I'm sufficiently happy with the number of upvotes I received on my original comment that I don't feel the slightest bit dead. The pedantic and point-missing response from the GP is somebody with an axe to grind from an earlier tasteless comment I made which I (somewhat) regret now. We have very different neurodivergence profiles and are unlikely to be able to have a healthy and productive conversation.
While the response may be "technically correct" (best kind), the upvotes received for my original comment highlight my point - the number of people interested in generative poetry is a tiny contingent compared to those who are pretty much disgusted by it - more specifically at those who would try to pass it off as written by a human saying "if you weren't told it was AI, you might like it and you wouldn't know the difference. Try pretending you don't know".
It's missing the point. The wider public does not consider generative art to be art, but more resembling misappropriation and deception even if a tiny majority in the "tech roolz all" crowd here disagree.
Very clever and impressive technology to be sure, but if it's not art made by a human, it's a synthetic deriviative and those that don't appreciate it have some very valid complaints. I can appreciate that some here are very impressed by the tech, I am too. It does not mean I want to be lied do about the provenance of a piece of art, fooled into believing it was made by a human with human emotions, when it wasn't.
Nobody is going to say "what a talented computer! i wonder what they were feeling when they created that" because we already know. Absolutely nothing.
While the response may be "technically correct" (best kind), the upvotes received for my original comment highlight my point - the number of people interested in generative poetry is a tiny contingent compared to those who are pretty much disgusted by it - more specifically at those who would try to pass it off as written by a human saying "if you weren't told it was AI, you might like it and you wouldn't know the difference. Try pretending you don't know".
It's missing the point. The wider public does not consider generative art to be art, but more resembling misappropriation and deception even if a tiny majority in the "tech roolz all" crowd here disagree.
Very clever and impressive technology to be sure, but if it's not art made by a human, it's a synthetic deriviative and those that don't appreciate it have some very valid complaints. I can appreciate that some here are very impressed by the tech, I am too. It does not mean I want to be lied do about the provenance of a piece of art, fooled into believing it was made by a human with human emotions, when it wasn't.
Nobody is going to say "what a talented computer! i wonder what they were feeling when they created that" because we already know. Absolutely nothing.