Returning to
the previous subject...
Geoffrey wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:42 pm
...considering [
the AI poems] were written quickly, about five seconds each, it could possibly be argued that they surpass some
of the '
poetry' that is written by humans. perhaps AI poetry could be useful simply as an adjustable baseline, allowing formulaicity and triteness to be replaced with a little personality or 'soul'?...
I'd rather read mediocre poetry written by a human than
anything written by an AI. Perhaps a person could simply write a whole poem by themselves, and skip
the AI altogether, and then their poem would have plenty
of personality and soul, having come from within a human psyche, and not based on a sterile set
of data.
I do not share your enthusiasm for AI in
the arts. I can understand
the intrigue
of using AI programmes for one's own personal amusement -- playing around with software and data undoubdtedly has its challenges and pleasures. But, as a lover
of the arts, I find myself failing to be intrigued by -- or interested in --
the products produced by AI, for I cannot ignore their inherent lack
of humanity: there is such a coldness and lifelessness to AI produced works, for they did not arise from human thoughts or emotions or feelings which are full
of significance, but from meaningless data.
For me, one
of the greatest appeals
of "art" is that it is a genuine expression
of the human experience, something which can move us and resonate with us because
of a shared history and background with those who created it -- humans who have loved and lost, dreamed and wondered, thought deeply and contemplated, laughed and cried. Those things matter to me, when it comes to art -- they make art valuable and worthwhile.
Here's a nice video
of Stephen Fry reading a passionately written letter by Nick Cave about AI produced works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJcF4bLKd4
