I do appreciate you keeping track of what the Large Language Model billionaire tech oligarchs think about their plagiarism literatures. I just seriously doubt they've actually read any poetry, like, ever.
oh they mostly don't care about this in that sense, no, not at all I think (emphasis on the mostly!) which may be one reason why AI poetry is behind AI capability in other domains
Perhaps the more interesting question is how will we react when AI writes a 12 poem, a 15 poem, a 40 poem? When AI produces that which is well beyond us.
The chess comparison is trivial. The only respect in which it compares to poetry is a certain complexity of thinking. The goal of chess is to win using a limited number of codes. In this case, it matters little if the opponent is AI or a person. The goal of poetry is never to win at anything - or score a 10 as Altman requires, or for critics to assign points in some sort of aesthetic talent show.
Poetry exists in a different category of human experience. We value a poem in as much as it tells us more about our what it is like to be human. If a poem is not written by a human, it lacks both de facto and de jure authority. So we can admire its cleverness but not its beauty, or dignity, or sadness, or elevation. It has not been 'lived through'. Indeed, the act of writing it, will have had few consequences for the Large Language Model concerned - whereas the act of writing a poem will have all manner of effects upon the poet, from mild relief to catharsis to a sense of freedom or escape.
A poet may even laugh or be humbled at their own inability to capture the elusive nature of the truth they seek. Can we ascribe that degree of self-reflection to AI? If it is trained, like the AI chess master, only to achieve prompted outcomes like a score of 10, why should it bother?
PSYCHOL'OGY, n. [Gr. soul, and discourse.] A discourse or treatise on the human soul; or the doctrine of the nature and properties of the soul.*[[Gen 2:7/KJVLite]]* And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
*[[Job 12:10/KJVLite]]* In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
*[[Psa 42:2/KJVLite]]* My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
*[[1Co 15:45/KJVLite]]* And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
*[[1Co 15:52/KJVLite]]* In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
*[[1Th 4:17/KJVLite]]* Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
*[[Joh 8:12/KJVLite]]* Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
*[[1Jn 1:7/KJVLite]]* But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
*[[Job 32:8/KJVLite]]* But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
*[[2Ti 3:16/KJVLite]]* All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isn’t the whole point of poetry — and art in general — to communicate something profoundly *human* in a particular mode? The arts are not games with fixed rules, like chess, or processes of natural discovery, like the sciences; they are something relayed (more or less successfully) from one human to another.
This is why individuals produce the best art. Just as I’d be surprised to see a committee create a great work of art, I simply fail to believe that any art produced by a machine could be meaningful. It might become excellent at mimicking humanity, but, lacking the ability to feel and experience like us, it has nothing valuable to add here. Maybe my beliefs rooted in my own prejudices, but I find the idea of machine art repellent.
Saw that interview, too - and I agree with Sam. Give an AI a large enough collection of poems you rate at 10 (or what - in your opinion - tradition/critics/readers rate at 10 - and at 9 and so on) and it will construct as many poems as one could ask for - and some of them will plausibly be at level 10. Your post seems to suggest, 10 is not reachable by definition as zero "tradition" - well, then no living human will ever with a 10er either.
And Sam is right: Neither he nor Tyler will feel too deeply touched - so Tyler and me will be kinda reasonably impressed. As it was not done by Goethe or Celan but by an AI. If the 9th had been done by AI instead of LvB, it would cease to be my fav. symphony.
As for "modern poetry - aerily beautiful, but signifying nothing", even ChatGTP3 did sometimes very nice ones! Which did not impress me too much, just re-confirmed my view of those poems.
Btw: Mostly for its lyrics, the 11 of 10 for the art-form 'music-videos' is the official video "Monsters" by James Blunt. Proof: the reaction videos. As I showed in my (sub-par) post a few days ago.
Indeed, "seemed to suggest". ;) But I sensed doubts - and a kinda unfairly high bar (one category unavailable). I would prefer 'doubters' (incl. Tyler) to make clear what their 10 ers are - (and some dozen examples for 9 and 8). Which should make it reachable for AI. Not on first try. But human poets use their paper-bins, too.
Indeed, "seemed to suggest". ;) But I sensed doubts - and a kinda unfairly high bar (one category unavailable). I would prefer 'doubters' (incl. Tyler) to make clear what their 10 ers are - (and some dozen examples for 9 and 8). Which should make it reachable for AI. Not on first try. But human poets use their paper-bins, too.
I do appreciate you keeping track of what the Large Language Model billionaire tech oligarchs think about their plagiarism literatures. I just seriously doubt they've actually read any poetry, like, ever.
oh they mostly don't care about this in that sense, no, not at all I think (emphasis on the mostly!) which may be one reason why AI poetry is behind AI capability in other domains
Perhaps the more interesting question is how will we react when AI writes a 12 poem, a 15 poem, a 40 poem? When AI produces that which is well beyond us.
Yes indeed
The chess comparison is trivial. The only respect in which it compares to poetry is a certain complexity of thinking. The goal of chess is to win using a limited number of codes. In this case, it matters little if the opponent is AI or a person. The goal of poetry is never to win at anything - or score a 10 as Altman requires, or for critics to assign points in some sort of aesthetic talent show.
Poetry exists in a different category of human experience. We value a poem in as much as it tells us more about our what it is like to be human. If a poem is not written by a human, it lacks both de facto and de jure authority. So we can admire its cleverness but not its beauty, or dignity, or sadness, or elevation. It has not been 'lived through'. Indeed, the act of writing it, will have had few consequences for the Large Language Model concerned - whereas the act of writing a poem will have all manner of effects upon the poet, from mild relief to catharsis to a sense of freedom or escape.
A poet may even laugh or be humbled at their own inability to capture the elusive nature of the truth they seek. Can we ascribe that degree of self-reflection to AI? If it is trained, like the AI chess master, only to achieve prompted outcomes like a score of 10, why should it bother?
PSYCHOL'OGY, n. [Gr. soul, and discourse.] A discourse or treatise on the human soul; or the doctrine of the nature and properties of the soul.*[[Gen 2:7/KJVLite]]* And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
*[[Job 12:10/KJVLite]]* In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
*[[Psa 42:2/KJVLite]]* My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
*[[1Co 15:45/KJVLite]]* And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
*[[1Co 15:52/KJVLite]]* In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
*[[1Th 4:17/KJVLite]]* Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
*[[Joh 8:12/KJVLite]]* Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
*[[1Jn 1:7/KJVLite]]* But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
*[[Job 32:8/KJVLite]]* But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
*[[2Ti 3:16/KJVLite]]* All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isn’t the whole point of poetry — and art in general — to communicate something profoundly *human* in a particular mode? The arts are not games with fixed rules, like chess, or processes of natural discovery, like the sciences; they are something relayed (more or less successfully) from one human to another.
This is why individuals produce the best art. Just as I’d be surprised to see a committee create a great work of art, I simply fail to believe that any art produced by a machine could be meaningful. It might become excellent at mimicking humanity, but, lacking the ability to feel and experience like us, it has nothing valuable to add here. Maybe my beliefs rooted in my own prejudices, but I find the idea of machine art repellent.
It’s called the limerick.
Asking Sam Altman about poetry is a fool’s errand.
Given what AI art actually looks like and the fact that Altman seemed a bit defensive about it, I doubt this is possible.
Saw that interview, too - and I agree with Sam. Give an AI a large enough collection of poems you rate at 10 (or what - in your opinion - tradition/critics/readers rate at 10 - and at 9 and so on) and it will construct as many poems as one could ask for - and some of them will plausibly be at level 10. Your post seems to suggest, 10 is not reachable by definition as zero "tradition" - well, then no living human will ever with a 10er either.
And Sam is right: Neither he nor Tyler will feel too deeply touched - so Tyler and me will be kinda reasonably impressed. As it was not done by Goethe or Celan but by an AI. If the 9th had been done by AI instead of LvB, it would cease to be my fav. symphony.
As for "modern poetry - aerily beautiful, but signifying nothing", even ChatGTP3 did sometimes very nice ones! Which did not impress me too much, just re-confirmed my view of those poems.
Btw: Mostly for its lyrics, the 11 of 10 for the art-form 'music-videos' is the official video "Monsters" by James Blunt. Proof: the reaction videos. As I showed in my (sub-par) post a few days ago.
I didn’t give my view, I think? I expect it probably can write a 10… but it’s so bad right now that I’m less expectant than I was.
Indeed, "seemed to suggest". ;) But I sensed doubts - and a kinda unfairly high bar (one category unavailable). I would prefer 'doubters' (incl. Tyler) to make clear what their 10 ers are - (and some dozen examples for 9 and 8). Which should make it reachable for AI. Not on first try. But human poets use their paper-bins, too.
Indeed, "seemed to suggest". ;) But I sensed doubts - and a kinda unfairly high bar (one category unavailable). I would prefer 'doubters' (incl. Tyler) to make clear what their 10 ers are - (and some dozen examples for 9 and 8). Which should make it reachable for AI. Not on first try. But human poets use their paper-bins, too.