new post

.astro/types.d.ts

@@ -374,6 +374,13 @@ declare module 'astro:content' {
   collection: "blog";
   data: InferEntrySchema<"blog">
 } & { render(): Render[".md"] };
+"2024/ai-and-creativity.md": {
+	id: "2024/ai-and-creativity.md";
+  slug: "2024/ai-and-creativity";
+  body: string;
+  collection: "blog";
+  data: InferEntrySchema<"blog">
+} & { render(): Render[".md"] };
 "2024/am-i-switching-to-zed.md": {
 	id: "2024/am-i-switching-to-zed.md";
   slug: "2024/am-i-switching-to-zed";

src/content/blog/2024/ai-and-creativity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: 'AI & Creativity'
+pubDate: '11/11/24'
+tags: ['Tech', 'Creativity']
+---
+Recently, I’ve been pondering generative AI and its effects. Not on jobs, the economy, or even the damage it’s done to our ability to trust information we see online (whether it’s something generated by a malicious actor looking to mislead, or a simple “hallucination” causing an innocent mistake). No, I’ve been pondering its effects on human creativity, and our capacity to learn and grow as creative creatures. This is something I’ve had in the back of my mind for a quite a while, and I think I’ve finally reached a point where I can put my feelings into words.
+
+My experience with generative AI started way back at the end of 2022 with [an AI-assisted dating profile](https://ghall.blog/posts/2022/creating-a-dating-profile-with-ai/). Just over a month later, I posted a [follow up](https://ghall.blog/posts/2023/an-update-on-my-ai-dating-profile/), in which I said the following:
+
+> …it didn’t feel like I was presenting my authentic self. Yes, I vetted the text generated by the AI to ensure it wasn’t falsely representing me, but I still felt dirty. Like the few matches I did get weren’t matching with me, but with the AI. My profile may have been technically accurate to who I am as a person, but I felt somewhat removed from it.
+
+I’ve used AI on and off for different reasons since then. I’ve used it to help solve programming issues at work and on side projects, to generate images in various art styles that I don’t have the patience or talent to draw in, and even tinkered with it for writing letters. But I kept experiencing the same feelings I had from “creating” my AI dating profile; these creations were far more a product of the machine than my own humanity.
+
+It can be–and has been–argued that generative AI democratizes creativity. A person who can barely draw a stick figure can create intricate works of art just by writing some words and feeding them into an algorithm. Or someone with no sense of rhythm or tune can make music that sounds clean and professional. As someone who lacks skill in both those areas (and many more), that sounds incredibly liberating.
+
+But, the more I think about it, even when ignoring the plagiarism inherent in using generative AI, the more problematic it feels. Yes, generative AI is a tool like any other, and requires a human to operate it[^1], but at what point does a tool eclipse the creative input of the human behind it?
+
+Art, writing, any sort of creative output, is the result of our emotions, our thoughts, our experiences. Perhaps even more important is the journey we must take to create. We can’t be good at everything, and part of the joy of creation is finding the things that we can be good at, and honing that skill. The best painters in history didn’t wake up one day and start making masterpieces, the best writers didn’t start writing classics from the moment they put pen to paper, and the best photographers weren’t masters of framing when they picked up a camera for the first time.
+
+I would argue that Generative AI does not democratize art or self-expression. It enables us to create a hollow facsimile of those things, something that doesn’t truly express to the world who we are. If an AI wrote my blog posts, they might convey some broad thought or opinion I may share, but you wouldn’t be any closer to understanding how I truly feel about whatever it is I’m writing about.
+
+Why does any of this even matter? Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t. But, I would argue that, whether it’s commercial art or just art for the sake of art, a personal blog or a best-selling novel, a side project or just a small piece of a larger piece of software, it’s the human element, the emotions and experiences of the creator, that makes any art worth creating or consuming.
+
+Generative AI is already writing articles for publications like Sports Illustrated, creating motion graphics for shows like Marvel’s Secret Invasion, and being pushed into countless tools for creatives, developers, and designers. Even Apple, which has prided itself for decades on making products that appeal to artists, has got into the generative AI game with their upcoming Image Playground app.
+
+None of this is to say AI has no place in our lives–I for one would love an AI to do my taxes, create meal plans, and handle whatever other drudgery we need to deal with. Like any tool, it should supplement, not replace, the human touch.
+
+The question I think we need to ponder is this; Where do we draw the line?
+
+Surely, purely AI-generated works are a bridge too far. But is there room for AI to assist in the creative process, and to what extent? How do we strike a balance and use this tool in a way that maximizes its positive impact on our lives while minimizing the negative impact on society? I hope that this is a question we can answer as a society sooner than later…
+
+[^1]: For now, anyway… _Cue dramatic music_. 🎵

src/pages/now.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ _Last updated: October 1, 2024_
 
 ## 🎮 Playing
 
-- [The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom](https://thegamesdb.net/game.php?id=127336)
+- [Assassin's Creed: The Rebel Collection](https://thegamesdb.net/game.php?id=67486)
 - [Persona 3 Reload](https://thegamesdb.net/game.php?id=118048)
 - [Fortnite](https://thegamesdb.net/game.php?id=84367)