AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably - Scientific Reports
www.nature.com
As AI-generated text continues to evolve, distinguishing it from human-authored content has become increasingly difficult. This study examined whether non-expert readers could reliably differentiate between AI-generated poems and those written by well-known human poets. We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001). Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.

As AI-generated text continues to evolve, distinguishing it from human-authored content has become increasingly difficult. This study examined whether non-expert readers could reliably differentiate between AI-generated poems and those written by well-known human poets. We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001). Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.

  • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
    6·
    4 hours ago

    People who don’t like poetry can’t recognise good poetry, news at eleven.

    Seriously, though wake me up when AI can reliably replicate Vogon poetry…!

    Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
    Thy micturitions are to me, (with big yawning)
    As plurdled gabbleblotchits,
    On a lurgid bee,
    That mordiously hath blurted out,
    Its earted jurtles, grumbling
    Into a rancid festering confectious organ squealer. [drowned out by moaning and screaming]
    Now the jurpling slayjid agrocrustles,
    Are slurping hagrilly up the axlegrurts,
    And living glupules frart and stipulate,
    Like jowling meated liverslime,
    Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
    And hooptiously drangle me,
    With crinkly bindlewurdles.
    Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
    See if I don’t!

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      1·
      8 minutes ago

      If you have to be in the club to see it, I can’t help but wonder if it’s not there.

      Like, it could be that I just don’t get it, but until I see actual blind tests it’s suspicious.