Mimetic Poet

There’s a general agreement in literary theory that the meaning of a text does not reside exclusively with the author. Known as the “intentional fallacy” (?), it accounts for the idea that we may not know what the author of a text intended, and cannot ask them if, for example, they are no longer living. Additionally, the interpretation of meaning in a text is not exclusively determined by the author, where unintended meaning may arise due to historical or cultural context, or the author might deliberately lie or try to obscure the meaning. The philosopher Don Ihde sees parallels in technological design, describing what he calls the “designer fallacy” in thinking that “a designer can design into a technology, its purposes and uses” (?). Ihde is a leading proponent of postphenomenology (?), a methodological tool widely used in human-computer interaction (HCI) design to analyse the relationships between humans and technology, in particular how technology mediates our view of the world and our actions in it. Postphenomenology sits in contrast to more traditional approaches to interface design, such as “user-centered design” (?), which generally limits design considerations to the direct interactions between human and machine.

This dualism of intentional fallacy in text and designer fallacy in interface design is something we weave together in this work, which explores relationships people might have with the emerging new technologies of generative artificial intelligence. We explore design possibilities beyond conventional forms of interaction with LLMs, such as “chatbot” interfaces popularised by systems such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, instead designing speculative possibilities for what human-AI relationships could be (?). The value of this form of design extends beyond functionality or aesthetics. By challenging assumptions and conceptions about the role that objects and technology play in our lives, this form of speculative design—as process and way of thinking—can serve as a means of stimulating different ways of “speculat[ing] about possible futures; and as a catalyst for change.” (?, p.33).

If we accept that the technological designer’s intention does not fully determine how people may use their design, nor its broader socio-cultural effects, then we are free to consider the possibilities a design might facilitate rather than mandate (e.g. rather than asking “what is its function or purpose?” we consider “what might it make possible?”). In speculative design we design possible futures to better understand and evaluate the implications of new technologies before they become embedded in society; to enact change rather than conforming to the status quo (?). This becomes particularly important with the rapid, and largely unregulated, rise of generative AI and its ethical, social and cultural impact on human creativity (?).

The intentional fallacy also finds new meaning in generative AI systems, in particular LLMs which can generate coherent text with apparent intention and meaning. However, an LLM does not have a discernible authorial intent, rather each output is a statistical accumulation of individual authorial intent, from those whose work was included in the training data¹¹1The exception being in cases where LLMs can be coaxed into verbatim repeating of their training data (?; ?).. Moreover, the models are prone to “hallucinations” where they produce factually incorrect or semantically misleading output. If the intention doesn’t come from the LLM, and what the model produces may be a hallucination, then there may be situations where the reader is freer to make their own interpretation. This includes scenarios where reliance on factual or explanatory information is not essential, such as divergent creative thinking, the use of analogy or metaphor in activities such as brainstorming or creative ideation.

The study of creativity has been enriched by the development of theories such as divergent thinking (?), which emphasizes the generation of multiple solutions to a given problem. This concept, introduced by Guilford in the 1950s, underscores the importance of thinking in varied and unique directions as a hallmark of creativity. Additionally, the theory of intrinsic motivation (?) highlights the role of self-motivation in fostering creativity, suggesting that creative endeavors are most fruitful when driven by genuine interest and satisfaction in the work itself.

On the other hand, Creativity Support Tools (CSTs) are generally designed to aid individuals in furthering their creative faculties by providing resources, inspiration, and technological scaffolding to navigate the creative process. These tools range from simple brainstorming tools that facilitate idea generation through divergent thinking, such as Brian Eno’s Oblique Strategies (?, Ch.1), and towards more complex systems that integrate technology into the process. However, ways of understanding how generative AI systems might support creativity via creative strategies is relatively underdeveloped (?; ?; ?).

In the evolving landscape of computational creativity, generative text has been explored through various developments of algorithmic sophistication. Early research explored the modeling of emotion within algorithmically generated poetry (?), the constraining of poetic structure of generated poems (?), and poetry as responding to input images (?).

As technology advanced, research shifted towards interactive and collaborative systems (?). Research also looked into the development of generative poetry as a Creativity Support Tool (CST) for creative writers (?), as well as for creativity in general (?). This evolution reflects a growing interest in not only automating the generation of poetic content but also in developing systems that can engage with human users in a more meaningful, collaborative manner.

Researchers have furthermore explored the embedding of generative poetry into physical interfaces (?; ?; ?) introducing an innovative dimension to the interaction between humans and computational creative systems. Such approaches not only challenge the traditional boundaries of poetic expression but also invite users to engage with poetry in more tangible and immersive ways, increasing accessibility of generative poetry, by allowing engagement without the need for conventional screen interfaces.

Magnetic Poetry, a literary phenomenon characterized by the arrangement of individual words on magnetic surfaces to create poetry, emerged as a modern iteration of the found poetry technique. The genesis of Magnetic Poetry can be traced back to 1993, when songwriter Dave Kapell, seeking to overcome writer’s block, developed the concept by scattering words on his refrigerator, allowing for spontaneous and serendipitous writing. This innovation offered a tangible medium for creative writing while making it fun and accessible to a wider audience without the prerequisite of formal literary training.

The technique of “found” poetry has a rich historical lineage extending into the early 20th century. Found poetry re-purposes existing texts, extracting and rearranging words and phrases to form new meanings and poetic expressions (?). This method challenges traditional notions of authorship and creativity, suggesting that art can emerge from the re-contextualization of pre-existing material. The Dadaists of the 1920s, notably Tristan Tzara with his “cut-up” technique, and later the Beat Generation poets in the 1950s, such as Brion Gysin and William S. Burroughs (?), significantly contributed to the development and popularization of found poetry. They explored the potential of random and aleatory processes in literary creation, laying the groundwork for contemporary practices such as Magnetic Poetry.

The effect of constraints on creative thinking is illustrated in the practices of found and Magnetic Poetry. By imposing limitations on the selection and arrangement of words, these poetic forms paradoxically liberate the creative process. This phenomenon underscores the role of constraints not as creative barriers, but as catalysts that stimulate creative thinking and problem-solving. Constraints serve a crucial role in the creative process by focusing attention and reducing the overwhelming possibilities that can lead to creative block (?). Working within a fixed lexicon, participants are naturally led to forge unexpected connections between words and ideas.

To speculatively explore possibilities for human-AI interaction we opted to use poetics as the means of communication between human and machine. By using poetry or poetic language, we mask or obscure the authorial intention of the human and AI authors, placing both on a more equal footing. While poetry and poetic text are the primary communication mechanism for the system, its overall goal is to support creative ideation and divergent thinking rather than being an AI poet. As such, responses are more often poetic rather than poetry, for example taking the form of aphorisms, metaphor or allegorical narrative rather than literally being poems.

The use of magnetic poetry lowers the “barrier of entry” for people who may not be used to creating poetic text and may not consider themselves poets or even authors in any traditional sense. As both an “interface” and form of expression it has a number of advantages, which we classify into three categories:

constraints:

magnetic poetry uses a limited vocabulary of possible words from which to compose the poem. This helps to reduce decision paralysis, even picking up words at random can be used to begin. The constrained size of available space helps keep poems brief and to the point.

usability:

the playful, engaging and physical manipulation of words is simple, moving or editing of words inspires thought on meaning and context.

physicality:

physical words allow for serendipitous creativity, e.g. seeing interesting combinations of words in close physical proximity around the device (Fig. 1) can inspire a poem’s creation. Being in a shared physical space (rather than on a personal device such as a phone or laptop screen) encourages co-creation in groups of people, who can collaborate on a poem’s construction.

Standard “chat” style interfaces with LLMs take the form of a continuous dialogue where the person asks a question then receives an instantaneous response. While such dialogues are suited to interactions such as question and answer, or specific goal or task directed activities (“summarise the following report”, “give me a recipe with these ingredients”, etc.), they reinforce concepts of immediacy and divisibility in task-focused language.

In contrast, the use of a physical interface and its affordances emphasises a different approach to using the technology and how to engage with it. Having to manually assemble a poem from a fixed set of words as physical objects requires a distinct mode of thought over standard conversation or text messaging. Assembling the poem and waiting for a response allows for the human participant to consider how an AI might interpret their intention from the poem’s text. The use of an e-ink display means the machine’s responses will always be visible on screen (even when the power is turned off), giving a stronger sense of permanence and significance over traditional chat-based interfaces.

This aligns with the philosophy behind the slow technology approach (?; ?), which advocates for more reflective human-machine interactions. This counters the fast-pacing, immediate nature of contemporary technology use, as exemplified by the question-response mode of the chat interface described above. By adopting this “slow technology” approach, we implicitly require the human participant to slow down in their interactions with the AI, leaving more space for contemplation, reflection, and evaluation of the exchanges, elevating their significance and prominence both physically and temporally. Our hypothesis is that, together, these features will encourage and support more nuanced understanding of an AI’s role and capabilities, while at the same time assisting with human creative thinking.

In addition to expressing oneself to the AI through magnetic poetry, constraining the language model to reply in a poetic way helps to circumvent problems of both intention and hallucination – there is no “wrong” way to write a poem and issues of truth or factual accuracy are less relevant than in more didactic or information-based tasks.

The Mimetic Poet is designed as a stand-alone device that can sit easily in a studio, workplace or home (Fig. 1). It consists of a flat surface (the slate) upon which you can assemble your poem to be read by the system. A small drawer underneath the slate is used to store individual words used to create the poem. We found that placing the words around the device facilitated easy composition of poems. The words themselves were sourced from a standard magnetic poetry kit²²2The standard magnetic poetry kit has several hundred words, we used a subset of 175 words in the initial version of the system.. On the rear side of each word is a small fiducial marker (Fig. 2) that a machine vision system can recognise when the word is placed on the slate (?). We use this marker recognition as the mechanism for communication between human and machine.

Inside the device, a camera and mirror system is used to detect the words placed on the slate. A Raspberry Pi 5 computer performs image processing and fiducial marker detection to identify the words placed on the slate in the sensing area (Figure 4). We use a camera that is sensitive to infrared (IR) light and apply a visible light filter to the lens, minimising any adverse effects of external visible light on the marker recognition and allowing the device to be used irrespective of external lighting conditions. An array of IR LEDs inside the device provides direct illumination of any objects placed on the slate.

As words can be placed in an arbitrary location we developed an algorithm that captures the position and orientation of each word then uses a series of heuristics to determine how best to translate new lines and ensure correct word ordering. The aim was to match, as closely as possible, how a person would “read” the sequence of words placed on the slate. This was essential as we found participants often used interesting physical arrangements of the words as part of a poem’s visual aesthetic.

To compute the correct ordering of placed words we developed a novel sorting algorithm that uses ray-tracing (?) to determine the best sequencing of placed markers. The marker detection system provides the positions of the centre ($m_{c}$) and the four corners of each detected marker. The marker with the highest vertical ($y$) position is first selected and removed from the list of unsorted detected markers. The top-left and bottom-left corners of the selected marker are subtracted from each other to form a vector representing the left edge of the marker. Next, we compute the tangent vector to the marker edge vector, $\vec{v}_{t}$, which is used to create a line, $l$ with start and end points $k$ units to the left and right of the maker respectively.

As the units used by the system are measured in pixels, we set $k=1000$. This line is then intersection tested (?) across each remaining unsorted marker, using a circle to represent the bounds of the marker.

Markers that collide with the line and the initial marker that was used to create it are removed from the unsorted list and moved to a new list that represents a single line of tiles:

If no word is moved for a few seconds, the text of the poem, including new lines, punctuation, etc. is converted to a string and the string sent to the AI subsystem (described in detail below). In addition to placing words on the slate, we designed four special markers (Fig. 3) that allow participants to select a different mode or personality for the AI.

We initially experimented with the idea that the markers should indicate the kind of response the participant is looking for from their poem:

1. 1.

   interpret: the system attempts to interpret the input poem, based on emotional tone or content, and provide a “reading” of the participants mental or emotional state.

2. 2.

   collaborate: the system tries to collaborate with the participant on poetry generation, generating a variant on the text supplied using the same words as are available to the participant.

3. 3.

   ideate: the system uses the input poem to help with ideation, responding with an idea or strategy that builds upon similarities between the poetic concept presented and ideas that the author may be interested in.

4. 4.

   analogy: the system constructs an analogous text based on concepts from a different discipline.

In early testing with this scheme, we observed that while participants liked the ability to control and direct the system, the responses were often wordy or too cryptic for people to see obvious relationships between poem and response. Moreover, differentiating the modes, both visually in terms of the marker icon and conceptually in terms of the response, proved difficult. To address these issues, we developed a prompt chaining scheme (?) to better control the LLM’s responses to the input poems.

The design of prompts used internally plays a pivotal role in steering the direction and quality of the outputs generated by the system. We implemented a set of prompt chains for the preliminary testing of the system. To this end, we utilised LangChain (?), a python package which facilitates prompt design and chaining with interchangeable LLM services. For this study, we used OpenAI’s GPT4, accessed via the Python API.

The prompts were written with respect to the four modes (Figure 3) and are shown in Table 1. For each mode, we first constructed a prompt that exemplified the desired outcome of the mode. The second stage of the prompt chain was to summarise the first response, placing a restriction on the LLMs output. Incorporating a second stage in the prompt chain, where the system’s output is condensed or reinterpreted, introduces an essential feedback mechanism. This step is not only a constraint, but filters the initial response, promoting clarity, brevity, and a different presentation of the original output. This was thought to generate unusual, poetic, and particularly cryptic responses. This configuration serves as an example from which participants of the study (detailed below) based their initial impressions, and suggested modifications or improvements to the prompts.

We collated the transcripts, notes and internal machine logs and undertook a basic analysis using two methods. Firstly, individual researchers analysed the text and notes and drew out specific themes of importance from participants responses. The research team then came together to compare findings and, following discussion, individual findings were merged, resulting in four identifiable themes: (i) the interface itself and physicality of interaction; (ii) usability; (iii) Participant’s overall perceptions of the AI; (iv) The AI’s responses to participant’s poems. We discuss findings under each of the themes below.

“I have really enjoyed being invited to engage in something playful. It is a pleasant break from work that puts me in a good mood and perhaps relieves work related ‘stuckness’ or frustration. I think being playful is important for creative people.”