In summary, Study 2 finds that participants consistently rate AI-generated poetry more highly than the poetry of well-known human poets across a variety of factors. Regardless of a poem’s actual authorship, participants consistently rate poems more highly when told that a poem is written by a human poet, as compared to being told that a poem was generated by AI. The preference for AI-generated poetry at least partially explains the “more human than human” phenomenon found in Study 1: when controlling for participants’ ratings, AI-generated poems are no longer more likely to be judged human.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: