> Despite this success, evidence about non-experts’ ability to distinguish AI-generated poetry has been mixed. Non-experts in poetry may use different cues, and be less familiar with the structural requirements of rhyme and meter, than experts in poetry or poetry generation. Gunser and colleagues14 and Rahmeh15 find that human-written poems are evaluated more positively than AI-generated poems. Köbis and Mossink16 finds that when a human chooses the best AI-generated poem (“human-in-the-loop”) participants cannot distinguish AI-generated poems from human-written poems, but when an AI-generated poem is chosen at random (“human-out-of-the-loop”), participants are able to distinguish AI-generated from human-written poems.

This is a huge difference. Writing is a two-step process: idea generation, and selection. The first part is similar to what a randomized algorithm or an LLM might do, in smaller chunks (and indeed, the history of aleatoric processes in creative endeavors is long -- see Oulipo for one example in literature.)

The second step -- selection -- is the heart of creativity. It's about taste. Knowing what is and isn't "good."

When you consider the creative processes of Dada, Duchamp, Brian Eno -- I think it becomes clear that this automation of creative generation is a continuation of existing trends rather than a sudden disruption.

If an LLM were able to, on its own, generate and select poems, independently developing a new style of poetry that resonated with readers -- that would be something else entirely.