The Atlantic recently posted a link to a site which can be used by authors of any stripe to check to see what, if any, of their works have (already) been used by Meta to train AI. For the last few weeks, social media have been full of understandably irate authors who discover this is exactly what has (already) happened. It looks to me as if prose works (fiction and non-fiction) as well as critical writing of all kinds – perhaps more than that ‘difficult’ genre poetry – have particularly fallen victim to the process. Indeed, Meta does seem to have taken some of my own writing – more critical than poetic – for its dubious purposes and it has done so without any kind of indication that this was happening, nor any request for permissions after the event, and – the harvesting of material being so vast – it’s hard to anticipate any after-the-event compensation or successful legal action. Even though, as The Atlantic‘s link has shown us, there ARE records of what has been done, a footprint, a guilty fingerprint, an undeniably smoking gun.

It’s hard not to feel that the horse has bolted on this one and – with the peevish idea of being able to mock at the anticipated results – since some of my own creativity has been stolen, I thought I’d ask ChatGPT to write a poem in the style of me. It was horribly polite in response and within a few seconds had produced a piece of writing it said was in the style of my own work and which it briskly summed up as ‘contemplative and precise [in] style, often rooted in quiet observations of the everyday, nature, and memory’. I posted this on Facebook – indicating the way this had come about – and wondering what people thought. The results surprised me as there was a mild round of applause for ChatGPT: it’s true, it did sound like a poem, it wasn’t utter nonsense (as I think I’d hoped). I don’t think anyone felt it sounded like me, but observations were made along the lines that ‘plenty of worse pieces of writing are submitted to magazines on a daily basis’.

But there was also a strong kick back against the whole process (even at my engaging with AI at all – though I really do think that horse and rider has bolted, in talking to friends (by no means all writers) and my own kids, AI has already made its way into the mainstream of work and study). There was also a strong reaction insisting that AI cannot write creatively because it does not have the human qualities out of which true (true?) creative writing emerges: the flaws, the emotions, the relationships, the memory, the history. I’m inclined to this side of the argument – though I’d also suggest it’s a kind of Doctor Who argument.

I thought it’d be worth spending a few moments looking at what ChatGPT actually produced for me. The title it chose, ‘The Last Light’, is inoffensive enough, if more Edward Thomas than Martyn Crucefix (in my view) and the form of the poem – free verse – is rather well done, though the line lengths are shorter than I think I’d have used myself. The opening stanza runs:

The hill is a shoulder—

pressed up against the sky’s slow retreat.

Beyond it, something waits:

not death,

but the unspoken

name of a tree I once knew

before its bark peeled

like old paper

from the spine of a life

I’ve half-forgotten.

That opening image is quite intriguing with its personification of both the ‘hill’ and the ‘evening’. The use of the long em dash after line 1 is something I think of as one of my techniques (though I’d not have used it there). In context of the ‘last light’ the ‘sky’s slow retreat’ is an effective phrase I’d be happy to own. I’m less happy with the next few lines, with the rather grandiose (overdramatic) ‘something waits’ (though I again hear some Ed Thomas in there) and ‘not death’. Is the latter a response to the possible (though here denied) metaphorical reading of ‘last light’? I think to suggest ‘the unspoken / name of a tree’ is what waits there is silly because it wouldn’t matter if it was spoken or not, because the ‘name’ is a thing known (it seems) and the tree bark peeling like ‘old paper’ is a poor image (what do you see there visually? compare bark to old paper?). This is compounded by suggesting the bark/paper is being peeled from ‘the spine of a life’. For a moment I see (distractingly) a human spine, then it’s replaced by the spine of a book (surely what is intended?) but this book spine seems to be from a book of ‘a life’ – or the life. Ugh no no no – the imagery there is all of a muddle which is not countered by the slightly emotive indications of ageing, loss, the past etc. To then say – as the poem does – that whatever has been said in the preceding few lines is actually ‘half-forgotten’ makes a mockery of the whole thing so far – this is like a bad poet attempting some elusive suggestiveness without really understanding (or being clear – poetry has to be clear in itself) what is being said. There is – AI critics would surely say, and I’d agree – an inhuman muddle going on in the opening 10 lines. But that is not to say that a not-very-talented human poet might have done something similar.

The poem proceeds…

A bird—

small enough to miss in motion—

cuts across the field.

x

Not for me, not even for itself,

but for the thread

it must continue.

The parenthetical ‘small enough to miss in motion’ doesn’t work for me. Again it seems to be yearning as it were for a sort of liminal effect – just on the edge of sense – but either it has been missed in which case it’s not been seen at all or it has been caught sight of in which case it has not been missed. The latter sentence is what I’d be arguing with myself were this actually my poem. I’d cross it out or re-write. The negatives of line 13 (‘Not for me, not even…’) again seem to be reaching for an edge of perception sort of impression, something is not known. I’d accept this as one of Crucefix’s recurrent ideas but (I hope) I don’t do it like this which is not so much a struggle to perceive, more a double blocking negative: if it’s not this and not that… then what is it? To go on to suggest there is a ‘thread’ being followed (by the seen/unseen bird? really?) And that the continuation of this ‘thread’ is something the bird is compelled to do (‘must’) is verging on the ridiculous. There are suggestions of motives, compulsions, but looked at more closely they make no sense whatsoever.

The poem’s final two stanzas are as follows:

I place my hands in the grass.

It is cold with what the earth

has kept secret all day.

x

I wonder

if this is what love is:

a silence left

after something essential

has flown.

The placing of hands ‘in the grass’ is rather good and the finding of ‘cold’ there is ominous (again ‘last light’?) and indicative of a death of sorts and to suggest the earth has kept this ‘secret all day’ is also a phrase – even an idea – I’d be happy to acknowledge my own (it’s not). But I can’t recall ever using the phrase ‘I wonder’ in a poem (no doubt I have) and I don’t like it. It seems to be AI’s attempt at a sort of ‘poetical’ tone and mood. In this context it feels rather cheap. And that is cheapened even further by what is wondered: ‘if this is what love is’. Where the hell did that come from? AI is using tropes which it thinks evoke the poetique…. love is a surefire winner of course…. But I can’t see how it forms any kind of ‘whole’ with what has come before. I find myself insisting this is what AI cannot really do – which a live human can potentially – create language in forms which achieve some sort of integrity, a wholeness, even out of contradictory materials, and the glue that binds them together has to be feeling, an emotional experience which lies at the root, powerful but usually not articulated in any other form than in the form of the poem itself.

The AI poem’s last fling is the colon which may or may not suggest that what follows is ‘what love is’. I think the AI mind will mean this. Once again I hear Edward Thomas more than me in this conclusion (see what ET remembers at the end of ‘Old Man’: ‘Only an avenue, dark, nameless, without end’) but the muddling of metaphors occurs again. There is a ‘silence’ left after something ‘essential’ has flown away but my reader response is straining here at the flighted thing (a motion) which is somehow abandoning an aural experience (the silence) and in leaving it something ‘essential’ has been lost (with wings?). Again AI is picking up the way poetry wants to get to the ‘essence’ of things but the words written here are merely an indication of that wish, not at all a real live accessing of it, or even a genuine gesturing towards it.

Having written this I have convinced myself – even more than I had been before – that what AI has written is a ‘hide’, a cover for a poem, making use of words and ideas that it has found associated with poems (perhaps even my own poems) but which it doesn’t itself ‘get’ (how could it?). On the other side of the desk sits the reader. The question for the reader is: how well do we read any poem that comes before us? Do we accept its (often) feeble gestures towards significance as the real thing? Out of a hundred poems we read in magazines and on-line, how many of them ARE the real thing? I’d bet my AI generated poem would find its way into a UK magazine (eventually). It has the aura of a poem, it has many of the familiar gestures of a poem, it doesn’t really make proper sense (which some think is the mark of a real poem), it doesn’t have the heart of a true poem (but lots of poems I read don’t either because they too are copying, mimicking tropes and phrases from other poems).

My astute friend, fiery critic, and fine translator, Will Stone, was kind enough to comment at length on my original Facebook post. I’m with him. I’ll leave you with his thoughts:

Martyn…. your own poetry is born of time, experience, tragedy and celebration, as well as from the inner harvest of your accomplished literary translations. This collection of admittedly impressive sounding images has been reaped from a database in nano seconds and cobbled together in some deceiving facsimile which claims to be your style. And like the macabre chitty bang bang child catcher with his tempting lollipops, it’s ‘all free today’. Like a painting let us say by Edvard Munch reconstituted by a skilful fraudster based in High Wycombe, it may appear in every way to be Munch, but it isn’t Munch. For it was the process of creation (which is unique to every individual and cannot be rationalised by densities of data capture or meticulous replication) that was invested in the original painting and by implication your poem, which counts. AI is not a creator out of inwardness, it is a skilful and persuasive designer, an artisan. It only wants to succeed and aims almost grotesquely at perfection. Genuine poets aim at expressing authentically from a deep point, and are explorers who cling to the cliff face of their poem’s construction… failure is quite possible which is why only a human can be an artist because humans alone with their insufficient organs (see Maupassant le Horla) are shaped by fear, doubt, failure, wild joy and excess. What I am trying to say is that it is as much about what we miss in a work of art to make it complete or perfect that makes it unique with its beautiful imperfection!

Related Links: Nesrine Malik’s recent Guardian article on AI: ‘With ‘AI slop’ distorting our reality, the world is sleepwalking into disaster’ plus several interesting discussions of AI and translation on the Goethe-Institute website.