# Creating a digital poet

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16578 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16578/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08786/) (2021)
- [An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.02080/) (2021)
- [Long-context LLMs Struggle with Long In-context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02060/) (2024)
- [Deep-speare: A Joint Neural Model of Poetic Language, Meter and Rhyme](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03491/) (2018)
- [PoeLM: A Meter- and Rhyme-Controllable Language Model for Unsupervised Poetry Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12206/) (2022)
- [ICLEF: In-Context Learning with Expert Feedback for Explainable Style Transfer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08583/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Can a machine write good poetry? Any positive answer raises fundamental questions about the nature and value of art. We report a seven-month poetry workshop in which a large language model was shaped into a digital poet through iterative in-context expert feedback, without retraining. Across sessions, the model developed a distinctive style and a coherent corpus, supported by quantitative and qualitative analyses, and it produced a pen name and author image. In a blinded authorship test with 50 humanities students and graduates (three AI poems and three poems by well-known poets each), judgments were at chance: human poems were labeled human 54% of the time and AI poems 52%, with 95% confidence intervals including 50%. After the workshop, a commercial publisher released a poetry collection authored by the model. These results show that workshop-style prompting can support long-horizon creative shaping and renew debates on creativity and authorship.