Some people (e.g., Linch) think AI writing will inevitably eclipse human writing. I think this is likely true in most ways and false in others, particularly for poetry.
Q: Would future AI poetry, posted broadly, get more upvotes than top human poetry?
Prediction: Yes. This has already happened. But it’s all terrible, if you are someone that likes anthology-level poetry.
Q: Would future AI poetry, shared with poetry enthusiasts, get more upvotes than top human poetry?
Prediction: Also, yes. I subscribe to the top poetry magazine, and ~3/4ths of the poems do nothing for me. I understand some experts feel the same way. I think AI can optimize a piece for general likability by a broad cross-section of enthusiasts. I predict, on average, AI would outperform any single poet.
Q: Would future AI poetry, shared with a narrow group of enthusiasts (e.g., fans of contemporary, slice-of-life American poetry), get more up votes than top genre-specific human poetry?
Prediction: No, they will meet but not exceed top, genre-specific human poetry. I think there’s a certain level of poetic excellence that cannot be exceeded.
Much like how language cannot become more efficient than human thinking speeds, I think there’s a level of excellence beyond which it cannot be comprehensibly exceeded. Therefore, if you are an avid poetry reader, AI is unlikely to ever surpass your most favorite poets.
AI may, however, rival your favorite poets and produce 10^x more work. Perhaps this is what Linch had in mind when s/he said, “With progress in modern-day LLMs, isn’t all but a tiny sliver of human fiction going to be obsolete in several years, a decade tops?”
I think my claims also probably apply to short stories. For longer works, I am less certain because the longer the piece the more room for errors to creep in. Also, as an aside, I think errors in a work of art can also be very fun to talk about (though to the extent errors can be measurably fun to talk about, presumably AI could optimize for very fun errors and be good at that too).
Three Predictions about AI Writing
Some people (e.g., Linch) think AI writing will inevitably eclipse human writing. I think this is likely true in most ways and false in others, particularly for poetry.
Q: Would future AI poetry, posted broadly, get more upvotes than top human poetry?
Prediction: Yes. This has already happened. But it’s all terrible, if you are someone that likes anthology-level poetry.
Q: Would future AI poetry, shared with poetry enthusiasts, get more upvotes than top human poetry?
Prediction: Also, yes. I subscribe to the top poetry magazine, and ~3/4ths of the poems do nothing for me. I understand some experts feel the same way. I think AI can optimize a piece for general likability by a broad cross-section of enthusiasts. I predict, on average, AI would outperform any single poet.
Q: Would future AI poetry, shared with a narrow group of enthusiasts (e.g., fans of contemporary, slice-of-life American poetry), get more up votes than top genre-specific human poetry?
Prediction: No, they will meet but not exceed top, genre-specific human poetry. I think there’s a certain level of poetic excellence that cannot be exceeded.
Much like how language cannot become more efficient than human thinking speeds, I think there’s a level of excellence beyond which it cannot be comprehensibly exceeded. Therefore, if you are an avid poetry reader, AI is unlikely to ever surpass your most favorite poets.
AI may, however, rival your favorite poets and produce 10^x more work. Perhaps this is what Linch had in mind when s/he said, “With progress in modern-day LLMs, isn’t all but a tiny sliver of human fiction going to be obsolete in several years, a decade tops?”
I think my claims also probably apply to short stories. For longer works, I am less certain because the longer the piece the more room for errors to creep in. Also, as an aside, I think errors in a work of art can also be very fun to talk about (though to the extent errors can be measurably fun to talk about, presumably AI could optimize for very fun errors and be good at that too).