I am a advocate promoting poet. I find this post fascinating for many reasons
Thoughts:
1. Does that mean that poetry as a human form of expression should be reclassified? As a judge and publisher of poetry I hold fast to the belief that words generated by a human being will be preferred.
2. I rush to use this new tool has me asking what is the rush to put more "words" quickly and thoughtlessly into the world? A human poet observers, reflects, then writes and recites. Are going to start having open mics for AI too?
It is early and I share the first thoughts that come to my human mind...
These are really interesting questions, Lucinda! I cringe at the idea of AI open mics, but I wonder about the first question. The other half of that BISG meeting was dedicated to Sasha Stiles who produces really fascinating work "in collaboration" with AI, which blurs that boundary between "human expression" and "ai-output." I suppose the human intervention is key.
Thanks Kurt for your response. It is my understanding that if AI is part of producing a poem or book the end product cannot be granted copyright, still waiting on clear answer on if that is so. If not, why would a publisher invest in collaborations that have AI in them?
Thank you so much Kurt for this information! I'm gonna do a fact check and follow-up only cause you mentioned "legal framework still being worked out" That's the part that keeps some of us in a holding pattern. It's not fear, it's business.
So well written. I swagged that A was AI written but only because phrases did not seem as unexpected as were many in B. It seems fair to ask if the point of poetry is supposed to be an act of creation, there could be an argument that anything AI would be the opposite of poetry. Isn’t AI basically sophisticated rearrangement of what already exists?
Thank you for this essay. I appreciate the insight into AI writing. I accept that some types of writing will soon be taken over by AI. I'm eager to find the areas that remain the domain of human writers.
"See, the real Whitman is more vast, rough, and unmanageable than even our best-informed assumptions about him can predict."
Kurt, I'm drawn to your description of Whitman as "rough," because I've been reading the philosopher Byung-Chul Han's book "Saving Beauty," where he argues that our culture's understanding of beauty is now driven by the desire for smoothness and ease, to the point of sedation; if something doesn't provide immediate (and forgettable) pleasure, then it's judged as less beautiful. Beauty has become "Like," where its value is easy consumption. Han urges us to return to a conception of beauty based on the sublime, including how it centers negativity and disruption.
It seems like people's preference for AI poetry aligns with Han's theory, because the AI versions are easy to "like." They ask almost nothing of the reader except to appreciate/consume the words and then move on. Whitman, as you said, requires the friction of engagement, which is not always pleasurable and can be confusing and time-consuming.
The instant pleasure of AI poetry is an illusion (even a lie), and while some may prefer it, I think our work as writers is to continually push back against the conception of "smooth beauty" and encourage people to engage with the rough, honest experiences of reality that human writers create. As you said, "I’ll take my poetry corrupted by the teeming, foolish body of human beings." Thanks for this, Kurt!
Thanks, Allison. "Saving Beauty" sounds excellent. Have to check it out. I think Han is exactly right about smoothness and ease. Here's to rough beauty!
"The AI Whitman takes the average of all the clichés we learn about Whitman in high school English class and amplifies them into a word salad of predicted text, ticking all the boxes but never exploding them into new categories." Yep, I think this is really what is at the heart of all AI writing--whether it be a poem or a literary explication--this law of tedious averages, this sanding off and tamping down of any rough/interesting/original edges. Terrific column, Kurt!
I am a advocate promoting poet. I find this post fascinating for many reasons
Thoughts:
1. Does that mean that poetry as a human form of expression should be reclassified? As a judge and publisher of poetry I hold fast to the belief that words generated by a human being will be preferred.
2. I rush to use this new tool has me asking what is the rush to put more "words" quickly and thoughtlessly into the world? A human poet observers, reflects, then writes and recites. Are going to start having open mics for AI too?
It is early and I share the first thoughts that come to my human mind...
These are really interesting questions, Lucinda! I cringe at the idea of AI open mics, but I wonder about the first question. The other half of that BISG meeting was dedicated to Sasha Stiles who produces really fascinating work "in collaboration" with AI, which blurs that boundary between "human expression" and "ai-output." I suppose the human intervention is key.
Thanks Kurt for your response. It is my understanding that if AI is part of producing a poem or book the end product cannot be granted copyright, still waiting on clear answer on if that is so. If not, why would a publisher invest in collaborations that have AI in them?
The legal framework is still being set up, but that hasn't stopped publishers from investing.
For example, Hachette published a book of poems "written" by "code-davinci-002" and edited by a group of humans: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/code-davinci-002/i-am-code/9780316560061/.
And, in Japan, the recent winner of the Akutagawa prize used AI to produce chunks of her novel, which is due out in English this year: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/style/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-chatgpt/index.html
I imagine the work around comes from copyrighting the work produced by the humans who edit, arrange, and present the generated material.
Thank you so much Kurt for this information! I'm gonna do a fact check and follow-up only cause you mentioned "legal framework still being worked out" That's the part that keeps some of us in a holding pattern. It's not fear, it's business.
So well written. I swagged that A was AI written but only because phrases did not seem as unexpected as were many in B. It seems fair to ask if the point of poetry is supposed to be an act of creation, there could be an argument that anything AI would be the opposite of poetry. Isn’t AI basically sophisticated rearrangement of what already exists?
Thank you for this essay. I appreciate the insight into AI writing. I accept that some types of writing will soon be taken over by AI. I'm eager to find the areas that remain the domain of human writers.
"See, the real Whitman is more vast, rough, and unmanageable than even our best-informed assumptions about him can predict."
Kurt, I'm drawn to your description of Whitman as "rough," because I've been reading the philosopher Byung-Chul Han's book "Saving Beauty," where he argues that our culture's understanding of beauty is now driven by the desire for smoothness and ease, to the point of sedation; if something doesn't provide immediate (and forgettable) pleasure, then it's judged as less beautiful. Beauty has become "Like," where its value is easy consumption. Han urges us to return to a conception of beauty based on the sublime, including how it centers negativity and disruption.
It seems like people's preference for AI poetry aligns with Han's theory, because the AI versions are easy to "like." They ask almost nothing of the reader except to appreciate/consume the words and then move on. Whitman, as you said, requires the friction of engagement, which is not always pleasurable and can be confusing and time-consuming.
The instant pleasure of AI poetry is an illusion (even a lie), and while some may prefer it, I think our work as writers is to continually push back against the conception of "smooth beauty" and encourage people to engage with the rough, honest experiences of reality that human writers create. As you said, "I’ll take my poetry corrupted by the teeming, foolish body of human beings." Thanks for this, Kurt!
Thanks, Allison. "Saving Beauty" sounds excellent. Have to check it out. I think Han is exactly right about smoothness and ease. Here's to rough beauty!
"The AI Whitman takes the average of all the clichés we learn about Whitman in high school English class and amplifies them into a word salad of predicted text, ticking all the boxes but never exploding them into new categories." Yep, I think this is really what is at the heart of all AI writing--whether it be a poem or a literary explication--this law of tedious averages, this sanding off and tamping down of any rough/interesting/original edges. Terrific column, Kurt!
Great read. "As a longtime reader of Whitman, “Ode to the Living Current” feels so obviously derivative, so plainly a shadow of Whitman" - exactly.