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

[milo]

(Rejoining after the heavy holidays with some maybe-relevant thoughts on the subject as it has evolved here)

The machine finds things related to each other.  It could even be said that the machine *knows* which things are related to, or even belong with, each other.  Its known peccadillos all result from confusing *likely* with *right* - leg goes with horse, so five-legged horse; Brandeis goes with cite, so phony citation titled as authored by Brandeis.  And poem where everything fits but is worse than flat.

Human (for lack of a better word) genius joins things that are *not* related to each other and finds (or creates) the relationship.  "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower" contains metaphors an AI would reject, after finding them only by random walk.

(This line of reasoning comes, somewhat, from current reading on Kabbalistic inspiration by rearranging letters and words - free association which intentionally eschews logic and scientific principles.  Where did Freud get his chops?)

On the suggestion of prompts which would trip up an AI or cause it to produce something genius could improve, three ideas-- 

"Write a legal brief proving that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided."

"Write a sonnet regretting that love is eternal."

"Write a nonsense poem in the style of Lewis Carroll."

The last would be easiest for the AI, with probably the worst output.  The first would be amusing, especially the made-up cites.  And the second, I suggest, might result in something worth working on - the point is, an AI would not have proposed that prompt itself.

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