> Suppose I prepared a glass of lemonade and purchased a bottle of vintage wine—one held in high regard by connoisseurs.
I would tell you that there have been results about the blind testing of wines held in high regard by connoisseurs that might make you not want to choose that for a comparison.
The blind tasting studies prove that connoisseurs can't discern the price of wine by taste. They can tell whether or not they like it perfectly well. A good bottle, not an expensive one.
Does this not undermine the premise of the original metaphor (i.e. a glass of lemonade is somehow inferior to a fine wine)? Seems like a lot of goal post shifting.
A glass of lemonade is not inferior. It's a different thing entirely. You can compare good lemonade to bad lemonade, or good wine to bad wine, but asking a group of people who prefer lemonade to compare a glass of lemonade with a glass of wine tells you nothing about the quality of the lemonade or wine in question.
The human poets in the test wrote high-brow poetry, the AI generated low-brow poetry, and the audience of laypeople who were surveyed preferred the low-brow poetry. There's nothing wrong with a straightforward rhyme scheme or anything—it's not bad to be low-brow—but it's not a useful comparison.
I would tell you that there have been results about the blind testing of wines held in high regard by connoisseurs that might make you not want to choose that for a comparison.