In 2024 I wrote a post, An AI Red Light, about a creative project I did with my daughter using both AI and "traditional" tooling. This was my conclusion:
I think we were pragmatic in our choice of tools. Where our vision required control (video) we used a tool that gave us that control. Where we were happy to cede some control in exchange for output at a quality we could not produce ourselves (vocals) we used a different tool.
I didn't set out to do some kind of AI experiment. Instead I set out to have some fun with my daughter and found tools that enabled us to produce something, some art, that we're proud of and I'm happy is our work. For sure, we were sometimes more creators and sometimes more curators, but at no point were we ever mere spectators.
Two years down the road I have access to, and use, LLMs in my work. With them, I have been able to make things that I would not have done without them such as the user interface on my model-based dialog walker. I also use LLM chatbots as rubber ducks, as idea generators, and as researchers to help me to make sense of scenarios I am unfamiliar with.
However, I still write code, I still look things up for myself, and I still take pride in and responsibility for my own work: LLMs don't write my test notes, and LLMs don't write this blog.
I intentionally locate my activities on a spectrum: from high agency where I want control, to see the low-level detail, and have full understanding, to highly agenty where I'll let the robots do the work, then check and reject or consume the outcome.
Putting my dad-daughter project conclusions at the top of this post was a late choice after I realised that I'd expressed today's sentiment in the past. It's still true to my experience, though: I am careful about how I balance creation and curation. I am never just a spectator.
Image: Theresa Gosch on Unsplash
