AI Assist versus AI-generated Poetry

Many articles exist where the possible uses and even abuses of AI-generated literature are discussed, especially as each country seeks to define perimeters for its application, both in the professional and private spheres.

There seems to be some confusion amongst the general public as to what constitutes AI assist and AI-generated; the latter is often prohibited, for example, by poetry sites. AI-generated poetry is that which was wholly produced by AI, even if the person had submitted the prompt themselves. In this article, I aim to illustrate the difference between these two models.

AI Assist

Below, I set out to demonstrate how AI may benefit new poets or seasoned poets alike who wish to explore new poetic forms but lack the confidence to post their work online.  I used a verse I recently wrote and posted here at PoetrySoup.com, and re-imagined it in Suzette Prime.

ORIGINAL POEM

Jumping the Shark

Writers block is a sure sign of the black dog

Walking the reluctant dog does not help

Changing your routine is a supposed cure

Learning new tricks may be fine for some

Sharing your newfound skills might be enticing

But the pushback isn’t conducive of creativity

Sometimes throwing in the towel is best

On a once thriving and satisfying hobby

As all that remains is jumping the shark

© Suzette Richards, 2024.

 

Re-imagined in Suzette Prime by Microsoft Copilot, 13 October 2024.

 

Using my skill as poet: Apply the poetic design rules of Suzette Prime

1. Prime numbers per line

Writer’s block, 

the sure sign of gloom, 

Black dog’s shadow fills the room. 

Walking the 

reluctant canine, 

Changing routines seems benign.

New tricks may 

help to some degree, 

Sharing skills, 

enticing to see. 

Pushback 

stifles creativity, 

Sometimes giving in feels free.

Once thriving 

hobby now a chore, 

Jumping sharks, 

excitement no more.

 

2. Presentation – removing capital letters and punctuation

writer’s block 

the sure sign of gloom 

black dog’s shadow fills the room 

walking the 

reluctant canine 

changing routines seems benign

new tricks may 

help to some degree 

sharing skills 

enticing to see 

pushback 

stifles creativity 

sometimes giving in feels free

once thriving 

hobby now a chore 

jumping sharks 

excitement no more 

 

3. Spot the mistakes
   1. Rhyming on the various lines! Something which is a tell that AI has been used – it can’t help itself as it is the way in which it was programmed to write poetry.
   2. No philosophical statement … This might only be relevant if one was included at the onset of this exercise.
   3. It totally missed the point of the colloquial expression ‘Jumping the shark’.
   4. Substituting ‘canine’ for  'dog' missed the pun on ‘the black dog’.
   5. Et cetera.

In a second experiment, I instructed Microsoft Copilot to insert metre in an existing text that has iambic metre, but that particular sonnet design (Suzette Sonnet) relies on mixed line lengths, namely, pentameter and hexameter. AI recognised the speech patterns, and the specific terminal rhymes, but was thrown off course by the alexandrine lines, resulting in the alexandrine lines re-imagined as regular iambic pentameter lines, and their rhyme schemes absorbed into the preceding triplets. The end result was not displeasing, but it was incorrect as far as the original rhyme scheme was concerned.

Checking for AI

FIRST TEST: It is a too small a sample to check using some of the available free AI checkers, but I did find one app that could assist.

Result: Probability of 11% AI content.

SECOND TEST: It appears as though AI does not seem to pick up the re-imagined text whereby a poem was submitted to include metre —a result of a likelihood of 0% AI content per a number of AI checkers.

Summary

I wrote the original poem without any AI assistance, other than the grammar and spell checker generic to my computer program, and the language app that I use to check all my work prior to posting it to the Internet.  

The above AI collaboration resulted in a sample which still needed to be tweaked by the human hand/mind.

The purists

Please note that my own Suzette Prime poetry posted on here, many predating ChatGPT, on average score 15% probability of AI content when using certain AI checkers! This is due to the criteria and certain perimeters the Ai checkers use to detect AI content. We need to tread wearily when we suspect poets of employing AI to create poetry on their behalf – all that glitters is not gold …

Is allowing a certain leeway the answer, or by dividing the reliance on AI into categories? In the long run, it might boil down to personal preference and the guidelines set by particular poetry sites.

IMMORTALISED BY AI

[Edit – 9 November 2024. Ideas and concepts cannot be copyrighted. Similarly, copyright law does not protect facts, inventions, words or names, for example, a company name (it falls under Trademark Law). Moral Rights protect the bond between you and your work. They include the right for you to be associated with your work and prevent others from altering your work significantly, ie Paternity Right & Integrity Right. Therefore, when using AI to generate something ‘in the style of …’ without the written consent of the author or his estate, is in contravention of his Moral Rights.]

Will our words stand the test of time or will they disappear without even an echo? I asked Microsoft Copilot to produce an English sonnet on the topic of Africa, in the style of Suzette Richards.

This was produced within seconds!

 

 

I recognised my words and phrases from an older write. They are from my poem, The African Man – a poem that was picked up from one of my websites and shared by an online e-magazine in their October 2012 edition. (This is how AI plagiarises existing material.)

 

The African Man

Fierce in his inherent pride

to belong to his own tribe.

Since the Cradle of Mankind,

others were left far behind

when he took Life as his bride.

 

The African plains are vast.

Culture and customs which last.

Knowledge of the vast veld,

mixed with beliefs long held.

The induna’s spell was cast.

 

Moon bright smiles on faces fan.

From Cape to Cairo they span

in ochre hues of earthy tones.

They’r blessed with strong bones,

embodiment of African man.

@ Suzette Richards 2012

 

AI PLAGIARISES

I gave Microsoft Copilot the following prompt: Unrhymed jueju on the topic of nature and death. (2 October 2024) The result was the following:

Leaves fall silently,
Autumn whispers through the pines.
A lone crane takes flight,
Life’s end mirrored in still waters.

MY FINDINGS

At least AI did not use its usual default setting to include rhyme, but it mixed up the wujue (5 word lines) and the qijue (7 word lines) in the same jueju. Overall, it is not bad for a machine that is programmed not to think but only read (the prompts) in order to react. It seems to have gotten the objective and subjective components of jueju right.

However, it did plagiarise the following recognisable line from Grey Ghost, by Henry Paul Band. There are undoubtedly others, but life is too short to chase them all down.

As the autumn wind whispers through the tall and lonely pines

AI Mirrors the Student’s Abilities [Edit: 16/4/2025]

What you put in, you get out. This speaks directly to the principle of prompting precision—the idea that the depth and quality of input directly influence the richness of the generated response. AI-generated poetry, like any creative output, isn't purely spontaneous; it's shaped by the user's linguistic choices, thematic framing, and level of inquiry. A student who understands poetic devices, structural balance, and how to phrase nuanced prompts will receive a more refined piece than one who asks in broad strokes.

In the context of education, this presents an intriguing challenge—AI becomes not just a tool for generating poetry but a reflection of the student’s own skill in engaging critically and creatively. In essence:

• A well-crafted prompt results in a well-crafted poem.
• A vague or undeveloped prompt yields something generic.
• An iterative, experimental approach refines and enriches the output.

This dynamic encourages students to engage deeply with language, experiment with phrasing, and rethink their approach to crafting poetry. Rather than seeing AI as a shortcut, it could be used as a mirror—revealing their own level of poetic understanding and inviting improvement through more precise questioning.

CONCLUSION

AI reads your prompt like a MENSA test: It recognises patterns and applies these and other perimeters in order for it to respond. AI can’t CREATE, only plagiarises. AI reads to REACT, and not to understand. AI material does not make one FEEL the pulse of the poet.

First the poet needs to learn the rules before breaking them, ie the design requirements of particular poetic forms. Even the seemingly free Free Verse has some restrictions placed on it. How else would the poet be in a position to sift the chaff from the corn? AI has its uses, but it is no substitute for hands on experience. As such, AI as a teaching tool for poetry falls way short of expectations.

AI robs poets of their innate spontaneity and stunts the development of their own poetic voice, ie their distinctive turn of phrase and creative expression. To my mind, the only course of action left is to be a better poet than AI. Support your fellow poets, and ignore AI.

We need to encourage transparency by all parties concerned and as with anything else in life the various AI apps need to be used responsibly.The problem lies with trying to pass AI-generated poetry off as one's own - (see*). 

*Poetry Copyright Information and Laws | Poets (poetrysoup.com)