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.
  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    0·
    14 hours ago

    Poetry is about the message and sentiment so now anyone can be a poet as long as they can generate something that resonates with a group of people.

    Although most modern poetry is something like copyright for ads or maybe a video game. So I am sure companies will try to reduce staff on that and pay for this.

    I still don’t buy they are a replacement for humans doing it tbh though based on the graphic art you around. Even when it is “right” it still has this generic slop vibe.

    Peoper editing likely could reduce that feel.