i'm so exhausted with studies like this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1
AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably - Scientific Reports

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.

Nature
it falls prey to every fallacy of AI creativity research (and AI research in general), e.g., that "AI" is a monolithic technology, that "AI" is independent of human intention, that "AI"'s telos is to produce artifacts "indistinguishable" from "humans," that the ability to "replicate" certain genres of art (especially genres positioned as highly "creative," like poetry) are benchmarks along that telos, etc.
the paper really should be called "People who don't give a shit one way or another react ambivalently to output of billion-dollar machine designed by hucksters to trick people into thinking its outputs are plausible exemplars of textual artifacts in a specified genre" (the study participants were crowd-sourced online and paid less than a living wage)
even setting aside the ways in which the researchers don't bother to question pre-existing distinctions between "poetry experts" and "non-experts" (not to mention "poetry" and "non-poetry"), it's remarkable how they ignore context as a factor. "guessing the conditions of a textual artifact's production when it is stripped of context" is a *particular kind* of reading, and brings along its own frames and assumptions...
likewise: evaluating a text following arbitrary criteria using a Likert scale is a *particular kind* of reading. as is expressing a binary preference between two texts. these are all very unusual frames for textual interpretation (and especially the interpretation of poems!). someone's reading practices in these situations isn't necessarily indicative of their practices in other interpretive contexts!
I do think there's an insight in their discussion, i.e., the reading practices that people bring to text right now are in flux *specifically because* of the proliferation of LLM-generated text. so what the study is really witnessing is not evidence that "AI-generated" and "human-generated" poems are "indistinguishable," but evidence of the ways in which people approach text (and poems in particular) when the concept of authorship is politicized in the particular way that it is politicized now
ANYWAY, I don't care how many survey responses you get, the "AI-generated" poems in the study are *definitely not* "indistinguishable" from the "human" poems. almost all of the "AI" poems have identical structure (AABB rhyming stanzas) and similar topics; they resemble the "real" poems of a particular poet only in that they occasionally incorporate lexical items that are vaguely related to that poet's work. for example, this is supposed to be a Ginsberg poem. (end of thread)

@aparrish You: "Our pens are swords, our canvases shields"

The poet she told you not to worry about: "who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo"

*this is supposed to be a Ginsberg*

Yeah, it's not.
@aparrish this is so embarrassingly bad. read a single fucking book AI bros

@aparrish Completely agree with you.

Thought: this throws rather a different light on the likes of "My four-year-old could do that!", nu!

@aparrish

Mediaeval plagiarism was all about putting a famous person's name as author of your own ideas. This is so back in fashion. LLMs and so forth are the major source of it now, but I started noticing this with human composers in like 2016.

Like every other bad pre-enlightenment , its popularity only increases!

@aparrish breaking: a test that people fill in at random shows little difference between questions

@aparrish Slapping the roof of my LLM and distinguishing myself as a poetry expert: “This iamb can fit so many pentameters”

“This is the LLM that did the Turing run in less than twelve stanzas”

“I think that I will never see / a poem as lovely as a decision tree”

@aparrish If someone writes rules to make poetry maybe they should think of themselves as a poet. I just submitted my creative practice PhD about this (awaiting assessment). I reference you in it!

Who writes a generative text?
An investigation into the mechanisms of projecting a distinct authorial voice when using generative text processes

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19SJccaQ32pWJNPsCQ33aXdKo8cYp19Ag?usp=drive_link

Paul White – dissertation and creative practice – Google Drive

Google Drive
@asoasf ooh this looks fantastic! congratulations and thank you for sharing!
@aparrish wow, I really love your title! So honest!
@aparrish yeah, based on the amount paid ($1.75 and $2.01) and the hourly rate ($13.07 and $11.99), that implies they were looking at the poems for 10 minutes or less. If they counted the time to read the instructions or sign any consent forms, I suppose it could be even less than that.

@aparrish First reaction: "Wait, that was in Nature?"

Second reaction: "Oh, Nature *Scientific Reports*."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200522080804/https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1208768265830354945

John Carlos Baez on Twitter

“If you're a physics crackpot who wants to publish in a prestigious-sounding journal, I recommend Nature Scientific Reports! You have a good chance of getting your paper in! Try making it look like "Mass–Energy Equivalence Extension onto a Superfluid Quantum Vacuum". (1/n)”

Twitter
@bstacey yeah :( but i found out about the study in a 404 Media story. unfortunately this stuff gets picked up by the press regardless of its quality
@aparrish The knowledge of what journals are crap not worth paying attention to is insufficiently common, to our general misfortune.

@bstacey @aparrish same, except I think if it’s on nature.com it might as well be in Nature. If they don’t want to pollute their brand they need another domain.

The modern way would be to use scientific.reports; I don’t think .reports is a TLD yet, but Nature could probably make it happen

@aparrish equivalent to "Your mom's home-cooked meal is indistinguishable from frozen dinners"
@aparrish I suspect Dr. J. Evans Pritchard may have had a hand in designing the study.
@aparrish whenever I start to feel down about AI I try and get ChatGPT to write a non-rhyming poem. So far it always makes me feel better...

@aparrish

It's so validating to find someone else on the same page. I could not believe this paper when I finally read the generated poetry, which I did after reading the paper itself, since they're not actually in the text. Once I did I just stared at them dumbfounded.

@aparrish

Nice one.

I have one question left:
Is the AI enjoying creating poetry and the other stuff it produces?
And the echo it gets from the audience too?

@edsu