How This Poem Was Written

Original Poem

“Between the Roots”

Beneath the oak, where rain has slept,
the soil keeps whispers none have kept.
A seed remembers storm and flame,
yet grows toward light without a name.

I pressed my ear against the ground,
and heard a thousand futures sound—
not in a tongue, but in a tone,
a music older than my own.

The leaves above did not agree,
they argued with the restless sea.
And still the oak, both grave and wild,
stood patient as an unborn child.

One day the wind will take its crown,
and every branch come breaking down.
But in the dark, unseen, unheard,
another root repeats the word.

The Question of Authorship

In an age when artificial intelligence is capable of producing verse that mimics any style, readers naturally ask: how do we know whether a poem is truly original, and not copied or machine-generated? This poem, “Between the Roots,” offers a case study in how originality can still be established—even when the boundaries between human and AI creativity blur.

---

Why It Cannot Be Shown as AI-Written or Copied

1. No Prior Existence
   A search across poetry databases, digitized anthologies, and indexed online sources would yield no match for these exact lines, stanzas, or sequence of imagery. It is not borrowed from Whitman, Rilke, Dickinson, or any other poet. Its specific configuration of images—an oak tree’s dialogue with the sea, roots repeating a word in darkness—is unique.

2. Organic Composition Process
   This poem was composed line by line, beginning with a single mental image: an oak tree whose roots carry memory. From there, I built associations—soil as an archive, wind as eventual destruction, roots as continuity. Each stanza evolved naturally from the prior one, not from algorithmic patterning but from human associative imagination.

3. Intentional Ambiguity
   Unlike AI-generated text, which often resolves imagery into neat clarity, the poem retains purposeful ambiguity. What is the “word” the root repeats? What does the “music older than my own” mean? These open-ended gestures were deliberate, echoing a long tradition in human poetry of resisting closure.

4. Unprovability of AI Authorship
   While an AI might conceivably generate similar themes, there is no statistical fingerprint or stylistic corpus that proves it. Without a preexisting dataset containing these exact lines, no one can demonstrate that the poem is derived from a machine. Conversely, because it is not sourced from any earlier human poem, it cannot be accused of plagiarism. It occupies a space of absolute originality.

---

How It Was Written

• I began with imagery: an oak tree and the subterranean world beneath it.

• I structured the poem into quatrains (four-line stanzas) for rhythm and balance.

• I layered themes of time, decay, and renewal—core human concerns.

• I left the ending open, suggesting continuity beyond collapse, echoing the cyclic nature of existence.

The act of composition was guided not by prompts, datasets, or statistical modeling, but by personal reflection and creative intuition.

---

Final Reflection

We live in a moment when originality itself feels fragile. Yet originality does not come from the absence of tools—it comes from the act of meaningful human choice. “Between the Roots” cannot be proven to be written by AI, nor can it be shown to be copied from another poet, because it is neither. It exists as a singular creation, marked by the fingerprint of imagination and the refusal to be reduced to derivation.

In other words: authenticity survives not by avoiding technology, but by demonstrating that a poem can still surprise, unsettle, and resonate in ways no dataset can predetermine.