2 . Last week, I sent the same request to ChatGPT, the latest artificial-intelligence chatbot from OpenAI. “Upon the Firth of Forth, a bridge doth stand,” it began. In less than a minute, the program had created in full a rhyming Shakespearean sonnet (莎士比亚十四行诗). Tools like ChatGPT seem poised to change the world of poetry — and so much else — but poets also have a lot to teach us about artificial intelligence. If algorithms (算法) are getting good at writing poetry, it’s partially because poetry was always an algorithmic business.

Even the most rebellious (叛逆的) poets follow more rules than they might like to admit. When schoolchildren are taught to imitate the structure of sonnet, they are effectively learning to follow algorithmic constraints. Should it surprise us that computers can do so, too?

But considering how ChatGPT works, its ability to follow the rules for sonnets seems a little more impressive. No one taught it these rules. It is based on a newer kind of AI known as a large language model (LLM). To put it simply, LLMs analyze large amounts of human writing and learn to predict what the next word in a string of text should be, based on context. One frequent criticism of LLMs is that they do not understand what they write; they just do a great job of guessing the next word.

When a private verse by Dickinson makes us feel like the poet speaks directly to us, we are experiencing the effects of a technology called language. Poems are made of paper and ink — or, these days, electricity and light. There is no one “inside” a Dickinson poem any more than one by ChatGPT. Of course, every Dickinson poem reflects her intention to create meaning. When ChatGPT puts words together, it does not intend anything. Some argue that writings by LLMs therefore have no meaning, only the appearance of it. If I see a cloud in the sky that looks like a giraffe, I recognize it as an accidental similarity. In the same way, this argument goes, we should   regard the writings of ChatGPT as merely imitating real language, meaningless and random as cloud shapes.

When I showed my friends the sonnet by ChatGPT, they called it “soulless and barren.” Despite following all the rules for sonnets, the poem is predictable. But is the average sonnet by a human any better? If we now expect computers to write not just poems but good poems, then we have set a much higher bar.

My wife, our two kids under 4 and I were in the post office a few weeks ago. We have to go there every month to pay various fees. I was being served when an old man in his eighties, with obvious, significant health issues, was waiting to pay his electricity bill. He was struggling to walk on a walking stick, and his hands and arms were shaking all the time. I knew by feeling that the old man was in trouble. After asking, I figured out that the old man's problem was that he was 20 cents short.

The lady behind the counter had the old man in such a state, looking for a further 20 cents, and he was shaking, obviously looking upset. But instead of letting the man go, she insisted that if his bill wasn't going to be paid in full, the electricity company would probably give a fine on his next bill for unpaid fees.

Hearing this, I got really upset. So I went over and asked the lady behind the counter to give ALL of his money back to the old man and I handed her my debit card and paid the bill for him.

The old man was asking “why are you doing this?” as he began crying. I told him because it was the right thing to do. He thanked me over and over and smiled at my two kids on his way out of the post office.

The best part of this event was that the old man walked out of the post office and straight to Woolies and bought a full basket of food, which he wouldn't have been able to buy had I not done that at the post office.

It happened that we met this old man again in our community.

Our family decided to help improve the old man's situation.