AI is nothing new. I first started experimenting with machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) way back in the early 1980s. The phrase 'Artificial Intelligence' had been coined way back in 1955 by John McCarthy, but many years before this, others had been speculating on, and experimenting with the idea that machines could 'think' or at least mimic human patterns of thought. The entire history of AI can be read at this link.
In 1966 computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum developed a program that mimicked a psychotherapist. He called it Eliza, and it was probably the first artificial dialogue program (or chatbot) ever created.
I sit at the nexus between psychology and computer science. As a former associate professor in education I have a professional and personal interest. In 1982 I developed a chatbot based on Eliza's source code which I named Dr Fraud. Essentially, the program analysed whatever you inputted and then spat back an insult or some form of abuse at you. This rapidly became a very popular program with my student nurses (especially the psychiatric nurses), and they queued up to use it. Often you would hear gales of laughter as the student nurses read the rude, but inventive lines the 'psychiatric insultant' chatbot known as Dr Fraud would hurl at them. It was all good fun, and it introduced my students to the idea that not only could they learn from using computers, but that it could be fun, because of the dialogic and interactive elements.
Today of course, AI has developed rapidly from the early forays to the point that it is now a constant news and media item, and everyone seems to be talking about it. Generative AI (G-AI) is built into so many applications we use, from banking and shopping to home use of devices such as Siri, Alexa and smartphones. The popularity of free AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL-E and Synthesia is transforming the way we create, analyse and disseminate knowledge and content.
Where poetry is concerned, we can perceive AI as either a threat or an opportunity. Most online poetry groups have banned the sharing of AI generated poetry because in essence it is plagiarism. The AI tool will spider the web for existing poetry texts, steal from them and construct a 'poem' for the user. It takes away from the creativity of poetry and makes a mockery of the process of writing a poem. Why claim to be a poet when all you are doing is pressing a computer key? There are similar arguments from the art, entertainment, literary and music industries who sense the same threat.
What is the alternative perspective? It is this - that in all of the above fields, AI can be used as a starting point, an inspiration or a series of steps toward creating something new and unique. The view is that creativity can be supported and even enhanced through the use of G-AI tools, if used sensibly, ethically and appropriately.
So for example, could AI be used to prompt an idea for a poetry topic, or to offer a template for a villanelle or a pantoum? Could it be used to suggest s good end rhyme, or as a check for grammatical or syntactic accuracy. How about using it to translate your poem into another language... or as a co-author of your work. Which of these is ok and which is going to far?
The jury is still out. What are your views on the use of G-AI in poetry?
Steve Wheeler
Image from Wikimedia Commons
Very thoughtfully executed Steve.
ReplyDeleteThanks Brandon. I try my best.
DeleteI prefer my poetry to be my own, from my thoughts, not computer generated
ReplyDeleteIs there though s valid application where AI can prompt you or provide a template for say, a villanelle to support your creative expression?
DeleteAI can't create emotional skills
ReplyDeleteNo, but it can successfully model them to the point that many people are fooled.
DeleteDoctor Fraud… the psychiatric insultant!! That’s some genius motivation to get students to learn… I’m curious if Dr Fraud is still taking appointments! That being said… I believe the temptation to incorporate AI in poetry as an inspirational template is still there due to incorporating phrases or even forms not originating from the author… thus corrupting the originality of the piece. Just my humble opinion… impressive and useful article Steve.
ReplyDeleteSadly Dr Fraud was retired to the Great Algorithm in the sky many years ago. As I said the jury is still out on how useful AI can be as a muse...
DeleteThere is a paradox in my mind. On the one hand, you are absolutely not a poet if you create poetry with AI, therefore, can it be considered 'poet'ry? On the other hand, if it resonates with the reader, then it is worth while and I'd be thankful of the tool used in this manner. At least I wish there was a law requiring all AI art to have some sort of unmistakable identification. Thanks for all your hard work Steve. I have a Facebook group called Shiny Hooks I'd love you to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. As with all new technologies legislation has to run hard to keep up. No doubt laws will be introduced eventually but not before massive disruption and unrest occur.
DeleteThank you Steve for sharing i prefer my poetry to be my own.From my heart and soul what i feel and see not a computer's mind
ReplyDeleteFurther to my comment on the FB thread (which I composed on the Bus), I'll add the following. The more effort and creative ideas you put into the prompt, the less it looks like AI if you use the gptZero tool that teachers often use to check if their students have used AI to write homework essays.
ReplyDeleteA secondary example concerns a poem "Diana's Hand" that I posted on the IP site. If you've seen it already, the following test won't apply. As an experiment, I gave chatGPT a fully detailed prompt of all the creative ideas in the poem. That the parable of the sheep and goats states that if you looked after a sick person, "you looked after me". I suggested using this analogy in the case where an AIDS patient was visited by Princess Diana, who held his hand, thereby attempting to break the stigma associated with AIDS. I also asked it to make the patient's final words to be "It is finished". The text it produced was rated as more human than AI by gptZero. I then made my own minor mods (really not that much - still over 90% of the text was AI generated. gptZero said the probability of it being AI was just 5% ie overwhelmingly human. My version gave 2%. This really isn't a significant difference at all, as the gptZero website says you need to score 85% or more to safely accuse someone of AI - otherwise there are two false positives. So the following Turing test only applies if you've not seen my original post. Which of these texts is AI (with minimal adjustments) and which is human. Then, the philosophical question - could I claim I "wrote" the AI version since I gave it a very detailed description of the creative ideas to use, and it only strung it together in verse and rhyme? Is this any different from the fact that many of the Old Masters used their students to finish off parts of their paintings - presumably from a sketch and instructions as to where the light falls, what colour to use etc. Here are the texts:
Text A
In shadowed ward where fear and silence blend
A figure lies, with life's thread thin and frayed,
His visage marked by illness without end,
A modern cross, on which his pain's displayed.
This man, forsaken, in his final hours,
Embodies Christ, who at Golgotha died.
For in his suffering, a new truth flowers:
In love's embrace, no outcast is denied.
Remembered well, a princess graced these halls,
Her hands, like Christ's, reached out to bless and heal
With tender touch, she broke stigmata's walls.
To show the world compassion's true appeal.
And as the twilight claims the dying light,
He sighs, "It's finished," fading into night.
Text B
Pinned to his bed a dying man with AIDS
Kaposi’s lesions like stigmata stripes
Make us hide our faces from his needs.
This agony, this judgement never stops.
A princess roams the wards and takes his hand
One of the sheep, this mission is her own
Compassion given here where others shunned
By looking out for those looked down upon.
But did she know whose hand she deigned to touch?
This man who had no form, forsaken one
A man of grief and sorrows, out of reach
Condemned by hateful cries of “It's a sin”.
For though the knowing goats say “God has punished”
The righteous sheep can hear: “It is finished”
Can you tell which is AI? I gave it to an academic friend of mine today, who is a world expert on chatGPT, and he got the wrong answer!
Fascinating experiment Iain. As you know I've performed similar Turing Test style poetry experiments. AI is becoming more sophisticated and complex in the tasks it can perform, and it will become increasingly difficult to determine the difference. However, poetry comes from the soul and communicates to the soul. The uncanny valley feeling we experience will remain a gold standard test against being fooled by AI generated art.
DeleteAfter close inspection I believe B is yours and A is the AI generated text.
DeleteI wont' say if you're right or wrong just yet - I want to see if anyone else has a go! As I said, it fooled gptZero and a human. But I expected the result - that if you "front load" the creative ideas you get something that looks more human than artificial. But then, who wrote the poem, if you told it what to write? Like old masters who get their students to finish off their paintings, yet the concept remains with the human creator.
DeleteUsing A.I. to detect whether a poem has been composed by a human being has a certain poetic irony. Apparently A.I. detectors such as gptZero generate a lot of false positives. Amusingly feeding chunks of the U.S. Constitution and the Chistian Bible into A.I. detectors result in the detectors concluding that both were likely composed by A.I. In this case the Founding Fathers were robots and God is an android.
DeleteThe false positive rate can be reduced by setting an appropriate threshold. The authors of the code recommend 85% as a threshold. So even if it says 84% probability of AI then you should not take that as a positive. I always balance the gptZero score with my own impression of the text. Having done extensive tests on chatGPT I found the results, whether in generating poetry or reviewing poems, are very "samey" and use the same words over and over again, notably "entwine", "embrace", "tapestry" and "symphony" (often more than once in a poem). I asked it to write a poem about "elephants" and within two lines it had described the tread of an elephant's foot as a "dance" and a "symphony". Its poems also frequently start with the word "In" (about 66% of the time), where if you go to a poetry book and check the index of first lines you'll find only about 5% start with "in". I think you you balance this human subjective opinion with the gptZero score you can be pretty confident at spotting AI.
DeleteThe boundary between "AI" and "not AI" is fuzzy at the edges. I wrote a set of poems five years ago using a tool made by a company called Botnik (the founders included the cartoon editor of the New Yorker and the CEO was my son). It reads text of your choice, then gives you options for next word. The constraint is that all the words MUST come from the texts you put in. All the creativity comes from you.
ReplyDeleteHere's one result:
What if Maya Angelou, the Beowulf author, and the writers of the Caterpillar Technologies fork lift truck manual had collaborated?
My hero's baby baboon eyelids flutter.
The forklift then glistens bright on the barrow.
This fine night's early darkening represents the change from winter into
a machine capable of bitterest tears, melting melodies, and great courtesy.
Oh, beloved!
How your youthful power is a shimmering curtain around my gearshift.
quite a surreal result! I did something similar just using a search engine. The idea is you put something in the search box (in this case a line from one of my poems) and then visit each hit in turn and select a word of phrase from it, and have that as the next line. Here's the result from one of mine, the title being the search string.
DeleteGlittering liquid Epiphany of Light
Glitter flakes
Creamy, firm
Semi-opaque
Epiphany is a clear
Feast of the
Extraordinary claim
That holds the light for us
In red, green or gold
Through the changing leaves
Without chipping, peeling or damaging
The beauty of the glory of Jesus.
Epic Light,
Rising and shining
In liquid air!
Or, another Botnik product from 2018.
ReplyDeleteWhat if William Shakespeare had written a technical guide to blockchain technology?
Its soul a mage has carved from one and none.
From light's fleet rushing substance is it made
What is said is said, what is done is done
The acts of those who would their dues evade
Block by block it serves to bind and chain //
Impartial judge impannelled in a lock
That when once opened, none can close again
The chains that bind are hidden in this block //
So now, no king his oaths can freely break
No prince his trusted promises disdain
Or for his own or for another's sake //
We'll not contract and calculate in vain
But this, unless the leopard change his spots
Is poisoned hemlock for my weaker plots
I agree with Steve. I would say text B is your poem. Text A strikes me as more mechanical and forced, in spite of the machine "working" with your sophisticated creative ideas. It's like the evolution of the GIGO theory, i.e. AIAO (Artistry In, Artistry Out). At least near-artistry.
ReplyDeleteA.I. becomes interesting when you ask it to generate imagery by plugging in selected lines of your poem. I've tried to capture the resuts in the following verse:
ReplyDelete"The bio brain writes the words,
Neural nets converge and merge,
The A.I. mind paints the picture,
The creation a surreal uncanny mixture."
To be totally honest I don't know enough AI and I probably should. All I know is I don't think my heart and soul would be into writing poetry anymore. It would feel like plagiarism. This is my therapy for my life's trauma's and no-one else's. Where is the creativity gone. My memories, my thoughts, my own blood bleeding from pen to paper.x
ReplyDelete