4 ms·

Huh, that sounds a little like claiming that AI can draw pictures just as well as humans because they look realistic at a first glance. But not if you check whe

by n4r9 2y ago

Huh, that sounds a little like claiming that AI can draw pictures just as well as humans because they look realistic at a first glance. But not if you check whether the text, repetitive elements, and partially-occluded objects in the background look correct.

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's another case of the impedance mismatch between numbers / KPIs etc and what might be called "lived experience".
- rendaw 2y ago
  Why is Ulysses better than Harry Potter?
  - musicale 2y ago
    Apples are better than oranges. "An orange a day keeps the doctor away?" I don't think so. Newton's orange? Nope. Orange may be the surprisingly successful remains of a former telecom monopoly, but Apple is the most valuable company on the planet.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Why is Harry Pottery better than a more unknown book like the Sugar Barons? Both are exciting but one is based on real events/letters.. I think parent is basing it on high art principles which are: older better, uniqueness, what others agree is valuable and content/quality. Why aren't we talking about the first english book published? The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye
  - krige 2y ago
    Are you aware of studies of Ulysses and James Joyce in general? That's a good start for this discussion, assuming it's not just a kneejerk reaction.
- netdevphoenix 2y ago
  You are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?
  - spacechild1 2y ago
    If all, they are assuming the opposite.
    - netdevphoenix 2y ago
      My point stands
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        I get the point you're trying to make, and in some philosophical sense you're right. In reality though, people into a field are able to rank quality extremely well and it doesn't end up being the puzzle you're implying it is
- wruza 2y ago
  Why is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the same step on the ladder. I find this facet of a deep-shallow distinction completely synthetic and (imo) coming from a limited technical-ish view on music. Vivaldi, AC/DC, Blackpink — it’s all an art of a genius level, just differently flavored.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    I'm a bit confused about this AC/DC vs "Carla Frey" comparison. For starters, I can't find any musicians by the name of Carla Frey. There is however a free jazz pianist named Carla Bley. It feels like OP has maybe selected a niche artist that they're personally fond of. I had a listen and it's the sort of stuff you'd get in hotel lobbies. It's nice, and it probably means a lot to people who are really into jazz, but I suspect that few people will ever hear of this artist. Conversely, Angus Young of AC/DC is extremely musically gifted and I suspect that songs like Thunderstruck will have a large social impact for years to come. There's nothing dumb about their songs. Though I don't put much stock in Spotify listens, it has 1.6 billion vs Bley's most popular "Lawns" having around 2 million. Sure, there are cases where great artists are not well known in their own time - from Mozart to Nick Drake - but recognition generally follows in the subsequent decades. If Carla Bley is who they inteded to refer to, they've had over 50 years to become recognised.
jaredklewis 2y ago
It sounds different to me. Poetry is for the enjoyment and enlightenment of the reader. Who reads poems? The question is a little vague. Who reads poems on a birthday card? Everyone. In a children's book? Parents and children. But this study focuses on literary poems specifically, using works by literary heavy weights like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickinson, Whitman, Byron, Ginsberg, and so on. So the question is who reads literary poems, to which the answer is: academics, literary writers, and a vanishingly small population of reader who enjoy such pursuits. So the test of if ersatz AI poetry is as good as "real" poetry should be if target audience (i.e. academics) finds the poems to be enjoyable or enlightening. But this study does not test that hypothesis. This study tests a different hypothesis: can lay people who are not generally interested in literary poetry distinguish between real and AI literary poetry? The hypothesis and paper feel kind of like a potshot at literary poetry to me, or at least I don't understand why this particular question is interesting or worthy of scientific inquiry.
- godelski 2y ago
  > Poetry is for the enjoyment and enlightenment of the reader. Is it? If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can warm me, I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way? - Emily Dickinson Clearly Dickinson believes it is far more than what’s at the surface. It is more than the rhyme and rhythm. They add to the effect, but they are not necessary conditions. It’s generally agreed upon that art is defined by making you feel. Lay people are often uninterested in poetry because they didn’t study it. There’s nothing wrong with that. Many are put off by elitists, garbage, and the difficulty to parse. But this is true for any subject matter, we see similarities in programming and in science. You see even many from there point to the surface and dismiss despite the importance being underneath. But it also doesn’t have to be for everyone. It’s not about being smart or dumb either, as most people happily get into the depths of the subjects they enjoy. Be it a child’s obsession with dinosaurs, a teen’s obsession in videogames, or an elite academic. We all have that capacity but there are always hurdles to entry and sometimes the point is to stumble. When it is, removing the hurdles harms the domain, even though it’s almost always done with the best of intentions. Eventually you gotta touch the stove top to learn it’s hot
shiroiushi 2y ago
Or if you check that any pictures of people have the correct number of fingers, toes, arms, legs, or heads.
ludwik 2y ago
To me, it sounds more like claiming that AI writes better code than Linus Torvalds because a group of random non-programmers preferred reading simple AI-generated Python over Linux kernel C code.
- NeutralCrane 2y ago
  Not sure that I agree with this metaphor, as the utility of code is both subjective (readability) and objective (performance). There are objective ways in which C code simply can’t be matched by a Python implementation. If they were equivalent in terms of performance, I think use of C would crater. With poetry, the “utility” is entirely the subjective experience of the reader. There is no objective component.

by n4r9 2y ago

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago

The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.

HPsquared 2y ago
It's another case of the impedance mismatch between numbers / KPIs etc and what might be called "lived experience".
rendaw 2y ago
Why is Ulysses better than Harry Potter?
- musicale 2y ago
  Apples are better than oranges. "An orange a day keeps the doctor away?" I don't think so. Newton's orange? Nope. Orange may be the surprisingly successful remains of a former telecom monopoly, but Apple is the most valuable company on the planet.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Why is Harry Pottery better than a more unknown book like the Sugar Barons? Both are exciting but one is based on real events/letters.. I think parent is basing it on high art principles which are: older better, uniqueness, what others agree is valuable and content/quality. Why aren't we talking about the first english book published? The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye
- krige 2y ago
  Are you aware of studies of Ulysses and James Joyce in general? That's a good start for this discussion, assuming it's not just a kneejerk reaction.
netdevphoenix 2y ago
You are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?
- spacechild1 2y ago
  If all, they are assuming the opposite.
  - netdevphoenix 2y ago
    My point stands
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      I get the point you're trying to make, and in some philosophical sense you're right. In reality though, people into a field are able to rank quality extremely well and it doesn't end up being the puzzle you're implying it is
wruza 2y ago
Why is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the same step on the ladder. I find this facet of a deep-shallow distinction completely synthetic and (imo) coming from a limited technical-ish view on music. Vivaldi, AC/DC, Blackpink — it’s all an art of a genius level, just differently flavored.
- n4r9 2y ago
  I'm a bit confused about this AC/DC vs "Carla Frey" comparison. For starters, I can't find any musicians by the name of Carla Frey. There is however a free jazz pianist named Carla Bley. It feels like OP has maybe selected a niche artist that they're personally fond of. I had a listen and it's the sort of stuff you'd get in hotel lobbies. It's nice, and it probably means a lot to people who are really into jazz, but I suspect that few people will ever hear of this artist. Conversely, Angus Young of AC/DC is extremely musically gifted and I suspect that songs like Thunderstruck will have a large social impact for years to come. There's nothing dumb about their songs. Though I don't put much stock in Spotify listens, it has 1.6 billion vs Bley's most popular "Lawns" having around 2 million. Sure, there are cases where great artists are not well known in their own time - from Mozart to Nick Drake - but recognition generally follows in the subsequent decades. If Carla Bley is who they inteded to refer to, they've had over 50 years to become recognised.

jaredklewis 2y ago

It sounds different to me. Poetry is for the enjoyment and enlightenment of the reader. Who reads poems? The question is a little vague. Who reads poems on a birthday card? Everyone. In a children's book? Parents and children. But this study focuses on literary poems specifically, using works by literary heavy weights like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickinson, Whitman, Byron, Ginsberg, and so on. So the question is who reads literary poems, to which the answer is: academics, literary writers, and a vanishingly small population of reader who enjoy such pursuits. So the test of if ersatz AI poetry is as good as "real" poetry should be if target audience (i.e. academics) finds the poems to be enjoyable or enlightening. But this study does not test that hypothesis. This study tests a different hypothesis: can lay people who are not generally interested in literary poetry distinguish between real and AI literary poetry? The hypothesis and paper feel kind of like a potshot at literary poetry to me, or at least I don't understand why this particular question is interesting or worthy of scientific inquiry.

godelski 2y ago
> Poetry is for the enjoyment and enlightenment of the reader. Is it? If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can warm me, I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way? - Emily Dickinson Clearly Dickinson believes it is far more than what’s at the surface. It is more than the rhyme and rhythm. They add to the effect, but they are not necessary conditions. It’s generally agreed upon that art is defined by making you feel. Lay people are often uninterested in poetry because they didn’t study it. There’s nothing wrong with that. Many are put off by elitists, garbage, and the difficulty to parse. But this is true for any subject matter, we see similarities in programming and in science. You see even many from there point to the surface and dismiss despite the importance being underneath. But it also doesn’t have to be for everyone. It’s not about being smart or dumb either, as most people happily get into the depths of the subjects they enjoy. Be it a child’s obsession with dinosaurs, a teen’s obsession in videogames, or an elite academic. We all have that capacity but there are always hurdles to entry and sometimes the point is to stumble. When it is, removing the hurdles harms the domain, even though it’s almost always done with the best of intentions. Eventually you gotta touch the stove top to learn it’s hot

shiroiushi 2y ago

Or if you check that any pictures of people have the correct number of fingers, toes, arms, legs, or heads.

ludwik 2y ago

To me, it sounds more like claiming that AI writes better code than Linus Torvalds because a group of random non-programmers preferred reading simple AI-generated Python over Linux kernel C code.

NeutralCrane 2y ago
Not sure that I agree with this metaphor, as the utility of code is both subjective (readability) and objective (performance). There are objective ways in which C code simply can’t be matched by a Python implementation. If they were equivalent in terms of performance, I think use of C would crater. With poetry, the “utility” is entirely the subjective experience of the reader. There is no objective component.