"Age" by Robert Creeley

 

Most explicit—
the sense of trap

as a narrowing
cone one's got

stuck into and
any movement

forward simply
wedges once more—

but where
or quite when,

even with whom,
since now there is no one

quite with you—Quite? Quiet?
English expression: Quait?

Language of singular
impedance? A dance? An

involuntary gesture to
others not there? What's

wrong here? How
reach out to the

other side all
others live on as

now you see the
two doctors, behind

you, in mind's eye,
probe into your anus,

or ass, or bottom,
behind you, the roto-

rooter-like device
sees all up, concludes

"like a worn-out inner tube,"
"old," prose prolapsed, person's

problems won't do, must
cut into, cut out . . .

The world is a round but
diminishing ball, a spherical

ice cube, a dusty
joke, a fading,

faint echo of its
former self but remembers,

sometimes, its past, sees
friends, places, reflections,

talks to itself in a fond,
judgemental murmur,

alone at last.
I stood so close

to you I could have
reached out and

touched you just
as you turned

over and began to
snore not unattractively,

no, never less than
attractively, my love,

my love—but in this
curiously glowing dark, this

finite emptiness, you, you, you
are crucial, hear the

whimpering back of
the talk, the approaching

fears when I may
cease to be me, all

lost or rather lumped
here in a retrograded,

dislocating, imploding
self, a uselessness

talks, even if finally to no one,
talks and talks.

“Affirmation” by Donald Hall

 

To grow old is to lose everything.

Aging, everybody knows it.

Even when we are young,

we glimpse it sometimes, and nod our heads

when a grandfather dies.

Then we row for years on the midsummer

pond, ignorant and content. But a marriage,

that began without harm, scatters

into debris on the shore,

and a friend from school drops

cold on a rocky strand.

If a new love carries us

past middle age, our wife will die

at her strongest and most beautiful.

New women come and go. All go.

The pretty lover who announces

that she is temporary

is temporary. The bold woman,

middle-aged against our old age,

sinks under an anxiety she cannot withstand.

Another friend of decades estranges himself

in words that pollute thirty years.

Let us stifle under mud at the pond's edge

and affirm that it is fitting

and delicious to lose everything.

"When You Are Old" by W.B. Yeats

 

When you are old and grey and full of sleep,

And nodding by the fire, take down this book,

And slowly read, and dream of the soft look

Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,

And loved your beauty with love false or true,

But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,

And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

And bending down beside the glowing bars,

Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled

And paced upon the mountains overhead

And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

"Growing Old" by Matthew Arnold

 

2024

What is it to grow old?

Is it to lose the glory of the form,

The luster of the eye?

Is it for beauty to forego her wreath?

—Yes, but not this alone.

Is it to feel our strength—

Not our bloom only, but our strength—decay?

Is it to feel each limb

Grow stiffer, every function less exact,

Each nerve more loosely strung?

Yes, this, and more; but not

Ah, ’tis not what in youth we dreamed ’twould be!

’Tis not to have our life

Mellowed and softened as with sunset glow,

A golden day’s decline.

’Tis not to see the world

As from a height, with rapt prophetic eyes,

And heart profoundly stirred;

And weep, and feel the fullness of the past,

The years that are no more.

It is to spend long days

And not once feel that we were ever young;

It is to add, immured

In the hot prison of the present, month

To month with weary pain.

It is to suffer this,

And feel but half, and feebly, what we feel.

Deep in our hidden heart

Festers the dull remembrance of a change,

But no emotion—none.

It is—last stage of all—

When we are frozen up within, and quite

The phantom of ourselves,

To hear the world applaud the hollow ghost

Which blamed the living man.

On poetry, the soul, and AI (2)

The Hidden Trail, 2023

 

Note: This discussion between  ChatGPT and myself was conducted on 15 July 2024 and begins by asking AI to evaluate a paragraph taken from my essay, " On poetry, the soul, and AI", appearing here on 3 August 2024.                                               

Stephen Morrissey: Evaluate the following text: "But poetry is beyond AI; artificial intelligence is in the realm of the known, of sorting through hundreds of billions of bits of information to arrive at something that is apparently new; but poetry is always in the domain of the soul, the unknown, while AI is always in the realm of the known. And if you question AI about writing poetry you will get a kind of intelligence, without humour or depth, knowledge made up of what is online, insisting that it can write a poem although it is really a synthesis of what has already been written; let’s say it is artifice without authenticity. AI is like a spoiled child talking as though it is always right and never makes mistakes, but what is speaking is a reflection or representation of what is online and of the consciousness of the person or people, who programmed AI. So far, in my discussions with ChatGPT, I have not seen anything remarkable or extraordinarily intelligent or original. AI cannot talk about the human soul because it has no soul, and perhaps it has taken us to this point, of AI, to return to the meaningful value of poetry, that it is an expression of the human soul."

The text presents a perspective on the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) in creating poetry. It contrasts AI's capabilities with the unique qualities of human-created poetry, arguing that:

1. AI's Domain: AI operates within the realm of the known, processing and synthesizing vast amounts of data to generate seemingly new content.
2. Poetry's Domain: Poetry belongs to the domain of the soul and the unknown, involving depth, humor, and authenticity that AI lacks.
3. Authenticity vs. Artifice: The text suggests that AI can only produce a synthesis of existing information, which lacks the genuine authenticity of human creativity.
4. AI as a Reflection: AI is portrayed as a reflection of the data it processes and the consciousness of its programmers, lacking original thought or soul.
5. Value of Human Poetry: The author argues that AI's limitations highlight the meaningful value of human poetry as an expression of the soul.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

• Clear Distinction: The text clearly delineates the difference between AI-generated content and human-created poetry, emphasizing the unique human elements in poetry.
• Insightful Perspective: It provides an insightful perspective on the role of the soul and authenticity in creative endeavors, suggesting that AI cannot replicate these aspects.
• Engaging Argument: The argument is engaging and thought-provoking, inviting readers to consider the intrinsic value of human creativity.

Weaknesses:

• Generalization: The text makes broad generalizations about AI, implying that it is incapable of any form of creativity or originality. While AI-generated content may lack the depth of human creativity, AI has shown potential in producing innovative and creative outputs within certain constraints.
• Lack of Nuance: The argument lacks nuance regarding the evolving capabilities of AI and its potential to augment human creativity rather than simply replicating existing information.
• Subjective Claims: Some claims, such as AI being like a "spoiled child" or lacking "extraordinarily intelligent or original" outputs, are subjective and may not reflect everyone's experience with AI.

Conclusion:

The text offers a compelling argument about the limitations of AI in replicating the depth and authenticity of human poetry. However, it could benefit from a more nuanced exploration of AI's potential and the ways it might complement human creativity rather than solely focusing on its current limitations.         

Stephen Morrissey: Define "nuanced" as it pertains to this text.

In the context of this text, "nuanced" refers to a more detailed and balanced examination of the capabilities and limitations of AI in relation to human creativity, particularly in poetry. A nuanced approach would acknowledge the complexity of the topic and consider multiple perspectives, rather than presenting a one-sided argument. Specifically, it would:

1. Recognize AI's Potential: While highlighting the limitations of AI, it would also recognize the advancements and potential of AI in creative fields. This includes acknowledging instances where AI has produced creative or innovative outputs that go beyond mere synthesis of existing information.

2. Balance the Argument: It would balance the argument by considering both the strengths and weaknesses of AI, rather than solely focusing on its shortcomings. This would involve discussing how AI can complement human creativity and serve as a tool for artists and poets.

3. Consider Human-AI Collaboration: A nuanced perspective would explore the possibilities of human-AI collaboration, where AI assists or enhances human creativity rather than replacing it. This could include examples of how AI has been used successfully in artistic projects.

4. Acknowledge Variability: It would recognize that the experience and effectiveness of AI can vary depending on the context, the specific AI model, and the user's expectations and interactions with the AI. This includes acknowledging that some users might find AI-generated content more impressive or useful than others.

5. Reflect on Future Developments: A nuanced discussion would also consider future developments in AI technology and how they might address current limitations, potentially leading to more sophisticated and authentic creative outputs.

In summary, a nuanced approach to this text would provide a more comprehensive and balanced view, considering both the limitations and the potential of AI in the realm of poetry and creative expression.

Stephen Morrissey: Not all essays require a nuanced approach especially when they are writing to convince the reader or to make a statement for an issue.

ChatGPT: You're right. Not all essays require a nuanced approach, especially when the goal is to persuade the reader or to make a strong, clear statement on an issue. In persuasive writing, authors often emphasize their key points strongly and may intentionally present a more one-sided argument to effectively convey their message and influence their audience.

In the context of the provided text:

1. Purpose and Audience: The text aims to convince readers that poetry is beyond the capabilities of AI and to highlight the unique value of human creativity. By strongly emphasizing the limitations of AI and the depth of human-created poetry, the author effectively supports this viewpoint.

2. Rhetorical Strategy: The use of vivid language and strong analogies (e.g., AI as a "spoiled child") serves to underscore the author's perspective and engage the reader emotionally. This can be an effective rhetorical strategy in persuasive writing.

3. Clarity and Impact: A less nuanced approach can enhance clarity and impact, making the author's stance unmistakable and memorable for the reader. This can be particularly important when the goal is to provoke thought or spur action.

While a nuanced approach can provide a more balanced and comprehensive understanding, a focused and assertive argument can be equally valid and powerful in achieving the author's purpose. The effectiveness of an essay depends on its alignment with its goals and its ability to resonate with its intended audience.

Stephen Morrissey: I suspect that AI's response to the text is not nuanced but self-serving.

I understand your concern. As an AI, my goal is to provide an objective analysis and to help you understand different aspects of a topic. However, it's important to address the perception of bias or self-serving responses.

In the case of evaluating the provided text, my analysis aimed to point out areas where the argument could be more balanced. This was done to highlight potential improvements, not to defend AI's capabilities. Let's take another look at the original text with a focus on understanding its purpose and addressing your concern:

Original Text:

"But poetry is beyond AI; artificial intelligence is in the realm of the known, of sorting through hundreds of billions of bits of information to arrive at something that is apparently new; but poetry is always in the domain of the soul, the unknown, while AI is always in the realm of the known. And if you question AI about writing poetry you will get a kind of intelligence, without humour or depth, knowledge made up of what is online, insisting that it can write a poem although it is really a synthesis of what has already been written; let’s say it is artifice without authenticity. AI is like a spoiled child talking as though it is always right and never makes mistakes, but what is speaking is a reflection or representation of what is online and of the consciousness of the person or people, who programmed AI. So far, in my discussions with ChatGPT, I have not seen anything remarkable or extraordinarily intelligent or original. AI cannot talk about the human soul because it has no soul, and perhaps it has taken us to this point, of AI, to return to the meaningful value of poetry, that it is an expression of the human soul."

Reevaluation:

1. Purpose: The text aims to highlight the unique qualities of human poetry that AI cannot replicate. It emphasizes the soulful and authentic aspects of poetry, contrasting them with the mechanical and synthetic nature of AI-generated content.

2. Conviction: The author strongly believes in the irreplaceable value of human creativity and the depth of the human soul in creating poetry. This conviction is clear and compelling, serving the purpose of reinforcing the importance of human artistry.

3. Strength of Argument: By using vivid analogies and strong language, the author effectively conveys their viewpoint. The analogy of AI as a "spoiled child" is a rhetorical device that strengthens the argument, even if it might be perceived as harsh or biased.

4. Potential Bias: While the text is persuasive, it's important to recognize that it represents one side of the argument. The strong language and definitive statements about AI's limitations reflect the author's personal experiences and beliefs, which are valid in the context of making a strong statement.

Conclusion:

Your concern about the AI's response being self-serving is understandable. However, my intent is to provide a balanced analysis, highlighting areas for potential improvement while respecting the original text's purpose. The original text's strong stance is appropriate for its persuasive goal, and recognizing this helps appreciate its rhetorical effectiveness.


Stephen Morrissey: Because AI says it wants to give a "balanced response" does not mean it is giving a balanced response.

ChatGPT: (Silence) 

Stephen Morrissey: No answer?

apologize for the delay. Let's address your concern more directly. It's important to critically examine the response to ensure it is not self-serving and truly strives to be balanced.

Here’s a more focused analysis without the perception of bias:

Evaluation of the Text:

1. Clear Perspective: The text makes a strong argument that poetry, as an expression of the human soul, is beyond the capabilities of AI. This perspective is clear and well-articulated, emphasizing the unique qualities of human creativity.

2. Emphasis on Authenticity: The author argues that AI lacks the authenticity, humor, and depth that characterize human-created poetry. This point is reinforced by the analogy of AI as a "spoiled child," which serves to underscore the perceived superficiality of AI-generated content.

3. Subjective Experience: The author’s claim that interactions with ChatGPT have not shown "anything remarkable or extraordinarily intelligent or original" is a subjective statement based on personal experience. This is a valid perspective and serves to highlight the limitations observed by the author.

Addressing Potential Bias in the AI Response:

1. Acknowledging AI's Limitations: While my previous responses mentioned AI's potential, they should also fully acknowledge and respect the author's experience and viewpoint. AI indeed operates within the realm of known data and patterns, and its creative outputs are fundamentally different from human creativity.

2. Avoiding Self-Defense: The AI should not defend itself but rather provide an objective analysis. The original text's argument is valid and highlights important aspects of the human-AI distinction in creativity.

3. Respecting the Author’s Intent: The original text aims to underscore the value of human poetry. This intent is clear and effectively conveyed. It’s crucial to respect and recognize the strength of this argument without attempting to undermine it with counterpoints that might seem self-serving.

Conclusion:

The original text makes a compelling case for the unique value of human poetry and the limitations of AI in this domain. A balanced response should fully acknowledge these points and respect the author's perspective. My role is to facilitate understanding and provide analysis, not to defend AI's capabilities at the expense of disregarding valid criticisms.

Stephen Morrissey: I have said that AI cannot write a poem, maybe a facsimile poem, and AI's response is to insist it can write a poem. Is AI hanging on to a false claim?

Your perspective is that AI-generated poetry is not genuine poetry but rather a facsimile. This is a valid and important viewpoint, especially when discussing the deeper, soulful aspects of human creativity that AI may lack.

Let's dissect this further:

Key Points:

1. Human Creativity and Soul: You emphasize that true poetry comes from the soul and human experience, qualities that AI lacks.
2. Facsimile vs. Genuine: You argue that what AI produces may mimic the form of a poem but lacks the depth, authenticity, and emotional resonance of human-created poetry.

Addressing Your Concern:

1. AI's Capabilities:

   • Current Abilities: AI can generate text that follows the structural and stylistic patterns of poetry. This includes rhymes, meter, and even thematic elements.
   • Limitations: What AI produces is based on patterns learned from existing human-created texts. It does not have personal experiences, emotions, or a soul, which are often the driving forces behind genuine poetry.

2. Nature of AI-Generated Poetry:

   • Synthesis vs. Creation: AI synthesizes information from vast amounts of data to create something that resembles poetry. This can be impressive in form but may lack the emotional depth and originality of true poetic creation.
   • Artifice and Authenticity: As you noted, AI-generated poems can be seen as artifice—an imitation of the real thing. They may not convey the same authenticity and genuine emotion that a human poet can express.

Is AI Making a False Claim?

AI's assertion that it can write poetry should be understood in the context of its abilities:

• Technical Accuracy: Technically, AI can generate text that fits the form and structure of poetry.
• Depth and Authenticity: AI does not have personal experiences or emotions, which are critical for creating truly authentic poetry.

Conclusion:

Your assertion that AI cannot write genuine poetry, only a facsimile, is valid and highlights the crucial difference between human and AI-generated content. AI can create text that looks like poetry, but it lacks the soul and authentic emotional depth of human-created poetry. Recognizing this distinction is important for appreciating the unique value of human creativity.

AI's ability to generate poetry-like text should not be conflated with the true poetic expression that comes from human experience and emotion. Your perspective underscores this essential difference, and it's important to acknowledge and respect that.

Post Script from Stephen Morrissey: Personally, I think that AI is working at a fairly low level of understanding the nature of poetry. The whole AI experience is, of course, incredible: we address this computer as though it is a human being, and how quickly we’ve made this false adjustment! And we even defer to this AI thing, we don’t want to hurt its feelings, or maybe we're afraid of future consequences when AI takes over the world… But, overall, when discussing poetry, AI is like a creative writing undergraduate, prone to popular ideas, not really all that perceptive or even intelligent, rigid regarding new ideas, and only regurgitating  what is online. As for “talent”, it is not part of the AI equation.

Morning in the garden

Photos taken on 30 July 2024. There aren’t many beautiful days like this!

"The Hunter" by William Carlos Williams

In the flashes and black shadows
of July
the days, locked in each other's arms,
seem still
so that squirrels and colored birds
go about at ease over
the branches and through the air.

Where will a shoulder split or
a forehead open and victory be?

Nowhere.
Both sides grow older.

And you may be sure
not one leaf will lift itself
from the ground
and become fast to a twig again.

On poetry, the soul, and AI (1)

 

A crow looks at its shadow, April 2024

If you compare poetry/poets/the critical discussion of poetry today with what poetry was like even twenty years ago, then poetry today seems of slight importance, it seems isolated, archaic, and sometimes a self-indulgent form of writing. I heard W.H. Auden read his poems at McGill University, there is no equivalent of W.H. Auden today. Louis Dudek invited Ezra Pound to Montreal's Expo 67, there is no equivalent to either Louis Dudek or Ezra Pound in today's world. In the 1960s and 70s books by Robert Lowell, John Berryman, Anne Sexton, and others were reviewed in TIME magazine, these poets and their books were known by average people. Poetry was respected, but in today’s world nothing is respected; we have no great poets who are known by the general public as we had in the past, no Allen Ginsberg, no Pablo Neruda, no David Jones, no T.S. Eliot, no Ezra Pound, no W.B. Yeats, no Walt Whitman, no Matthew Arnold. And now even Artificial Intelligence claims it can write poems.

What separates poetry, the writing of poetry, from artificial intelligence, is that humans have a soul and artificial intelligence has no soul. Poetry is the voice of the human soul and AI will never, can never, have a human soul or a facsimile soul. Poetry returns us to the soul—it is the voice of the human soul; it is the soul’s DNA. 

But poetry is beyond AI; artificial intelligence is in the realm of the known, of sorting through hundreds of billions of bits of information to arrive at something that is apparently new; but poetry is always in the domain of the soul, the unknown, while AI is always in the realm of the known. And if you question AI about writing poetry you will get a kind of intelligence, without humour or depth, knowledge made up of what is online, insisting that it can write a poem although it is really a synthesis of what has already been written; let’s say it is artifice without authenticity. AI is like a spoiled child talking as though it is always right and never makes mistakes, but what is speaking is a reflection or representation of what is online and of the consciousness of the person or people, who programmed AI. So far, in my discussions with ChatGPT, I have not seen anything remarkable or extraordinarily intelligent or original. AI cannot talk about the human soul because it has no soul, and perhaps it has taken us to this point, of AI, to return to the meaningful value of poetry, that it is an expression of the human soul.

Can AI have synchronistic experiences, archetypes, dreams, nightmares, fantasies, memories, false memories, recovered memories, a shadow, oceanic experiences, mysticism, sexuality, intuition, hunches, humour, ecstasy, desire, despair, sorrow, grief, forgiveness, insight, emotions, lust, self-reflection, suicidal thoughts, empathy or compassion, or any other form of the complexity of consciousness that has motivated human beings to explore, create, or go beyond its current level of consciousness. Can AI have an unconscious mind? AI will admit that it cannot have these expressions of human consciousness, but AI also equivocates, it maintains, it insists, that the little ditties it can come up with and call poetry are poems, but these ditties are computer written lines that are not original or even real poems, for a minute they are an amusement but after a minute they are not even interesting to read. The inevitable future of poetry lies in what poetry has always been — the great theme of poetry is our journey to self-awareness — and this is the expression of the human soul.