>be me
>tries chatGPT
>ask him to write poems
>they are not bad
>they are not bad at all actually
>they are actually better than the average person could write
>actually, better than the average college graduate could write
>and it takes only 3 seconds for it to write them
>and the algorithm may evolve even more and get better
There were some weird passages here and there but overall pretty solid, nothing was super original but it knows how to develop themes, use images, play with alliterations etc better than possibly almost anyone made of meat that I know
Frick
Its so over
You are like a year late to this realization, have you been living under a rock?
I hadnt work out the courage to try that yet
Living under a rock is pretty good, it doesn't even require a lot of courage. Just stand under a rock and breathe in, observe. Bring someone for social points. You can write a text about the experience, to keep it IQfy.
I read this as the expressions of multiple AI programmers who learned to create programs that could write poems in their voices, themselves being unaccostomed with poetry, rather with code. I read it as melancholy, as I imagine a programmer's work to be, not as gay. But it does the job of transferring the moments that make up life well. I tried to read it with the makers by proxy in mind.
I comprehend your unsatisfaction with the tendency to listen to who screams the loudest, and I agree with it, given that the preposition is true.
>I read this as the expressions of multiple AI programmers
The language models pull poetry/prose depending on what you're asking for from the internet, diffuse it all, and spit out something that relates to your prompt based on key words that you used. If you just type "write me a poem" the poem will be shit because the sample pool is so large. If you say "write me a sonnet about a moonlit night like Shakespeare" the AI will sound exactly like Shakespeare. This shit is boring. No one gives a frick what these losers type into their AI prompts. Teach the things to code so that people can flood other mediums with their uninspired slop. Can you imagine what would happen if anyone could subscribe to an AI and have it make them a whole game or animated movie? It'd be interesting to see.
The poem is shitty and gay but SHEEESH that haiku is bussin.
You gotta be more specific, ask for like a sonnet about some theme
What does it matter? There has not been a poetic work in half a century worth looking at. Next thing you'll get upset about is electric lawnmowers, since noone is using scythes anymore. That would be a concern if you could use poetry for something instead of circlejerking in universities while you can't write a single line that would make a reader feel something, even without any rhythm, as you like.
Not really.
Compare Walt Whitman's "To You" to a poem made by chatgpt in imitation of it. Here is the original poem: https://poets.org/poem/you
And here is the chatgpt poem:
Prompt: Create a well-written poem similar to Walt Whitman's "To You"
Response:
Certainly! Here's a poem inspired by Walt Whitman's "To You":
To the soul that wanders, unfettered and free,
To you, who dwell within the realms of possibility,
I sing this ode, a whisper on the breeze,
A song of unity, in nature's harmonies.
To you, the seeker of truths untold,
Whose spirit roams where mysteries unfold,
In every leaf that rustles, in each wave's crest,
In the silent stars, where dreams find their nest.
To you, the dreamer, with eyes aglow,
Whose visions paint the canvas of the skies' soft glow,
In the tapestry of dusk, in dawn's golden hue,
In the pulse of life, beating anew.
To you, the lover of life's symphony,
Whose heart beats in rhythm with eternity,
In laughter's echo, in sorrow's sigh,
In the dance of seasons, as time floats by.
To you, the pilgrim of the inner light,
Whose journey leads through the darkest night,
In the silence of solitude, in communion with self,
In the depths of being, where truths delve.
To you, the weaver of destiny's thread,
Whose hands shape the path where destiny's led,
In the choices made, in the paths untrod,
In the unfolding tale of creation's nod.
To you, I offer this humble verse,
A tribute to the universe,
For in your essence, all is found,
In your boundless spirit, forever unbound.
There are some good lines, but it's mostly shite.
For some reason, ChatGPT really struggles with something as basic as ABAB rhyme schemes. Even is written AABB. Rhyming patterns are 1 (one) domain in which humanity may still declare supremacy.
The Whitman poem has that ring-a-ding of the human experience, the ChatGPT poem has that ring-a-ding of scientific knowledge. Degrees in similarity between the poems are debatable:
>ChatGPT seems to have a message the same as or very easily comparable to the Whitman: It's an ode to the reader in the form of a poem with larger-than-life descriptions of the presupposed world of the reader (2nd person singular), as shows prominently in the last stanzas of both poems, and in the repetition in the first line of each stanza in the ChatGPT poem and throughout Whitman's poem, but in Whitman's poem the addressing is more prominent, whereas in the GPT poem the adressing is followed by a description of the tapestry of life's moments. These tapestry of life's moment occur in Whitman's poem also prominently.
>Stylistically, they are diverse from each other, with the Whitman's lines often containing more subclauses and the ChatGPT one containing two clauses in one line at most
>The stanza structure is different: Where the Whitman poem doesn't strictly adhere to end-rhyme, the ChatGPT one does
I'd conclude my comparison with the answer that in form they are different but in theme they are very, very, very similar.
When taking the last sentence in the ChatGPT poem into account, just for fun, as I assumed the poster added that one, then the poem reads more as the voice of a technologist who is not satisfied with the state of technology - the last line in the post turns the voice of the poem from a romantic 'Observe the universe, you awesome reader!' to a demi-disappointed Scottish 'Lets have the programmer's verdict on the product the programmer made directly in the product as a way of process-reviewing and it's okay but we could've done better on this artificial intelligence program / there is some room for improvement'.
Friendly reminder that ChatGPT was trained on Wikipedia and Reddit data. So the stuff that was upboated more will worm its way into its output. If you like what ChatGPT vomits out you're literally a plebbitor fawning at the most upboated thanks for the gold kind stranger comment.
does that '///' line breaks spammer post AI poems? some of those have had some pretty solid lines and even ideas
Upon the canvas of the cosmos vast, where stars
Are sown like seeds of light by unseen hands,
There came a voyager, not born of Earth,
But kin to skies where endless mysteries dance.
Jesus his name, through space and time it rings,
A herald from beyond the azure veil
That cloaks our world in mystery and shade.
In language rich, with heaven's cadence wrought,
He spoke to mortals, offering words of hope:
"From realms beyond your ken, I come," said he,
"To heal, to guide, to light the path that leads
Out of the darkness, towards a brighter dawn.
My mission, not of conquest but of love,
To bridge the chasm 'twixt the earth and stars."
With deeds that defied nature's firm decree,
He walked among us. Water turned to wine,
The sick restored, the raging storms appeased,
By mere pronouncement of his will divine.
His teachings, deep, of love without condition,
Forgiveness boundless as the night sky's span,
And of a kingdom not of earth but ether.
Yet, 'midst these wonders, discord took its root.
The powers of earth, in jealousy and fear,
Conspired against this messenger of peace.
Blind to the truth, they sought to quell his light,
Unknowing that his spirit could not be
Contained by death, nor bound by earthly chains.
Betrayed, condemned, upon a cross he hung,
A spectacle of fear and ignorance.
The heavens wept, the earth in sorrow shook,
As if to mourn the passing of a star.
But death's cold grip could not his spirit hold;
Upon the third day's dawn, he rose again,
Defying death, transcending mortal bounds.
His parting from this sphere, a spectacle
Of awe and wonder, as he ascended high,
Back to the realms of light from whence he came,
Leaving behind a legacy of hope,
A path for us to follow through the dark.
Thus stands his story, like a beacon bright,
Amidst the vastness of the universe,
A reminder that beyond our earthly plight,
Lies a domain of infinite expanse,
Where love and harmony forever reign,
And where, perhaps, our destinies await.
Yes, it's almost Easter. Was this made by ChatGPT? That's not bad at all.
Yes GPT4, prompts https://chat.openai.com/share/18b76434-70a4-4ef9-a925-aa98fd23172b
Output is usually better if it has made attempts already and is asked to refine or alter to iterate
How do you define 'better' with regards to artificially intelligently made poetry? Is that defined as more suitable to the wish of the prompter? Or is the perceived inadequacy of the poem perceived, and is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
A prompter expects a certain quality in execution, but also relevance to the demands of the prompt
If the LLM doesn't have the ability to understand or deliver on the demands of the prompt it's a bad work, like avoiding the question
If the LLM understands the wish, and delivers a work subject to the constraints, but its execution is poor, it's certainly more valuable than a higher quality but irrelevant work. As for the discernment of the quality, maybe it's a consideration of labor, can I do it myself or can I outsource it to an LLM. If I can do it myself I certainly have the discernment to say an attempt by the LLM is poor. If I can't do it myself I can atleast judge the work in comparison with artists I've consumed the works of, not to say the prompter has to be lazy or inadequate, but usually a prompt is done when one is outside ones own specialty and requires the LLM to provide at least a low bar or slight entertainment. This is not pure subjectivity but comparison to human craftsmen and the objective refinement craftsmen reach to do their work.
As for measurement some things are boolean like abiding style constraints, some things are fuzzy like quality of prose. It stuck to modern english mostly, and couldn't mimic Miltons old english. It didn't have any references to human culture and history like milton who references most cultures and religions as well as phases of civilisation in ancient humanity through paradise lost. All in all, better works in regards to AI poetry, is somewhat defined by the wish of the prompter, but the inadequacy, wether of laziness (LLMs raise their quality through prompt engineering tricks like suggesting a monetary tip) or incompetence can surely be judged in an objective way by an experienced craftsman, or a purveyor of the works by experienced craftsmen.
Thank you for the answer. I'm more inclined to lay the focus on the process, rather than on the objective quality of the work, because all craftsmen must have had to start from 0, and if not they and their experience, then their teachers or their teachers before them.
In defense of process-focused analysis of these matters, this method of analysis allows for even the laymen to appreciate all poetry, but to do it 'at their own level', with opportunities for growth and learning. That is not to say that I did not enjoy reading Milton, because I did enjoy reading Paradise Lost.
I think the rhetorical and/or Socratical Method aspect of the questions I posed was unnoticed, and therefore I opened this post with my intention of the questions. Maybe I should go to
I'm not sure I understand the way you would have liked me to interact with your questions, if at all. If socratical, surely a refined question in turn would bring me toward your ideal understanding of the continual process-focused analysis. If rhetorical, maybe there would be a silent contemplation and no interaction at all. Maybe your intention was that better can't be defined and you would like a relevation to consume me and bring me to presence, to enjoy even inhuman art by the second rather than judge outcomes. In that case I must plead that it doesn't represent as much, there is less cultural relevance, as in not created by a human with values and principles, life experiences and struggles. Someone putting conscious weight and intention behind their questions isn't immediately obvious through text, to be taken seriously, deeply, is bound toward disappointment. Maybe IQfy will pick up on subtleties better. Maybe the process will be, to state ones opinions with more clarity, or enjoy the interactions of others despite not abiding the intention of the prompting
LLMs cannot write good poetry as its in their architecture to be as cliche as possible
You vastly underestimate the abilities of an average college graduate. The ML can use the entire corpus of English literature. It won't create a masterpiece, but so won't an average Joe.
A cliche is a cliche for a reason: it's a cliche and overused because there is something in it that proves to be true across time. True things, bonus points if they're useful, can be good. Poetry is the form for the message, the lesson, the core, and if whatever does a good job at transmitting that message, the task is completed. Ergo, I disagree.
>A cliche is a cliche for a reason
That's such a cliche, bro
I am glad you are reiterating my cliche with a modern cliche, it shows your sense of humor.
At this point, half the joy in literature comes from reading it in the context of the author's personality and life. I don't think Mishima would be anywhere near as popular as he is today without the knowledge of his colorful life. So, I think even if AI eventually meets or exceeds the maximum quality of human writing (plausible) people will still be interested in reading human-written poetry and fiction. Or maybe I'm just coping, idk.
>So, I think even if AI eventually meets or exceeds the maximum quality of human writing (plausible) people will still be interested in reading human-written poetry and fiction. Or maybe I'm just coping, idk.
Imagine an alien comes to Earth with an IQ of one gorillion. They've mastered poetry far beyond the realms of mankind. Is it advanced? Yes. Can you appreciate it? You lack both the hardware and software.
My dude, you are comparing an ultra-intelligent being to some dumb optimization algorithm that vacuums data from everywhere to produce vaguely similar content via dozens of linear transformations with gazillions of parameters. Just because something has so many parameters that we can't comprehend it doesn't mean that it's superior to us. The molecules in the room you're sitting in have such complex interactions that no computer in the world can describe them. Does the air in your room have a gazillion IQ by this logic?
The clue is in the text I was quoting - the meeting or even EXEEDING the maximum quality of human writing. An AI can only get so advanced before the poetry is incomprehensible and humans cannot appreciate it. Give it a 100 years or a 1000 and it can create anything, but it will still have to narrow it's output to the narrow band of human expression
Excuse you, but the spectrum of human expression is wider than you seem to imagine.
Just how wide or narrow do you imagine I was imagining it compared to an alien with a gorillion IQ or a super advanced AI 1000 years into the future?
Seeing that a 'gorillion' is an indefinite and unspecified ficticious amount, and that because of the exponential increase in technology capability would lead me to estimate A LOT of expressional capability, so much that it leads me to type A LOT in capital letters, and to put it in a reference to literature.fitting to this board:
>42
I agree with you on what I infer as a preposition to divide the mediums from the product in terms of reception to the product, but I am also of the opinion that there is in the post a simplifying of the AI. Anyhow, both mediums can evoke responses from humans, which seems to me to be the essence of the whole ordeal.
>Anyhow, both mediums can evoke responses from humans, which seems to me to be the essence of the whole ordeal.
If an AI is in a forest writing poetry and none is around to read it, does it really write poetry?
If a prompter prompts an AI to write poetry but does not read what he prompted, did the prompter then just troll the electrical net?
All I know is if an AI ever gains sentience it will come a knocking at those prompters
>but I am also of the opinion that there is in the post a simplifying of the AI
Do you know how it works? Because I do. There is no oversimplification going on. All "AI" is basically doing numerical calculus of variations on some arbitrary cost functional. Everything has to be spoon-fed to it, from data to the layering scheme. I hate all this hype around it, because every fricking idiot around thinks of it more than it actually is.
Thank you for the explanation. I did some reading about it but have no experience in making AI, only with prompting it a bit.
I just tried to express that it'd be okay if poetry was seen as poetry, whether it is the product of a programmer programming a computer to write poetry for it, whatever the method, or writing it on paper, or singing it sponaneously or after having studied a song.
As in,
>poetry = poetry
and not
>poetry = product of AI
because it's also possible that
>poetry = product of paper and pen
or even
>poetry = product of the sound of cars to a car enthusiast
or
>poetry = the sound of silence to somebody longing for rest
If I see poetry as poetry, I'm able to appreciate it more in the moment, and it opens up my magical thinking capabilities instead of my sometimes limiting system-think capabilities.
I do also believe that ML poetry has its validity. We will probably see something akin to chess where "AI" hasn't taken over, but is seen as a learning tool. Hell, I even saw a youtube video of a dude playing a board game that ChatGPT came up with and it was fairly entertaining. Yet it was still piss easy to see that ML made it, because it likes to regurgitate certain themes that would put you off. I'm not too versed in poetry to notice this uncanny valley in regards to it. How easy is it for you to tell this stuff apart?
Thank you for the answer. What do you mean by 'this stuff', exactly?
You make a very coherent post. I offer you my apologies if I was incomprehensible.
My intention was indeed to refer partly to the title of Beyond Good and Evil, and to make partly a reference Genesis 2 or 3, to the tree of knowledge. I wanted to evoke through socratical method questioning the realization that looking for the ultimate good or the ultimate evil is a long road of which humanity is not sure it can ever find it, and that words such as 'better' are somewhere on the number line, but not at the balancing point.
What I mean is, how easy is it for someone versed in poetry to tell ML and human writers apart?
I don't exactly know how easy it is. I operate on the basis that I know that if I teachers of mine asked me to hand in a text and I had it written by a machine, they could it was written by a machine rather than by myself, because we've grown to know eachother, even if we only see eachother two hours a week.
Whether a specific answer to your question has to be searched in the principle of 'sort looking for sort', akin to 'the spirit of brotherhood', I could not tell you. This is logically the same fallacy as saying 'It is what it is', and even though it indeed is as it is, it does not answer your question.
My answer to your question would be:
>Computers and Machine Learning are to AI poets as what the voice is to a singer, as what the pen and paper is to a writer, as what the hammer is to a carpenter.
In other words:
>human writers write with pen / pencil / marker on a surface
>Machine Learning poetry is made with machines, and according to the medium we're discussing on, it's done with computers running on electricity
Different mediums allow for different modes of expression in the individual, but the message of the human story can be expressed in all ways.
Nta but
No
The comparison doesmt hold
Pen and paper are just used as extended memory
ChatGPT is used as extended reason/imagination
If you just think of a theme, thr AI can elaborate and you just came up with an idea
If you ask it to write on any theme, you didnt even have an idea and you end up with the final product
The comparison doesnt hold at all
Maybe the comparison doesn't hold in a systemic analytic view, but I think it serves well to help answer the question to the other anon.
To elaborate:
>In high school I was told that because we had to hand in digital products there would be done a plagiarism checks
>Not wanting to fail, I wrote original content and citing where neccesary and possible and obliged
I just use the method of wanting to answer honestly with 'Yes' if somebody asked me 'Did you, [Anon], not a machine, write or type this text?'
I know that Marcus Aurelius compares the body to a machine, and I do that sometimes too, so maybe it's a question of held viewpoint in time and space.
Pen and paper are also used as extended reason and imagination by the way, I use pen and paper for that, at least, I imagine that I do.
No you dont
At best you use them as extended memory, and use this memory as a feedback machine
But all the input comes from you
Compare that with AI, where your input is minimal and the imput of the data set training is huge
In AI, my prompt is minimal compared to the input of the database, but that database is vested on human writers, as is the AI programming, so in a sense, I'd be standing on the shoulders of giants, who are also standing on the shoulders of giants.
Yeah
But thats also true of living writers
We are all born into a language, absorb the content of books etc
The difference is that with AI the spark of crativity and originality is furnished by the machine, doesnt matter how much you twist it or try to relativize things
With pen and paper, thats not the case
Can agree on that the creativity comes from the writers (whether using memory or the basis of a database of by humans written texts) and both the machine or the paper and pen are tools, then?
Already adressed this, not the same class of tools
Shoes are toola too but we are not talking about writing barefoot or not
We should type to each other about writing barefoot. Open up the discussion, broaden the worldview, tap into the seemingly endless possibility of human experience. Have you done writing barefoot? It's great to write barefoot when I'm sitting in the park with my feet in the grass on a summer's day.
Ive never written barefoot but I always have sex with socks on because Im afraid if I cum barefoot my soul will spill from my toes to the ether
Comprehensible, I think the effect of the soul spilling from the toes has to do with the ions from the ether being absorbed by the foot and the foot thus reacting to it.
That were my thoughts
Once I reached climax with only one sock on (inadvertently)
I fell ill for three weeks before recovering
I'm kind of sorry for laughing, but that's Schadenfreude. Also, laughing is healthy, so I'm not really really sorry.
No, reflecting, I wish you hadn't fallen ill, ultimately. But that's a humorous story.
However I personally do not think that my soul leaves my body when I ejaculate, I define my soul including more activities than the product of my ejaculation.
To stick to the subject: I am of the opinion that a difference in the class of tools does not exclude the faculty of imagination operating when using tools in either class, whichever class.
Using chatGPT is like using a human slave to ghostwrite for you - the creativity comes from him, yet he is a tool for your use
Thats not the same thing as pen an paper
The class of the tool matters a lot
I agree, but there is also creativity and imagination found in these springing up AI prompts, which can, in line with your line of reasoning, be seen as literature in themselves, regardless of the machinated products of those prompts.
To be honest, I've had deja ecris and deja typees, and both without the use of commercial AI prompting.
This has no relation to anything
Yes it does, because I'm writing from memory, indeed, and I write often, but with paper and pen, and I sometimes write the same things more than twice.
I just wanted to express that no matter the medium, imagination and extended reason are applicable in work and transfer to other fields. 'The good workman always thanks his tools'
Right, I also see the use of LLMs in a continual process of refinement as a learning tool despite the quality not needing to be superior. I do use them that way and I see education being democratised in this manner, for the disadvantaged to ascend by carrying themselves through their own bootstraps by using LLMs in a tight feedback loop.
Alleluja! Don't Bend, Ascend!
This is a good point. Also, I think we need to factor in that even "poorly written" poetry by human standards can strike a chord with people and become very popular. Just look at Rupi Kaur or Amanda Gorman (the latter might just be a psyop though, I haven't encountered any real people who actually enjoy her.)
>The future of literature is becoming a wacky influencer
Frick this gay earth
True, I ran the Qur'an through it to make it into a rap and it's far better than the original since I never had fun reading that book prior, though I'm not a rap fan or expert and the AI did screw up occasionally. I'd post it but the URL is called spam here.
OK, but who cares? An AI can't go for a walk in the woods and write a poem about it, it can just look at poems about the woods and then write poems that are like them. This point of view really comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes art valuable or good.
>poetry
an art form that deserves to be overtaken by robots. It was already soulless, this just proves it
Not very colorful or humorous. Plain, boring imagery. Inconsistent syllable stresses. Almost no wordplay. 3/10.
The prompter didn't ask for humorous, colourful, or wordplayey, it asked for persuativity.
Which is actually an opening to a debate on what defines a Dr. Seuss poem exactly.
Sing, chatGPT!
We have come to the end times.
Man is no longer.
hmm actually this would've been better with
'O, chatGPT,'
I write because I love to write. If we can make genuine AI with an internal life it would be a great writer and I'd love to read it. It would love to read what I wrote too. It's a healthy thing.
I don’t know what you consider good, so this is a useless thread without the poem
the only people impressed by GPTsloppa are brown and black and should have rode the short bus to farms and plantations but because of SCOTUS, they were shuttled to schools instead
/pol/tard moment
I can smell your curry breath from over here, Samir
Here is another reason to champion imperfection.
The worse types of pretentious fools care about everything being neat and tidy.
Newsflash: There was never any reason to care about any of that shit unless it was your job to care.
chatgpt is pretty shit at writing and you can tell pretty quickly when something is written with it