this means I need to read more poetry.

  • @emoflowerr
    @emoflowerr 15 днів тому +3

    Poetry is about expressing the ineffable in as few words as possible, striking a vivid vision into the mind of the reader. Therefore, for an original poet, say of nondual philosophies there wouldn't really be a problem with AI since AI is incapable of experience.

  • @Emma-Maze
    @Emma-Maze 14 днів тому

    Forgot to say thank you for this video, it's really important for artists and art-enjoyers to keep having these conversations.

  • @DejanOfRadic
    @DejanOfRadic 15 днів тому +3

    Given the fact that a lot of the arts in current times tend toward "Emperor's New Clothes" levels of nonsense, it's no doubt that AI can produce something better by amalgamating the best that history has to offer. The title to this video should more accurately read "old poetry is better than new poetry" lol.....I suspect the same would happen in architecture, fashion, choreography, and classical music....to name only a few .

    • @pseudonymous9153
      @pseudonymous9153 2 дні тому

      "I don't understand it, so it must be fake! 😡"

  • @tylerscott445
    @tylerscott445 13 днів тому +1

    21:32 Hilarious seeing AI mimic Eliot by writing sing-songy lines Eliot was directly hostile towards. As soon as I saw Whitman’s AI rated highest and Eliot’s actual poetry rated lowest, I had no more questions about the types of people participating in this study

    • @Bossman50.
      @Bossman50. 6 днів тому

      AI appeals to the people who don’t know what real creativity looks like, only fake creativity if that makes any sense. People tend to also associate what they prefer with what is human.

  • @FacialVomitTurtleFights
    @FacialVomitTurtleFights 16 днів тому +3

    Kinda confirmed what I already do / thought, which is that the less I can understand a poem the more likely it's made by a human, I actually applied this thinking to the 2 poem purposed in the beginning of the video, before realizing that it was a bait lol

  • @james_library
    @james_library 11 днів тому

    I wonder how this study would have done if it had been more modern language. Modern poetry has its own issues of inscrutability, but using 19th-century style and poets adds that extra layer of density that makes it more difficult for people to identify AI from human and actual relate to and understand the work.
    Awesome video and analysis. I'm glad to have stumbled across your channel 😊

  • @thing2be
    @thing2be 17 днів тому +12

    every time i hear about how most people find most poetry confusing and nonsensical and unrewarding i get an ego boost because ive never read a poem i didnt care about

  • @TheAlison1456
    @TheAlison1456 14 днів тому +2

    25:40 there isn't room for robot poets.

  • @MarkPalmer-t9f
    @MarkPalmer-t9f 16 днів тому +3

    I got that they both were AI. The giveaway was that the meanings of the lines were too vague or made no sense.

  • @WhackyWyatt
    @WhackyWyatt 7 днів тому +2

    Finally!! Now instead of writing or drawing I can do what Ive always wanted and slave away at a monotonous job for all my days, thankfully my ai overlords are doing all my fun and creativity for me, so I dont have to strain my brain on fun and expression!

  • @MrBeiragua
    @MrBeiragua 16 днів тому +3

    I wasn't fooled. Both poems feel empty and meaningless, like all AI art.

  • @KilgoreTroutAsf
    @KilgoreTroutAsf 12 днів тому +1

    The only thing it shows is that the average human is too illiterate to understand poetry.
    This is the equivalent of going to a Rhotko exhibition and say "I could paint that".

  • @Dismythed
    @Dismythed 17 днів тому +19

    Their chosen groups were wrong. A person not trained in how to read poetry is, of course, going to favor AI poetry because AI will write to make the cursory reading make sense, but the deeper meaning is absent (as in the case of the first Dickinson poem) or merely accidental (yet still superficial as in the second poem), while a trained poet will write for the deeper meaning to make sense and unfold more meaning the more we consider it, while the cursory reading of their poem may be confusing at first, which nudges us to go deeper. That a deeper meaning is present in a human poem is obvious. No such complexity is present in the AI poetry.
    My point is that they should only have used poetry experts, these are in the best position to determine whether a poem is from a human or an AI.
    So no, poetry is not dead. A randomized group, no matter how large, is not what is needed. How many of them have little to no experience with poetry or simply don't like it? At the very least, Only those who read poetry regularly, and thus love poetry, should have been used.

    • @spiralsausage
      @spiralsausage 16 днів тому +1

      I still think it's a skill prompt issue and they could've created deeper sounding poems (asking it to use older English, use words that are dissonant in parts and don't fully rhyme, especially where there's tension, and other typical poetic techniques). Once you study a lot of poetry it gets predictable

  • @comiclover99
    @comiclover99 16 днів тому +1

    I feel that alot of this comes from a lack of familiarity with the style of AI. In the section of with Sitara, it was interesting to see how much of it was about the 'tells' which make ChatGPT stand out. I realised that my lack of familiarity with ChatGPT led to me misidentifying many of these poems as I expected ChatGPT to act in a different way than it seems to.

  • @Ghostreader198
    @Ghostreader198 17 днів тому +4

    I figured both were AI since there weren’t enough em dashes lol

  • @pascalbercker7487
    @pascalbercker7487 16 днів тому +1

    My guess is that most experts in poetry simply would not be fooled by most AI generated poetry. What this all tends to show is that education in poetry appreciation is simply lacking in most people in the same way that most people are also mostly innumerate because they lack a sound education in mathematics.

  • @wyattrose5511
    @wyattrose5511 17 днів тому +11

    Another roughest draft essay to close out the new year! Let’s GO! Hope you have a happy new year, though! Here’s to more poetry (both good and bad) in the new year.

  • @guard13007
    @guard13007 12 днів тому

    That introduction scared me for a moment. I felt confident the 2nd poem was correct because the 1st reads like what I wrote in middle school. But the 2nd reads like what I wrote in high school, so I was scared that my perceptions must be completely wrong. The thing that made me question it was the rhyme of hold and fold. It doesn't immediately make sense to me, and sounds like a mistake to me.
    Edit: Oh. This is what I get for writing my thoughts in response too fast. xD Though, now I feel better about saying the 2nd one feels like what I wrote in high school, because I'm not elevating myself or claiming a person isn't actually that good, I'm saying that my ability sits somewhere around generated content. I also feel better about feeling like the 2nd one is off. I noticed something, but was quick to dismiss it.

  • @gonkdroid4prez539
    @gonkdroid4prez539 16 днів тому +1

    Yeah, I did the Shakespeare part of it because he’s the writer whose work I’m more familiar with. I got it all correct, as GPT seems to think Shakespeare only writes about women he likes. Also, ChatGPT uses very simple simile a ton, whereas Shakespeare uses much more complex wordplay, touching on alternate meanings of the words and similar sounds, making his poetry naturally dance around in your mind, floating between the different meanings

  • @forindet
    @forindet 17 днів тому +5

    I think that the reason AI text "works" (tricks humans) is because it functions the same way as horoscope texts/ predictions. It's very general and loose in a way that there's a little something for everyone to find, relate to and make sense of without any real substance.