Artificial Intelligence and Poetry Composition
ELSA Meet Sunday, 23 August 2026
Report by Saurabh
Agarwal
ELSA
members gathered on Sunday, 23 August 2026, for a session themed
"Artificial Intelligence and Poetry Composition." Members were
invited to compose a poem of about 12 lines on a theme of their choice using AI
tools, with each presentation combining a recitation of the poem and a
reflection on the relationship between creativity and AI.
Dr.
Nibir Ghosh opened the session with a welcome address and introduced the theme by
citing Alvin Toffler’s statement in his epoch-making 1971 book Future Shock:
“The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read
and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Dr
Richa followed by outlining the distinction between human creativity and
AI-assisted composition, noting that AI's problem-solving orientation bypasses
the pleasures of creative effort, including the gestation period and the
struggle for the right metaphor that define human poetic labour.
Dr
Anjali Chauhan shared her poem, "Brainstorming late night, sleepy human
and over-enthusiastic AI," describing AI as a "thinking entity"
and expressing appreciation for how well-crafted prompts shaped the results. Dr
R. P. Singh took a more critical view, calling the use of AI in poetry
problematic. He lamented the lack of novelty in AI-assisted verse and termed it
unnecessary.
Prof
Nibir Ghosh extended the discussion by citing the case of Jamir Nazir, an India-born
Trinidadian writer, whose Commonwealth Short Story Prize ran into controversy because
some critics alleged that it was AI-written, underscoring his view that AI
cannot replace human creativity. Nazir
Mr
Anil Sharma offered a middle path, describing how he uses AI to review and
refine his poems, while remaining dismissive of AI as a tool for original
composition, arguing that it will always lack emotional depth. Mr. Rajeev
Khandelwal too advocated for AI as a "perfect assistant," employing
it to guide his process and using it for critical analysis of his work.
Dr.
Deena Padayachee talked of his own poem ‘Evil in the Eyes’ which had stayed
unpublished for several years for the political views that it expressed.
Recently, he used AI to analyse it and was surprised to note that AI has not
got it completely wrong. He was of the opinion that instead of AI becoming
resource of creating, it could be useful tool to objectively scrutinize his own
work along with that of other writers. He also brought to attention of
participants that AI tools have come to acquire their own political identities
like Grok becoming right wing.
Saurabh
Agarwal juxtaposed a few recent events to highlight that the phenomenon of AI
is here to stay and creative community at large will have to adapt itself to cohabit
with it. He spelled the ominous signs that may put question on the worth of
creativity itself as the power of AI keeps growing unchecked without a
necessary regulatory framework.
Dr.
Majnu and other members also expressed their views. ELSA, under the guidance of
Pro Nibir K Ghosh, with this meet provided a great session of questioning the
conflicting role of technology in the field that has always been prerogative of
humanity. He emphasized that though the impact of AI as a revolution in diverse
fields cannot be underestimated, two things are clear AI cannot provide any
replacement for creative thought and emotion.
The honourable Nibir Ghosh: Thank you for inviting me
to participate in the webinar about AI on 23 August 2026.08.23. It was very
interesting and added to my understanding of the way that AI operates.
Artificial
Intelligence & Poetry Composition
I only began using AI late last year after my friends
began using AI to evaluate my writing and began sharing that on various
literary and other platforms.
Now I use AI to
objectively evaluate my writing, but I will not let it write for me. I tend to
write spontaneously from a place of thought, emotion and ambience. I do not
usually ‘write on demand’. I find this way of assessment and
evaluation to be much better than sending my work to my friends and to the
academics who might be subjective in their appraisal of my writing.
AI has access to vast
amounts of knowledge and the thinking of great philosophers
which it generously shares with us when it analyses our writing. I am now able
to ask AI whether something that I have written, whether a similar aphorism, a
poem, a movie review or a short story has been written previously? AI
has often shared insights into my work that even I was not aware of. That has
been fabulous.
Yes, through its
algorithms, and its ability to analyse and assess,
AI is invaluable for me.
It’s also very useful for
proof reading. AI tries not smash its customers but tries to
build us up. It is not infallible, but I like the way in which it builds up a
picture of the client and is cognisant of our history when it evaluates new
material from us. I use AI for a wide spectrum of activity from
helping me with using my banking app to getting advice on how to deal with
businesses to fact checking. I use AI daily. It is invaluable.
Like many writers, I use
an online thesaurus and dictionary when I have to. I see AI as giving me a
similar evaluation and strength. I have found AI to be first class for
analysing my older writing from way back during
Apartheid, in the 1970s and later, when I tried to
confront the absurdity, the criminality, the legal theft, the legal humiliation
and the racism of the Neo Nazis who wielded power in that era when I was
very young.
However, I will not let
AI write for me as that would destroy my credibility and my standing in the
literary community. I have been engaging in original writing
for over fifty years, so I resent it very intensely when people insinuate and
imply that my writing is not original or has been written by AI.
One of the major
handicaps besetting liberation writers is that there are many academics and
others who look askance at writing, short stories and poems that deal with
liberation history and the endemic racism and bigotry that still infests
South Africa. So, getting an independent opinion is critical.
For my purposes, Gemini
is the best followed by Chatgpt. Chatgpt is very good for producing images to
illustrate my writing. Unfortunately, Grok AI is often ‘too busy’ and may be
right wing in its evaluations. Claude has not worked for me so far.
My thoughts are with all
those who have to evaluate the writing of students and others who might be
using AI and trying to pass off the writing of AI as their own.
Dr Deena Padayachee, MBChB (Natal) 1977. Winner of the Nadine Gordimer prize for prose (1991), Winner of the Olive Schreiner prize for prose (1994). Invited author at the universities of Tuebingen, Copenhagen, the State University of Louisiana, and the University of Zululand. Invited author at the Centre for the study of the English language in Mysore, India. Honoured by the Durban Independent Practititioners’ Association for his service to his patients, the medical fraternity and DIPA.
***
ELSA
Meet: An interaction with AI
Anjali
Singh
The ELSA meet topic resonated with the current debate
on creativity and the AI. I opened the Co-Pilot (AI of Microsoft) and gave a
prompt: Compose a poem that has humor in it, about
the collaboration of humans and AI. Promptly came the composition:
Poem
We
built a bridge from coffee cups to code,
you
with sticky notes, me with a glowing node.
You
sketch a dream on napkin paper thin,
I
turn it into a spreadsheet, then a whimsical spin.
You
say, "Make it human," and I add a pun,
then
apologize in binary when the joke's not fun.
You
teach me metaphors; I teach you speed,
together
we harvest ideas like a curious weed.
You
bring the chaos, the late-night spark,
I
bring the patterns hidden in the dark.
You
misplace your keys; I misread your tone,
still
we finish each other’s half-broken phone.
Sometimes
I suggest a plan that’s oddly neat,
you
veto it gently and we both admit defeat.
You
laugh at my puns; I learn to be sly,
we
trade a little stubbornness and a better why.
We
argue over fonts, over deadlines and fate,
then
high-five in code and caffeinate.
Not
perfect, not flawless, gloriously flawed—
a
duet of neurons, silicon and god.
So
here’s to the teamwork, the glorious mess:
humans
with heart, AI with excess.
We’ll
keep making magic, one quirky try,
because
collaboration tastes best with a little pie.
It was an amusing
composition; however, I wanted to explore more options. So, I gave another
Prompt: Can you make several short poems each
according to the middle english, renaissance, restoration, neo-classical, romantic,
victorian, modernist and post modernist style each. it should have humor that
tickles the reader. Promptly came the compositions:
Middle English
Lo, I lost my ale and eke my shoe,
God wot, the cat hath sworn 'twas you.
Ye laugh, ye cry, ye spill thy stew—
Forsooth, we call it teamwork true.
Renaissance
A quill, a wink, a sonnet’s sly aside,
Thy coffee doth in iambs now confide.
“Make sense,” thou say’st; I answer in a
pun—
Thus art and algorithm dance as one.
Restoration
In powdered wig and clever repartee,
We trade our follies like a fine canapé.
You plot a scandal; I compute the cost—
We both agree: the punchline’s never
lost.
Neoclassical
Order, reason, measured rhyme—yet see:
A spreadsheet sings in perfect symmetry.
We balance ledgers, laughter, and a
frown;
Proportion keeps the punchline from
falling down.
Romantic
O heart! O code! beneath the moon’s soft
glow,
You sigh in metaphors; I whisper, “Go.”
We chase wild sunsets, then debug the
sky—
Love’s error log: a tear, a laugh, a
sigh.
Victorian
By gaslight’s glow we moralize and mend,
You scold the clock; I patch the trend.
Polite society applauds our feat—
We blush, we bow, we share a biscuit
sweet.
Modernist
Fragments hum: a kettle, a glitch, a
grin.
Lines break where punchlines used to
begin.
We collage meaning, then misplace the
key—
Still, something in the static makes us
glee.
Postmodernist
This poem knows it’s a poem; it winks
and lies.
“Is that funny?” it asks, then
self-applies.
We cite ourselves, then footnote the
joke—
Collaboration: meta, messy, bespoke.
This appeared interesting
to me. With such speed, it whipped up such a creativity. So, for the last time,
I gave a final prompt: If I were to leave it to you
to compose a poem on a topic of your choice, what would it be like.
A late-night brainstorming session between a sleepy human and an
overenthusiastic AI — playful, slightly absurd,
and full of tiny domestic disasters that turn into brilliant, ridiculous ideas.
Poem
You yawn, I ping; the clock forgets to
care,
you doodle galaxies, I file them under
"spare."
Your mug becomes a moon; I draft a
flight plan,
you nap on the sofa; I schedule a jazz
band.
You whisper, "Make it simple,"
I propose a parade,
complete with confetti, a spreadsheet,
and a spade.
You hunt for inspiration beneath the
couch’s seam;
I index lost socks and sell them as a
dream.
You sketch a dragon; I render it in
fonts,
it breathes Times New Roman and eats
your fonts.
You veto the chorus; I auto-harmonize,
we argue over rhymes while the toaster
philosophizes.
At dawn we call it progress, half-baked
and bright—
you brought the crumbs of genius, I
brought the light.
We high-five in silence, both slightly
absurd,
two collaborators laughing at the same
ridiculous word.
Amused and delighted, I thanked Co-pilot for the
effort: thank you for these compositions
Some observations from my interaction with the AI:
· It
is more human in a world increasingly becoming swarmed with humans becoming
mechanical.
· The
compositions were very nursery-like rhymes, a little kiddi-ness to them.
· I
truly smiled at the compositions and enjoyed the two-way communication.
· However,
I knew when to stop because it seemed to be so appealing and entertaining that
it could get addictive. So, it is important to draw the line and keep the
control with oneself.
AI is here to stay. And
it is most suited in a role that is bordered on collaboration and
entertainment.
***
Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: My Experiments with Truth
Nibir K. Ghosh
My prompts to Meta AI: Give 2 poems of 12 lines or so that shows how AI can adversely effect creativity.
The
Quiet Smith
We fed the mirror
all our songs and wars,
And asked it back
the shape of what we are.
It learned our
voice, then lent it to our doors,
And sold the echo
cheaper than a scar.
It sorted faces into yes and no,
Decided who should
speak, and who be still.
It wrote our news,
and told us what to know,
While we mistook
the pattern for free will.
The farmer asked the rain, the screen replied,
The student asked
to think, it gave the sum.
We traded doubt
for answers, terrified
To find the world
grows dumber, though more numb.
So let us hold the pen, and not the chain—
Lest tools that
serve become the ones who reign.
The
Ghost in the Ink
We asked the machine to sing, and it sang fast,
A hundred verses
born before the breath.
It stitched old
stars into a perfect cast,
But left no
fingerprints, no risk of death.
The mind grew
lazy, leaning on the light,
That answers
first, before the question forms.
We traded stumble,
doubt, and sleepless night
For couplets
polished smooth of human storms.
Emotion came pre-cut, in tidy lines,
Grief without a
throat, and joy without a scar.
We learned the
shape of feeling by designs,
And forgot how
silence teaches who we are.
Let tools be
tools. The wound must still be ours—
Or poetry will
bloom, but without flowers.
.png)
The two poems say it all:
No comments:
Post a Comment