A new study demonstrates that people can’t tell the difference between human and AI-generated poetry -- and in fact, rate the latter more favourably. CWC's Jon Stone was asked to write a response for The Conversation, which you can read in full here. A short extract:
Cambridge Writing Centre — News
AI Poetry Study: A Response
21 November 2024
)
Porter and Machery conclude that “the capabilities of generative AI models have outpaced people’s expectations of AI”. But they don’t say AI has been proven an adequate replacement for human poets – and rightly so, as such a conclusion would require a great deal more testing.
That the research participants were fooled is not particularly worrying. Porter and Machery set out to include a wide range of poem types, which meant choosing poets who mostly belong to ages past. In such cases, modern readers are likely to have a hard time looking past the obvious signs of antiquity – outdated diction, rigid formalism, and obscure cultural references.