Policy regarding advanced aids (GPT, other AI, et al)

[milo]

...

Probably all true and I am sure you are more familiar than I am with AI as it is something I keep meaning to get to but haven't yet.

My curiosity stems from a lifelong obsession of mine as to the objective quality of poetry.  It is a topic I have debated on multiple sides and on multiple occasions whether it was a discussion of "know your audience" or "what makes a poem a poem?" or even the objective value of criticizing any poetry at all if there is no objective quality.

How does this relate? - you may find yourself asking.

Ai, I would predict, would be anathema to poets.  AI generated content would (perhaps should) be disliked.  But is this dislike due to the source or the product?  I would posit this - if the method of generation determines whether a poem is good than there is no true objective quality to poetry at all.  If a poem is good (great?) then it should be good regardless of who (what) wrote it.

Now, you could fairly say - AI could not generate a good (great) poem and I would not be in a position to argue at this point due to my inexperience with AI generated content.

Thanks

It's a modern trope to answer any dislike or manifested discomfort with "What are you afraid of?" or even to name and ascribe a fear without asking.

But in the present case, the question might have some exploratory value.  To ask, "Can an AI write a good poem?" implies that someone, somewhere can evaluate such a poem objectively - if that has meaning - or subjectively.  So let's turn it around, often a useful mode of interrogation, and ask, "Can an AI write valid critique of a poem?"  Can an AI write *good* critique of a poem?  Could an AI recognize quality?

And there, perhaps, is the fear:  If an AI can recognize what is good, it will have become possible to turn to it for approval.

Approval is, after all, why we submit to critique.  To some, it may be a matter of drawing others (the critic) into our personal universe and either enslave them to that extent or confirm its objective reality (depending on how nuts we happen to be).  Trusting a machine to give critique isn't especially crazy.  Seeking a machine's *approval* is right of the chart.

I would love to say you are incorrect based on the fact that AI ALWAYS tells you the poem is good but I cannot as I am overly familiar with the confirmation bias of poets.  On this very site, how many times have we witnessed members posting poems of very questionable quality followed shortly after (after  helpful members attempting to help them) by claims of publishing rights or the strong recognition of "real" poets.

But the real problem is much deeper than that and you hint at it here.:

AI represents true objectivity.  People trust computers in a way they never can trust humans.  It is only a matter of time before AI is considered the objective truth in what is considered quality in human poetry and I could see how that is a concern.

Still - actual good poetry is rare.  Anyone who has participated in online forums to any degree can attest to that.  As a reader, is it worth the risk to gain access to high quality poems?  I mean, for as close as I am to William Shakespeare, I am as close to a modern computer so how should I differentiate other than I perfer Shakespeare becuase we are members of the same tribe.

Thanks