Did you actually read the article you posted? Few quotes:
- "Beyond the themes and emotions, ChatGPT’s poems were also simpler in terms of their overall structure and composition."
- "Understanding poems written by humans requires deep, critical thinking—and that’s a big part of poetry’s appeal, the researchers write in the paper. But modern readers don’t seem to want to do this labor, instead preferring texts that give them “instant answers,” [...]"
So AI didn't write better poems than Shakespear (it's only GPT-3.5, but I doubt newer models are better), and it seems to me that readers couldn't tell difference because they simply can't recognize quality.
What could a neural networks exponentially larger than GPT-3 could accomplish? You could probably use it to create more efficient GPUs. And then other more efficient tools in adjacent industries. Hard to say where the virtuous cycle would end... constraints in manufacturing would evaporate as the rate of technological breakthroughs increase.
