I’ve previously said my piece that people who want to write, at least in an original manner, should just try doing that instead of trying to get a large language model to do it for them. My opinion applies even more strongly to the idea of prompting LLMs to write poetry, whether that be parlor tricks like “write my VC pitch in rhyming couplets” or more serious attempts to create poems that one might confuse with poetical works of past or present.
Like a dog trained to walk on its hind legs, these attempts may entertain for a moment but offer no lasting pleasure. And as with making a dog play the biped, they’re an insult to the true nature of the entity: LLMs are best at producing an average of human creativity and commentary directed along on a dimension or dimensions of choice. However, the best poetry is singular, not collective, the product of particular moments of a particular life.
But recommending poetry and poets—that’s a different task, one where a smoothed-out average of critical consensus is exactly what one might want. That’s the task I set out for ChatGPT in its GPT-4 mode.
My question was relatively simple; note that in the interest of brevity I’ve here combined two prompts into one, and omitted the response to the first prompt:
Here is a list of my favorite poets, in alphabetical order: Frank Bidart, Emily Dickinson, Louise Glück, Adrienne Rich, Muriel Rukeyser, Anne Sexton, Wallace Stevens, and Walt Whitman. Please provide a summary of the types of poetry that I would probably like.
The ChatGPT response was as follows:
Based on your preference for poets such as [repeats list], it is apparent that you have an affinity for poetry that encompasses the following characteristics:
Emotional Depth and Intimacy: You seem to appreciate poetry that delves deeply into emotions and presents an intimate, personal voice. This can include confessional poetry and poems that explore psychological states.
Innovative Form and Structure: Your interest in poets like Frank Bidart and Walt Whitman suggests that you value innovation in poetic form, including free verse and experimental structures.
Intellectual and Philosophical Themes: With poets like Wallace Stevens and Emily Dickinson on your list, it’s evident that you enjoy poems that engage with philosophical questions, explore the nature of reality, and are intellectually stimulating.
Rich Imagery and Language: Poets like Whitman and Stevens are known for their evocative imagery and lush language. It seems you appreciate the poetic craft, where words are meticulously chosen to create vivid mental pictures.
Cultural and Mythological Allusions: Your preference for Louise Glück indicates an appreciation for poems that incorporate classical references and mythology to address contemporary themes.
Social and Political Engagement: With Adrienne Rich and Muriel Rukeyser among your favorites, it appears that poetry with social and political themes, especially those related to justice, feminism, and social change, resonate with you.
Exploration of Identity and Human Relationships: Many of the poets on your list explore complexities of identity, gender, and human relationships. It seems you appreciate poetry that delves into these aspects of human experience, including themes of loss and desire.
Historical and Documentary Elements: Your inclusion of Muriel Rukeyser suggests an interest in poetry that incorporates historical events and documents, engaging with history through a poetic lens.
Adaptation of Traditional Stories: Anne Sexton’s use of fairy tales indicates that you might enjoy poetry that reinvents or reimagines traditional stories in new and intriguing ways.
In summary, you likely appreciate poetry that is emotionally resonant, intellectually stimulating, innovative in form, rich in imagery, and engages with social, cultural, and historical themes. It seems that both the aesthetic qualities of the language and the depth of the themes are important to you.
This summary is somewhat generic, but the particular items called out are pretty spot-on: a smoothed-out critical average, but a relatively accurate one.
As a follow-on, my next prompt was to ask for a list of five other contemporary poets whose work I might like. Here’s what ChatGPT came back with:
Based on the types of poetry you appreciate, which include emotional depth, innovative forms, intellectual themes, rich imagery, social engagement, cultural allusions, and exploration of identity, here are five contemporary poets whose work you might enjoy:
Ocean Vuong: Why You Might Like Him: Ocean Vuong’s work often involves emotional depth and intimacy. His language is lush and he explores themes of identity, particularly regarding his Vietnamese-American background. His debut collection, “Night Sky with Exit Wounds,” deals with family, the legacy of war, and finding one’s place in the world.
Natalie Diaz: Why You Might Like Her: Natalie Diaz’s poetry is known for its vivid imagery and exploration of cultural identity, particularly her Mojave American and Latinx heritage. Her collection “Postcolonial Love Poem” addresses themes of love, colonialism, and environmental injustice.
Ilya Kaminsky: Why You Might Like Him: Ilya Kaminsky is a Ukrainian-American poet whose work often deals with issues of displacement, social justice, and the human capacity for resilience. His poetry collection “Deaf Republic” is noted for its narrative innovation and poignant social commentary.
Tracy K. Smith: Why You Might Like Her: Tracy K. Smith’s poetry often combines intellectual depth with emotional resonance. Her collection “Life on Mars” tackles themes ranging from science fiction and the universe to human relationships and loss, showcasing a unique blend of the cosmic and the intimate.
Danez Smith: Why You Might Like Them: Danez Smith’s work often engages with social issues such as race, gender, and sexuality. Their poems are both raw and beautifully crafted, offering innovative forms and a powerful voice. Their collection “Don’t Call Us Dead” is a remarkable exploration of what it means to be Black, queer, and HIV-positive in America.
These poets share some thematic and stylistic elements with the poets on your list, and their work encompasses a range of contemporary perspectives.
Now, this being GPT-4, I had to account for the possibility that some of the works—or even some of the poets—were made up. So I looked them all up on the Poetry Foundation website and checked out the various poems included for each of them. Here’s how I would score the recommendations, on a 1-5 star basis, where 5 stars is reserved for a poem that can pass the Emily Dickinson test:
Ocean Vuong. 3 stars. Overall his work is solid, and he has some great lines, but no individual poems really stood out to me.
Natalie Diaz. 4 stars. As Adrienne Rich did in a lot of her late poems, Diaz has a tendency to let politics overwhelm the personal, so that one hears not the voice of the poet but the assumed Voice of a People (or in Rich’s case, a movement). But the poems about her brother—“My Brother at 3 A.M.,” “My Brother My Wound,” and “No More Cake Here”—are outstanding.
Ilya Kaminsky. 3 stars. I admire his ambition in Deaf Republic, but the poems included from it just don’t do it for me. I prefer the personal poems, particularly “Author’s Prayer” and “I Ask That I Do Not Die.”
Tracy K. Smith. 4 stars. I especially like the SF-tinged poems from Life on Mars. Highlights: “My God, It’s Full of Stars,” which features a guest appearance by Charles Heston, and “Declaration,” which excerpts the Declaration of Independence to devastating effect.
Danez Smith. 5 stars, because “acknowledgments” aced the test. Other highlights: “alternate names for black boys,” “broke n rice” (a brilliant use of a technique I hadn’t seen before), and “dogs!” (the next time they do an anthology of poetry about dogs, this deserves to be in it).
Overall this was a pretty good exercise, and I might try this exercise again with another list of poets I like. I‘ll definitely be buying a couple books of poetry off of this exercise—print, of course, the only way poetry should be read.
P.S. I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription, because I didn’t see it providing enough value to be worth the money.