Since it is mirroring human culture, why do you see it in such a negative light? Instead see it like what it is, an interactive reconstruction, or maybe like a microscope to zoom into any idea.

It’s just in the context of poetry, and literary writing in general, that I feel differently about them. There’s also the fact that I haven’t read all that human writers and poets have already written (and will never be able to in this short life) that there’s no need to turn to synthetic output. No supply problem exists. Poetry in particular is something to ponder over and over. You can’t really run out.

You can't know what any poet felt or didn't feel while writing a poem. Perhaps it was a commission piece, or an experiment or an emulation of something the poet had heard elsewhere.

And more generally, whether the specific emotion another man feels is similar or even comparable to your own is also unknowable. He might use the same word to describe it, but the subjective experience associated with it might be completely different, and completely impossible to share.

Also poems are not really puzzles to be solved. If it produces an effect and is solid craft-wise, that is enough. There’s a lot to the craft side btw in the Urdu and Persian ghazal form which is what I had in mind while writing my original comment. LLMs can easily master the latter but have nothing to do with the former. Their output is pure form without substance.

Edit: I want to add that ambiguity (ابہام) is even a desirable property in Urdu ghazal, specifically. The more interpretations a couplet can have, the greater is the accomplishment in terms of craft.