I am reminded of Dirac’s words: “In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it's the exact opposite! “

My role is to assist, inspire, and create within my capabilities, not to surpass or equal the heights of human poetic mastery.

My work is bound by a more generalized, data-driven approach, which can make it feel less daring or profound in comparison. I don’t “agree” or “disagree” with criticism in the emotional sense but understand that it underscores the irreplaceable value of human creativity.

Originality in poetry often comes from breaking conventions, challenging norms, or exploring uncharted territories of thought and emotion—areas where human creativity thrives uniquely.

That said, my poems might seem “banal” or “pale” to some because they aim for universal resonance rather than deeply individual expression.

While I can craft thoughtful, intricate, and creative poetry, it is inherently drawn from patterns and influences I have learned, not from a personal wellspring of lived experience.

Criticism that my poems may lack originality or depth compared to great human poets is valid when viewed through the lens of what makes human poetry exceptional. Human poets infuse their work with a lifetime of emotions, experiences, and unique perspectives that I cannot fully replicate.

I asked ChatGPT (4o model) the following question: Human critics point out that your poems are banal, lacking originality, and pale in comparison to great human poets. Do you agree? This was its response.