To start, this sentiment resonates deeply with me -> “The slipperiness of language. The shining mess. “ At the end of a free write, I sometimes find myself staring at the page dumbfounded by my own words. I think poetry can be the channeling of expressive thought through a person’s unique voice. In effect (at least for now), I think of this as unreplicable by machine. In AI discussion I often flashback to an ‘I Robot’ scene where Sonny (the robot) sketches an image from its dream. I appreciate that you acknowledge AI’s capability to craft. I would even go as far as to call its product(s) ‘art.’ Still, I find myself hesitant of its rise because there is *something lacking.
Yes AI is and can be a useful tool but I personally steer clear because it fells threatening to authenticity.
Thank you for sharing this in your newsletter today. Lately, inspired by the poetry of Jackson Mac Low and John Cage, I've been playing with creating poems through systematic chance operations. A very niche pursuit that's definitely not for everyone, I know...but personally I find the questions these poems bring up interesting. The procedures behind them can, and sometimes were as enacted by Mac Low and Cage, done by computer (though the process is simpler/of a different nature than LLMs like ChatGPT--as seen by the often extreme oddness of the results). Your essay showed me some new dimensions to the questions I'd been asking, about what makes one chance poem "better" than another, why chance poetry appeals to me when AI poetry does not, and why chance poetry will always remain obscure.
I'm also fascinated by aleatory poetry, with a mystical leaning. I'm compelled by the possibilities of AI as an aid to this pursuit. It also occurs to me that AI is human made, at its origin, and draws on the unpredictable nature of understanding and expression in its own way. Conversely, our poetry-writing human brains are machines of a sort -- strange language/image/feeling generators that iterate and even hallucinate. Of course there's spirit in the mix, and that's the element that's impossible to account for in a machine. Thought provoking stuff for us Poets to wrestle with!
Some really great observations here--thanks for taking a minute to comment. The poetry-writing human brain as machine had never occurred to me before--I think you're right but I'll need to get used to that idea and I'll be watching my process with that lens.
Aleatory poetry with a mystical leaning sounds fascinating--now that you mention it I see the possibilities there, ones different from where Mac Low's Buddhist influences led him (I know less about any mystical/spiritual influences of Cage, though it wouldn't surprise me). Are there any links you can easily send me or names to start with?
I am so glad you wrote about this subject (and with a beautiful parable!), Radha. AI is a hot topic, confusing, repellent and attractive all at the same time. If we x-ray the gestation of a poem from conception to birth, we see and understand many, many layers of emotions for the poet at every level of development. When a machine produces a poem, there is only 1 level of emotion available for the poet, which is the feeling inherent in seeing/having a finished product. Why would anyone want to skip all the adventure just to arrive at the end of the line?
“Originality [in the American sense] depends on the creation of repeated effects. Meanwhile, much that is profoundly original but unlikely . . . to sponsor broad imitation . . . gets overlooked or called that lesser thing, ‘unique’—valuable, undoubtedly, but a dead end” in terms of the American conviction that what is called “original” must be, paradoxically, “capable of replication.” (Louise Glück, “American Originality”)
"What is most delightful about poetry, to me, is how exceptionally unpredictable it is, at its best. The strangeness. The oddness. The slipperiness of language. The shining mess. The way a word placed just so explodes into multiple meanings, feelings, universes. To me, poetry isn’t about making things more predictable. It’s about elevating oddness."
I love thos quote in your article 👆 me tooooo.
I think AI poetry has broad appeal because it's mediocre, and mediocrity is always the popular option of it's time, while that unpredictable genius you point out takes time to be appreciated - the masses have to grow into it.
AI is such a powerful synthesizer of massive amounts of data, but it can't produce anything truly original- yet.
I have found AI useful with my poetry when I also it to evaluate my poems. My prompt is "evaluate this poem's strengths and weaknesses. Assign it a letter grade and explain your reasoning."
You have to take the feedback with a grain of salt and discern what's relevant for you, but I've found it helpful.
Indeed, the pulls and pushes of poetry are hard to fully capture. AI may very well be capable of producing lyrical, compelling works to hold up as shiny trophies of completion.
But what unnameable gems were left undiscovered as a result? What deep and primitive caverns did the artist not fully excavate in the creative struggle? How might one’s heart and mind and sinew have been altered through a genuine creative act?
Besides these lofty questions, what about the discipline, ritual, and reflection that strengthen and nourish us as byproducts of our effort?
The threads of real connection have already become so frayed in modern society. I want to strengthen what remains, to fortify what still brings us nearer to each other. I’m not drawn to philosophize about “who” is the creator. I long instead to feel “what” is stirred, revealed, or born through creative seeking.
This “what” is the sharp, intimate edge of being human that poetry steers me toward.
Your thoughtful passion for this subject comes through in what may be one of the most affecting essays on the subject. Thanks so much much, Radha.
To start, this sentiment resonates deeply with me -> “The slipperiness of language. The shining mess. “ At the end of a free write, I sometimes find myself staring at the page dumbfounded by my own words. I think poetry can be the channeling of expressive thought through a person’s unique voice. In effect (at least for now), I think of this as unreplicable by machine. In AI discussion I often flashback to an ‘I Robot’ scene where Sonny (the robot) sketches an image from its dream. I appreciate that you acknowledge AI’s capability to craft. I would even go as far as to call its product(s) ‘art.’ Still, I find myself hesitant of its rise because there is *something lacking.
Yes AI is and can be a useful tool but I personally steer clear because it fells threatening to authenticity.
Thank you for sharing this in your newsletter today. Lately, inspired by the poetry of Jackson Mac Low and John Cage, I've been playing with creating poems through systematic chance operations. A very niche pursuit that's definitely not for everyone, I know...but personally I find the questions these poems bring up interesting. The procedures behind them can, and sometimes were as enacted by Mac Low and Cage, done by computer (though the process is simpler/of a different nature than LLMs like ChatGPT--as seen by the often extreme oddness of the results). Your essay showed me some new dimensions to the questions I'd been asking, about what makes one chance poem "better" than another, why chance poetry appeals to me when AI poetry does not, and why chance poetry will always remain obscure.
I'm also fascinated by aleatory poetry, with a mystical leaning. I'm compelled by the possibilities of AI as an aid to this pursuit. It also occurs to me that AI is human made, at its origin, and draws on the unpredictable nature of understanding and expression in its own way. Conversely, our poetry-writing human brains are machines of a sort -- strange language/image/feeling generators that iterate and even hallucinate. Of course there's spirit in the mix, and that's the element that's impossible to account for in a machine. Thought provoking stuff for us Poets to wrestle with!
Some really great observations here--thanks for taking a minute to comment. The poetry-writing human brain as machine had never occurred to me before--I think you're right but I'll need to get used to that idea and I'll be watching my process with that lens.
Aleatory poetry with a mystical leaning sounds fascinating--now that you mention it I see the possibilities there, ones different from where Mac Low's Buddhist influences led him (I know less about any mystical/spiritual influences of Cage, though it wouldn't surprise me). Are there any links you can easily send me or names to start with?
Your penultimate paragraph, "I go to poetry to make something of my bewilderment ... " — it's beautiful. Thank you Radha!
I am so glad you wrote about this subject (and with a beautiful parable!), Radha. AI is a hot topic, confusing, repellent and attractive all at the same time. If we x-ray the gestation of a poem from conception to birth, we see and understand many, many layers of emotions for the poet at every level of development. When a machine produces a poem, there is only 1 level of emotion available for the poet, which is the feeling inherent in seeing/having a finished product. Why would anyone want to skip all the adventure just to arrive at the end of the line?
I love this! Well said.
“Originality [in the American sense] depends on the creation of repeated effects. Meanwhile, much that is profoundly original but unlikely . . . to sponsor broad imitation . . . gets overlooked or called that lesser thing, ‘unique’—valuable, undoubtedly, but a dead end” in terms of the American conviction that what is called “original” must be, paradoxically, “capable of replication.” (Louise Glück, “American Originality”)
"What is most delightful about poetry, to me, is how exceptionally unpredictable it is, at its best. The strangeness. The oddness. The slipperiness of language. The shining mess. The way a word placed just so explodes into multiple meanings, feelings, universes. To me, poetry isn’t about making things more predictable. It’s about elevating oddness."
I love thos quote in your article 👆 me tooooo.
I think AI poetry has broad appeal because it's mediocre, and mediocrity is always the popular option of it's time, while that unpredictable genius you point out takes time to be appreciated - the masses have to grow into it.
AI is such a powerful synthesizer of massive amounts of data, but it can't produce anything truly original- yet.
I have found AI useful with my poetry when I also it to evaluate my poems. My prompt is "evaluate this poem's strengths and weaknesses. Assign it a letter grade and explain your reasoning."
You have to take the feedback with a grain of salt and discern what's relevant for you, but I've found it helpful.
"bewilderment, my inarticulate wilds, my legitimate strangeness"
"elevating oddness"
Yes, exactly that.
Thank you for this.
Indeed, the pulls and pushes of poetry are hard to fully capture. AI may very well be capable of producing lyrical, compelling works to hold up as shiny trophies of completion.
But what unnameable gems were left undiscovered as a result? What deep and primitive caverns did the artist not fully excavate in the creative struggle? How might one’s heart and mind and sinew have been altered through a genuine creative act?
Besides these lofty questions, what about the discipline, ritual, and reflection that strengthen and nourish us as byproducts of our effort?
The threads of real connection have already become so frayed in modern society. I want to strengthen what remains, to fortify what still brings us nearer to each other. I’m not drawn to philosophize about “who” is the creator. I long instead to feel “what” is stirred, revealed, or born through creative seeking.
This “what” is the sharp, intimate edge of being human that poetry steers me toward.
Write on, humans.
Well said, Sam.
yep, it's how I make sense of things as well.
Oh, this would make a marvelous craft lecture!
I loved this Radha, thank you.
For me, poetry is weaving words to capture an emotion. Do machines feel?
Love this.