Computers have become an indispensable 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 determined this in May 2016 after taking part in a Dartmouth College competition during which nouns—including wave, tourist, and floor—were given to computers that scientists had programmed to produce sonnets using artificial intelligence algorithms. The computers' task wasn't an easy one: A sonnet is a 14-line poem that has a certain rhyme scheme. It also has a set rhythm and structure.

A three-judge panel, which included Pulitzer Prize-winning author Louis Menand, was asked to read ten sonnets. Six of the sonnets were produced by human contestants, and 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 every instance, the judges were able to find the sonnet produced by a computer program. These sonnets didn't have the flow or narrative of a good poem. Some also had "uses of language that were just a little off," Menand said.

The competition included a short story portion and one involving computer and human disc jockeys (DJs). Computer algorithms were not much better at writing short stories than they were at creating poetry. For the most part, they failed to fool a panel of judges—although one judge was tricked by one story. But the sets of music, which were played from behind a black curtain, were more of a challenge. Dancers were asked to determine whether humans or computers had produced the various sets. They struggled to do so accurately. Two algorithm entries managed to confound about 40 percent of the dancers.

Competition cofounder Dan Rockmore, a Dartmouth professor, 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 organize the competition. Casey said the results demonstrated the challenges faced by machines when they try to mimic the arts. It's hard to find an algorithm that can replicate the subtleties of a story or the form and precision in 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 who did not take part in the contest, 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," she said.

Rockmore and Casey pointed out that Internet and social media algorithms already play a role in choosing the books we read and the music we listen to. Online, people are shown lists of what they would likely 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

confound(verb)：to perplex or puzzle

contestant(noun)：a person who takes part in a contest or game

Replicate(verb)：to repeat or copy

subtlety(noun)：fine or underlying detail that may be easy to miss