Why post?

[wasellajam]

Claude offers better critique on the surface than any human writer has time for 
It can’t really help you improve a poem, though. Its own poems are worthless.
I put Matsun’s poem about the crow through Claude and this is what I got:

The qualities that make “Intersection” timeless — stripped-down, universal images; no cultural anchors; elemental diction — are the same qualities that make it harder to tell apart from other poems doing the same thing. Crows as omens, watching windows, grief coded through waiting — this is well-trodden territory in contemporary poetry about loss and anticipation. A reader who’s spent time in journals or workshops has seen this move before: nature image as vessel for unspeakable feeling, short unrhymed tercets, an ending that widens the aperture to something cosmic. None of that makes the poem bad, but it does mean its voice is less distinctive than its craft.

Which is more than what most humans will be able to or have time to articulate

So does it make poetry fora such as this one worthless? Or useful only because as humans we want other humans to read our poems? Why? I can understand Rowens trying to impress women, but what of those who are already women? Or men who aren’t after that particular angle?
What does this site offer but familiarity?

For me, when I’m writing, I like hearing the contrasting views of people reading each from their own experience, both personal and as writers themselves. I enjoy discussing word choice, as a mid-level writer all the different voices spur me to improve.

As a reader, I enjoy reading poems that are still developing and seeing how people edit. It’s fun.

Break from the AI talk over.