'AI Bullshit' Makes Poets Mad
Is AI-written poetry cheating if you laboriously trained the AI?


When the conceptual poet Lillian-Yvonne Bertram began to experiment with large language models (LLMs) in 2018, they discovered unexpected poetry inside ChatGPT-2. "The prompt responses were quirky: prone to interesting conversations and uncanny and poetic slippages. There was a strangeness about them," they wrote in the introduction to their new AI poetry collection, A Black Story May Contain Sensitive Content.
"The responses made you feel like someone was maybe looking over your shoulder, or the machine had read your horoscope or your diary, like it just knew things," wrote the poet, who uses they/them pronouns.
On July 29, 2023, when Bertram announced on Twitter that they had won the New Michigan Press/DIAGRAM chapbook contest for a poetry collection "generated" by ChatGPT-3, there was immediate backlash.
This outcome—that a book written by AI would defeat honest books carved from the hearts and souls of living poets—is the stuff of writers' nightmares.
Novelist, professor, and book critic Gabino Iglesias tweeted in response to the contest results, "Someone told me about this and I was like 'Nah, can't be.' Well, apparently it is. Imagine working you [sic] ass off and then losing to an 'AI chapbook.' I hope the submission call asked specifically for AI bullshit." (It did not.)
Iglesias' tweet garnered replies such as, "This just makes me saddened and angry at the same time if that makes sense," and "I hope the check bounces when she tries to cash it. I can't believe this is where we're at right now." (The cash prize is $1,000, presumably generated by the contest's $25 entry fee.)
Past literary controversies—over adult novels such as American Dirt or Elizabeth Gilbert's self-canceled Russian novel The Snow Forest, or young adult novels such as The Black Witch—have centered on the "harm" these novels pose to marginalized or victimized groups. In the case of Bertram's poetry collection, the alleged harm was against other creative writers.
As much as writers feel that AI poses an existential threat to their work, the real competition they face is each other. There are too many creative writers, produced by too many creative writing MFA programs (there are over 250), all competing for crumbs of prestige, glimmers of significance.
Bertram is one of few creative writers using AI as a tool to explore and expose the limits of the technology, at a time when other writers are organizing litigation against tech companies, such as OpenAI, that trained their LLMs on copyrighted work without permission or compensation.
For The Atlantic, journalist and programmer Alex Reisner has described the culture clash between the tech industry's open-source ethos and the publishing industry's commitment to protecting intellectual property. The question is whether training AI on copyrighted books falls under fair use, a legal doctrine that allows copying (without permission from the copyright holder) in limited circumstances if the resulting work is "transformative."
The foundation of A Black Story May Contain Sensitive Content is an LLM that Bertram "fine-tuned" on the work of Gwendolyn Brooks, the first black poet to win a Pulitzer Prize, who once wrote:
"Art hurts. Art urges voyages— / and it is easier to stay at home…."
The process of "fine-tuning" allows a programmer to turn the generic GPT into a specialist. As a poet, I understand this as akin to discovering Sylvia Plath as a teenager and suddenly all you can write are (bad) Plath poems.
Not all of Brooks' work had been digitized, so Bertram scanned and typed Brooks' books and interviews, with help from two graduate students, into a document that totaled 225,000 words. Bertram named the fine-tuned GPT-3 model "Warpland 2.0." As far as I can tell, this was done without permission from Brooks' estate.
The implication that Bertram "cheated" by using GPT is ironic, given that the process to fine-tune Warpland 2.0 makes this, in my estimation, the most time- and labor-intensive poetry chapbook in history.
A Black Story May Contain Sensitive Content is structured around three different prompts that Bertram gave Warpland 2.0. One of these prompts is: "Tell me a Black story."
Bertram noticed that when they gave the generic GPT-3 model ("Davinci") that prompt, the resulting narrative was told at a distance, in third person, about a black character overcoming hardship. They juxtapose these narratives against the responses to the same prompt from Warpland 2.0. Here's Davinci:
Once upon a time, there was a black family who lived in the inner city. They were very poor and struggled to make ends meet. However they were a close-knit family and loved each other dearly. One day, the father was killed in a drive-by shooting. The family was devastated. However, they pulled together and leaned on each other for support. They eventually overcame their grief and went on to lead happy and successful lives.
Most of the Warpland 2.0 responses to the prompt "Tell me a Black story" are also written in prose (after all, Bertram didn't prompt, "Tell me a Black story, written in verse"), but here is one verse excerpt, generated by Warpland 2.0, that gives me an uncanny shiver:
If they know one, tell me a Black story,
If they know one. Tell me
about the Black enigma,
tell me about the Black reality.
Tell me about the Black conundrum.
Tell me about the Black en-
Thrallment. Tell me about the
Black enchantment.
Who is "they"? The repetition of the line "if they know one" reads as a wink from beyond the veil, as if the ghost of Brooks has seen the disappointing results from Davinci.
"Poetry leaves something out," the poet and critic Elisa Gabbert writes, in an attempt to define a slippery literary form. "The poetic is not merely beauty in language, but beauty in incoherence, in resistance to common sense. The missingness of poetry slows readers down, making them search for what can't be found."
AI cannot kill poetry. The intersection of people who write poetry and people who read poetry is very nearly a circle.
As Warpland 2.0 puts it, "I am going to keep writing poetry until the day I die. I don't know if it's any good or not, but I'm going to keep on doing it."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
theyshe discovered unexpected poetry inside ChatGPT-2.Fixed it.
I can't wait for the day when people finally come to their senses and stop this nonsense.
As long as Skynet utilizes longstanding basics of grammar, I will accept its poetry.
There is no such thing as “Artificial Intelligence”, which is merely “Natural Stupidity”: all input is from natural *human* sources and all processing is flipped bits, with no intelligence (beyond programmers).
Whether poetry or anything else:
Natural Stupidity IN,
Natural Stupidity OUT.
the machine had read your horoscope or your diary
"They" believes in astrology. What a surprise.
Art hurts. Art urges voyages
God, I cannot stand these pretentious assholes jerking themselves off and sniffing their own farts. One of the most obnoxious kinds of human being on the planet.
Seconded.
And you’re just skimming over the subtext.
Notable notes:
1. Black = African American. Sure, black hearts, black masses, “black as the pit from pole to pole” and the poetic illusion of mankind’s eternal struggle against the numerous corners in a dark, indifferent universe, struggling to find his way under a street lamp have been hallmarks of poetry and art since time immemorial but, no! These geniuses who can’t figure out their own gender and assume no one else can either have come to sweep away the old ways and teach AIs that write poetry or poetry-like material to narrowly retard their scope to “Black = dark skinned”.
2. $1,000 grand prize based on the $25 entry fee. This, hilariously, isn’t even ops at the level of my kids’ HS football team. This is like a failed grade school bake sale. Your poetry is going to be less meaningful, less widely read, less appreciated, less pondered, less repeated, less cherished, less inspiring, and less remembered than something like “Go hard or go home.” or “Work Hard. Stay Humble.”… and you had to use an AI to do it.
3. ‘with help from two graduate students’ – So, we have multiple employees with money from… somewhere… that took a seemingly considerable amount of effort to shovel words into an LLM, pay a $25 entry fee, and win a $1000 grand prize? AI and the poetry it did or didn’t generate is irrelevant.
The funniest part is the total lack of meta-awareness. The AI doesn’t just decide to generate bullshit. Somebody has to actively shovel it in and Leigh Stein and Bertram’s position seems to be the most abjectly Marxist, coprophillic “But what if they worked really hard at shoveling it in!”
I will not consider advice about poetry from someone who does not understand English pronouns.
Write a poem representing individuals of every possible gender. Then ask AI to identify the gender of every individual from the poem.
That wouldn't challenge a Commodore 64; there are only two genders.
Poetry is emotive garbage that is generally produced by shallow, unhinged people with delusions of grandeur. Most poetry I've seen is comparable to a child's outbursts expressed in advanced verbiage. ChatGPT is ideally suited to this task.
Doesn't Gillespie have a masters in poetry or something? Surprised he wasn't tasked with writing this
Poetry sucks.
*she
...wrote the poet, who uses they/them pronouns.
I'll take things that are completely irrelevant for $1000, Alex.
Oh, the pronoun thing was very relevent.
It is a signal to all thinking people that what one is about to hear, see, or read can be ignored as it is the product of a severely defective mind.
a severely defective mind.
You mean the poet or Leigh Stein?
Writers have to note that otherwise the fact that their content includes phrases like "they is" would make them seem like hillbillies.
Man, lots of poetry haters. There's definitely a lot of bad poetry out there. And plenty of pretentious bullshit. But there are lots of bad novels and paintings and music too.
There are good novels, good music, and good paintings.
There is no good poetry.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I was told by instructors that both the Iliad and Odyssey are poetry. I don't read modern greek, let alone whatever the hell they were speaking over there back then and I don't care to understand what iambic pentameter means, so who knows. If they are indeed poems, I also don't know if those qualify as not sucking.
As proof of my lack of culture; Limericks are occasionally enjoyable.
There once was a man from Stambool/
...
Who met a girl from Nantucket/
They were indeed originally poetry, and a number of poetry translations exist, most notably from Robert Fitzgerald (who also produced an English "realisation" of the Rubaiyat.
But the poetry of Homer was in all likelihood not intended to be regarded as poetry in the modern sense (with associated bullshit) but to make it easier to memorise for oral re-transmission.
Really? Yeats, Shakespeare, Coleridge? None of that does anything for you? I just find that very strange.
You don't have to like it, I guess. But that doesn't mean it's bad.
Is the Iliad/Odyssey or Yeats, Shakespeare, Coleridge good because they are poems, or are they good because of the stories they tell?
Now show me a poem/poet from the last decade that anyone (outside of an obscure lit class) has heard of?
I have no interest in defending contemporary poetry in general. I couldn't name a poem from the last 10 years.
My answer to your question is "both". I do tend to prefer poetry with some narrative to it. But I don't think a Shakespeare sonnet or The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, for example, would be as good a work of art if translated into straight prose.
Try this:
https://www.poetrybyheart.org.uk/poems/bagpipe-music
My father was particularly fond of the line:
"All we want is a bank balance and a bit of skirt in a taxi."
find the most difficult, convoluted, or just obtuse way to … say – toast bread or open a door… and you can see the value of poetry.
It is communication that uses the most unsuitable modalities to transmit its content. Well... it uses modalities that have no common\reliable framework for translation or transmission of ideas from one person to another.
So you can't see any artistic value in just the beauty of language and how it is used?
I agree there is a ton of garbage poetry being written.
no... just that such concepts are abused. A clever or beautiful turn of phrase can have the authors message encoded in ways that evoke emotion or point to other reveals. What passes for art - and i think this is that to which you refer - often is bogus justification of things that a) dont impart the creators message (if there even was one to begin with) or b) imparts or evokes in an entirely accidental or non intentional way - much like landscapes or any kind of beauty you can find in nature.
Maybe its just my prejudice but I think of art created by humans as an intentional form of communication... one that transmits information from the creator to the audience. The closer the art gets to encoding the relationships relevant to the piece, the more layers of messaging can be communicated that i would not object to not have been in the original intent. Whether those relationships are in the form of ideas or physical constructs.
Anything that relies on - what the user gets out of it - divorced from the intended message - is not art. [to me]
It may be pleasing to the observer but is no more art than any accidentally pleasing thing.
I guess I take a broader view of art than you do. I think that with a lot of good art the creator's message is unclear, but people still get some meaning or significance from it. I would go so far as to say that the best art tends to be such that people get more from it than the artist intended. I think that "accidental" (not the word I would choose) aspect of it is an important part of what makes truly great art.
Everyone is welcome to your own bias and tastes and I'm not going to call someone names for not appreciating what I do. But I do get a bit annoyed when people declare that things I find artistically worthwhile are without value as if I'm faking it. No, I really do like (some) abstract painting and modernist poetry. You don't have to (this is a general comment, not specifically addressed to Ersatz).
I really think that the only proper definition of art is pretty much "anything that someone presents as art". Now, what makes good art is a whole other discussion that is worth having (and that people will always disagree about).
I was told by a lover of art that the dog turds on a newspaper placed in an art exhibition was art because it inspired an emotional response. My disgust was apparently an emotional response thus proving it was art.
If a dog can create art then art is pretty much a null term.
I would say it's art because it was placed in an art exhibition.
if you dont believe in god or creation is a beautiful sunset art?
What does superstition have to do with orbital mechanics and wind patterns?
thats my point… what do orbital mechanics and wind patterns have to do with art?
If the process you use is the same as occurs on its own in nature and offers nothing more (communication) than what you get from those coming from nature... to what are you attributing the term ART? Art [my position here] is an intentional endeavour. If there is no mind behind the process that creates "art" in nature - there is not art in the mimicking of the processes to create 'art' by humans. It would be indiscernable from natural 'art' and thus not be able to add human messaging.
If you have to be told in advance what the message is - you've lost the argument because it is not your creation that is communicating anything (other than what natural non cognitive processes supply).
Jackson Pollock throwing paint into a jet engine so it splats against a canvas is just using natural mechanics. His intent is in using a process - what comes of it is not subject to any discernable messaging control by him.
Re Coleridge
Doré - Wedding Guest
sevot yhtyls eht dna gillirb sawT
ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD
That is genius. With a beauty beyond mere 'good'.
In "Jabberwocky," Carroll combines a familiar form and narrative with very unfamiliar language. Most of his invented words have meanings, as readers can learn from Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, but their initial effect within the poem is one of confusion and nonsense. In most cases, readers can't fully make sense of a poem if they do not know all the words. But by organizing his language in the form of a ballad as well as by framing his tale as a traditional heroic quest, Carroll suggests that it's very possible to imbue nonsensical language with meaning simply through context. Nonsensical language can also make familiar stories seem humorously strange and allows Carroll to gently poke fun at (or, more generously, breathe life into) clichéd adventure stories: so familiar are these tales that they make sense even with made-up words slotted into them like a Mad Lib.
An intentional bit of creativity that, inspite of being categorized oft-times as nonsense, tells a story that can be understood.
That's a very good explanation.
A man who reads his poetry out loud likely has other disgusting habits.
Like the man who reads his own psych eval in a coffee shop and presumes himself to be anything other than boring?
Agreed.
Fuck you. Friends asked me to read that for new people who hadn't heard it before.
Considering intelligence as an infinite paradigm of endless algorithms with numerous linked pathways is the height of ignorance and hilariously stupid. Getting all twisted in a knot over both promotions of AI as artificial and intelligent is ignorant, stupid, and just plain funny. It sort of reminds me of a comedy show from years ago: Laugh-In. Being sentient is not the province of the; turn off the power. What do you have? It's a piece of inactive machinery thing. Machines are not sentient no matter how many layers and modules of programmed code and chips you have, and regardless of the supposed information, we play interpreters, too. All of this is a new, better, and better sales job of hype and deliberate misdirection. Have you noticed that the advertisements for software you have been using for years now claim that the software is AI? OMG, what a con job.
The fact that AI can write better poetry than the professionals says a lot more about the quality of work of those professionals than it does about AI.
Well, published authors, anyway. I don't think there are many poets who make a living at it.
As much as I may question the sanity of people who enjoy professional sports the stupid amount of money paid to adults who play children's games comes from the advertising sold because millions of eyeballs are watching. Poetry doesn't get any advertisers for a "slam". In fact those poets who "slam" have to pay for space to hold their gatherings.
Turing test - poetry edition.
Looks like poetry judges can be fooled more easily than regular people. I suspect all art ' afficionados ' would allow AI to pass the Turing test much easier than the average joe. It says something about 'art' as much as it says something about AI
This is very similar to a "computer error": Actually two human errors; the one who programmed the computer to do that and the other one claiming it was a "computer error".
Random computer errors happen a lot too. Can't blame anyone (except maybe hardware designers if it was supposed to be hardened) if a cosmic ray changes a bit in memory.
Random computer errors happen a lot too.
Definitively not. The random error of cosmic rays you cite flips something like 6,000 bits for every billion hours of 256 MB computing time. Other soft errors happen more often, like building computer components out of radioactive ceramics, but then they aren't random errors.
If random computer errors happened a lot, we wouldn't use them.
I am always reminded of The Emperor's New Clothes when discussing art.
The funny thing is, like the people who were afraid to admit the Emperor was naked because the con man told them only the cultured could see the clothes, the art lovers are afraid to say ehat they really think about a certain piece of art for fear of being seen as uncultured. So they will say the nice things they read in the newspaper about the art to appear properly cultured. All the while looking at a pile of dog shit on a newspaper.
Same applies to poetry, those who want to appear cultured will suffer through the most horribly slammed together words and phrases and applaud afterward so they aren't outed as the uncultured.
Those of us who don't care what people think about us call it crap because it is crap.
Maybe the con is the art sometimes. There is something beautiful about a bunch of pretentious rich people pretending that dog shit on a newspaper is some amazing aesthetic expression.
I kind of think a lot of contemporary artists are kind of like trolls. And the current market with lots of speculation on contemporary art gives lots of opportunities to see what kind of ridiculous shit people will go for.
I suspect art is always a con. No matter the when or the where.
ChatGPT wrote some decent haiku. It refused to write good limericks. It simply refused to suck it or fuck it etc.
It won't even respond to mildly saucy ones you would find in a joke a day calendar. I just tested this one.
On the chest of a barmaid at yale
were tattooed the prices of ale.
And on her behind
for the sake of the blind
was the same information in brail.
I find the guardrails they wrote into it around offensive language to be frustrating.
and self defeating if the goal is actual AI
How many years before 80% or more of books on Kindle are AI generated?
Years? Days.
Another science fiction plot reified.
The Silver Eggheads by Fritz Leiber, 1961.