Computers are an important part of today's world. They can be useful for stocking shelves and operating cars, for example. Still, it looks like the devices won't be replacing authors anytime soon. It turns out that computers are not so great at creating original poems, short stories, or other creative works.

Scientists, poets, and others figured that out in May 2016 after taking part in a Dartmouth College competition. For the contest, nouns—including wave, tourist, and floor—were given to computers that scientists had programmed. The computers used algorithms to produce sonnets. The computers' task wasn't easy: A sonnet is a 14-line poem. It follows a certain rhyme scheme. It also has a set rhythm and structure.

Three judges were asked to read ten sonnets. Six of the sonnets were produced by humans. Four were created by computers using two different algorithms. The judges' task was to see if they could identify the author as a human or a computer. In each case, the judges were able to pick out the sonnet produced by a computer program. These sonnets didn't flow well. They didn't tell a story. Some also had "uses of language that were just a little off," said author and judge Louis Menand.

The competition also included parts for short stories and music. Computer algorithms were not much better at writing short stories than they were at creating poetry. For the most part, they failed to fool the judges—although one judge was tricked by one story. But the sets of music were more of a challenge. Dancers were asked to determine whether humans or computers had produced the various sets. They had a difficult time doing so. Two algorithm entries managed to perplex about 40 percent of the dancers.

Dan Rockmore is a Dartmouth professor. He helped create the competition. Rockmore said he was surprised at the computers' poor showing regarding the sonnets. But he wasn't that surprised, given the way the competition was set up. After all, the judges knew they were looking for computer-generated poems.

"The judges were hunting for machines…not looking at a [greeting] card and reading the poem inside," Rockmore said.

Michael Casey is a music professor at Dartmouth. He helped plan the competition. Casey said the results demonstrated the challenges faced by machines when they try to copy the arts. It's hard to find an algorithm that can recreate the fine details of a poem, he said. But he wasn't giving up on the idea that one day a computerized William Shakespeare could emerge.

"By doing this once, we may be able to encourage whoever is out there working on this kind of thing to take part and maybe we will get better algorithms," Casey said.

However, Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, doesn't agree. She questions the whole idea of trying to get a machine to create art, such as poetry.

"Poetry needs to come from the experience of human meaning. That is what gives it life," Turkle said.

Rockmore and Casey pointed out that Internet and social media algorithms already suggest books and music for people. Online, people are shown lists of what they might want to read or hear based on their earlier preferences. So it could just be a matter of time before computers generate the actual content. But rather than a writer, the artist would be the programmer designing the algorithm.

"[Suppose] you could write beautiful stories that made people happy at the snap of your fingers," Rockmore said. "That would be a wonderful thing. It wouldn't mean humans weren't writing great things, too. They are both different art forms."

Vocabulary

algorithm (noun)：a set of step-by-step instructions used for solving a problem

emerge (verb)：to come out, appear, or develop

identify (verb)：to point out or name

preference (noun)：something that is chosen over others

structure (noun)：form