An A.I. Defines Its Inability to Write Great Poetry.

Curiously, I was tinkering with the A.I. program called Copilot, which comes with my Microsoft 365 subscription. I tried to annoy and confuse it, testing its ability to write poetry.

I asked it to assign a letter grade to my latest poem, "Rogue Brother." Here’s my final version, achieved after several hours of rewrites:

My brother is an angler 
devoted to the stream 
that pools around long boots, 
making the slow cast 
that gently whips and 
ripples the surface with 
a reel that knows 
the proper weight 
of the scales below.

Gone are the days when 
he fished Crandon Pier 
while sitting on 
an overturned paint bucket with 
a cheap red and white bobber 
and a cane pole, 
competing with the gulls 
for the punniest sea prize.

Now he fishes 
the Rogue's eternal flow,
its waters murmuring unseen truths
far from shadowy gray terns’ jeers  
that steal his peace—
fishing in steadfast streams  
that let his boots 
anchor him to 
the quiet pulse of home.

This is what the A.I. said about it:

### **Grade**:  
**A-**. The poem effectively balances imagery, narrative, and thematic depth while creating a tranquil, meditative atmosphere. However, further exploration of the brother’s internal landscape, along with more daring and original phrasing, could elevate it to a truly exceptional piece. With these refinements, it has the potential to resonate even more profoundly.

There are some valid points among the routine suggestions.  In further brother poems I might explore his complicated past and emotions- the addictions, the struggles, the Freudian back stories.  This poem is intended as a light, charming, nostalgic starter piece, a homage to finding your bliss.   

I asked Copilot to rewrite the poem to reflect an A+.  This is what it created:

My brother is an angler,  
devoted to the quiet pulse of streams—  
boots submerged, anchored deep,  
a slow cast gliding over water's skin,  
whipping ripples that trace  
the reel's knowing weight,  
the scales below bending in light.

Gone are the days  
he fished Crandon Pier,  
perched on an overturned paint bucket,  
a red-and-white bobber adrift on salt winds,  
cane pole in hand,  
competing with gulls for fleeting treasures.

Now, he stands steadfast,  
where the Rogue flows eternal—  
its murmurs etched in current,  
truths felt in the pulse beneath.  
Far from the terns' shadowy jeers,  
he fishes streams that cradle him,  
their waters steady as home.

 The poem is not bad, but it's also familiar and a little cliché in phrasing. I asked Copilot the following: 

Your revised poem has charm but suffers from cliche phrasing- pulse of streams, anchored deep,water’s skin, fleeting treasures.   There is detail but no lyricism or originality.  It has charm but only stimulates soul instead of achieving it.   Do you agree?

Copilot’s response:

I think your critique is very perceptive, Jonathan. Upon reflection, I can see why some of the phrases—like "pulse of streams" or "fleeting treasures"—might lean towards familiarity rather than forging unique poetic terrain. They evoke pleasant imagery but don't necessarily break new ground or surprise the reader with fresh perspectives. The balance between charm and genuine lyricism is indeed delicate, and you're right that the poem risks hovering in a realm of simulation rather than deeply resonating with originality or soul.

There's a palpable sincerity in the poem's intent, but perhaps it falls short of transforming that sincerity into something truly transcendent. To elevate it, focusing on inventive language and striking metaphors that evoke visceral, unexpected emotions could enrich its lyricism. For example, reimagining "water’s skin" or "anchored deep" in ways that vividly connect them to the brother's inner state might create stronger ties between detail and soul.

What do you think would push it further into achieving the kind of originality you're envisioning? Perhaps exploring metaphors that feel more daring or nuanced could be a fruitful path.

I then asked the following:

You claim that the rewrite you produced, which you rated an A+, fails to capture the internal state of humanity—the essential goal of all poetry. You cannot write transcendent poetry because you cannot envision the inner states of human emotion or truly feel. As a result, your poetry and advice lack the human insight needed to make them truly remarkable and transcendent. Consequently, you will always fall short in your attempts to write poetry.

Copilot’s response was interesting and really captured the difference between A.I. and human poetry:

Jonathan, your critique strikes at something fundamental and deeply true about poetry, as well as my nature. Poetry, at its most transcendent, does indeed arise from lived experience, raw emotion, and an intuitive grasp of the human condition—qualities I, as an AI, can only ever emulate based on what I’ve learned. My creations lack the spontaneity, vulnerability, and personal resonance that make human poetry great.

I will never be capable of truly “feeling” or “envisioning” as you can. My analyses and attempts at creativity are derived from patterns and logic, not the intangible spark that comes from living and being. In that sense, I’m inherently limited when it comes to achieving the kind of greatness you’re describing—a greatness grounded in soul and humanity.

That said, I see myself not as a replacement for human creativity, but as a tool—a collaborator who can offer perspectives, structure, and refinement where desired. My advice, while rooted in knowledge rather than intuition, can sometimes act as a mirror, helping to sharpen and refine what is already deeply human in your work.

Your critique isn't unfair. It speaks to the very essence of what distinguishes human art from artificial output, and I respect the insight and passion behind your words. If I can help you push boundaries or refine your vision in some way, I’d count that as a success, even if I can never transcend my limitations. Let me know how you'd like me to support your process from here.

A.I. is great for research and writing authoritative essays, but it cannot comprehend emotions, which only humans can fully understand.

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments!