Update on MicroFiction & Weekly Response

I have truly enjoyed putting this micro fiction together. I used SudoWrite to help me. I gave myself 3 different drafts using SudoWrite and I allowed my inspiration to come from the 3 rough drafts as I pieced them together. I have my idea of using a graduate student who suffered from anxiety and was currently in their final week of the semester. Meaning they were overwhelmed with finals and their big paper. Her name is Violet ( stolen from one of my daughters) and she is so used to excelling in school and would truly hate to let her parents down. This is something I have personally related to and was even unable to tell my parents the first year of undergrad that I was diagnosed with severe anxiety, which often cam from the fear of failing. So I allowed the character to violet to solve her issue with the help of AI. I thought this was a way to show how helpful AI can be in academics directly, because at times I can see a more negative tone with AI in academics.

I let SudoWrite give me 3 rough drafts with different questions I posted for my topic. I specifically asked for a micro fiction version so I wouldn’t go over my particular word count and it also helped me to see how to structure my micro fiction, as I have never written anything with a 500 word count restraint. I needed to visually see for myself how to properly structure the writing so I could make my message clear and easy to read. With this I then quoted from SudoWrite and kind of allowed it to help me create the story. I wrote a paragraph and used a paragraph from a draft to do the next and I went on like that for the entire paper. Since this assignment asked for us to use the hep of AI I liked the ID of writing with SudoWrite, so to speak.

My issue now is as my story is finished, to me, I am at 657 words ! I feel I have a solid beginning, middle, and end, and this is after I have removed certain things from my story. I am stuck on trying to figure out what words to remove, or maybe even re-writing sentences to meet the 500 word requirement. This is my first time writing a story in 500 words, so with this new experience it is teaching me the true lesson of less is more. Following the example of SudoWrite I learned you can actually say a lot in 500 words using detail and concise tone.

Speaking on this weeks reading censorship is very important in the world of creative expression and artistry. With Deformation laws you would think it can be quite simple to weed out the wrong doings of people misusing AI, but sadly it can still hurt the reputation of the artist and create controversy for them.

Artist in any form strive to have their work represent them and show them in the best light. They of course want credit for their authentic work as they created it with the intent to receive recognition from it. AI can now in some forms take away from this for artist, so as the technologies develop they should create away to still preserve the works of the artists and have AI help them develop their natural gifts.


The internet is the brain of AI, and is filled with information on nearly every muse we could see or imagine. But what about those that we can’t imagine?

That sounds like a strange and somewhat scary question– probably because it is. If the things we can already imagine are scaring us to a point of wanting to stop or censor it, then what about the things that do not make sense to our tiny human brains? How many times have we stood in fear of something people have created? How often do we stand in awe-struck fear of our own Creator, let alone the discipline of the very people who brought is into and up in this world? Does that fear stop our stubborn human nature? Why should something that we have created be any different?

We should not let fear of harm overpower our imagination for the possibilities of what may be the next printing press or internet.

Censoring the technologies of free expression ; Ronald K. L. CollinsRyne Weiss

And that fear is exactly what keeps us running is circles as we ride our muses as a horse in a race.

I would, to some degree, argue that without a muse we are running around in circles rather than reaching a point. For example, theories on geological dating of rocks (especially sedimentary rocks) often depends on the fossils within them. But then again, how do we know when particular fossils were formed? No one was there to observe or record the existence of the fossilized organism, and the rock’s estimated formation is dependent on the fossil? Geologists that don’t play into the young earth ideology that many Christians hold will often say the date of the fossil is dependent on either the formation of the rock (which we’ve already established is informed by the fossil) or macro-evolutionary theory– something that has yet to occur before our very eyes, let alone replicated by scientists. We begin to fall into circular reasoning that I think was best explained by John Morris:

In circular reasoning, instead of proceeding from observation to conclusion, the conclusion interprets the observation, which “proves” the conclusion. … Thus, the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. The unquestioned assumption of evolution provides the context for the entire process.

The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth– Past, Present, and Future ; John Morris

My point is that when we’re writing, the muse is the point. Though an AI may help us to decipher how to go about that point, it’s not the best at getting to that point on its own in a way that is unique to your muse. And I think we often get caught in the details about the muse, or maybe in how the muse makes us feel or react (I’ve most certainly been guilty of this). But then we use those details to interpret the muse. We then become trapped in this circular reasoning in our writing when we simply observe and don’t ask questions and go somewhere from there.

I like how Nick Cave put it in his letter to the people at MTV:

She comes to me with the gift of song and in return I treat her with the respect I feel she deserves — in this case this means not subjecting her to the indignities of judgement and competition. My muse is not a horse and I am in no horse race and if indeed she was, still I would not harness her to this tumbrel — this bloody cart of severed heads and glittering prizes. My muse may spook! May bolt! May abandon me completely!

My muse is not a horse, Nick Cave

The muse should not be a horse kept in stables and enclosures, or a horse that runs circles. Our creativity should not subject the muse to that. While observations can be beautiful and profound, sometimes with points that can be left for interpretation by the audience, they most often do not answer the questions in such a way that leaves us in awesome wonder. Making plain observations simply leaves the piece at nothing more than a piece of writing– often with little room for the audience to take part in this process of creation (as Madeleine L’Engle often invites her audience into with her work, such as A Wrinkle in Time). Her work leaves people asking questions, and challenges audiences to learn throughout their adventures through her work. I’d like to reiterate a quote from Walking on Water:

When language is diminished, I am thereby diminished, too. In time of war language always dwindles… We think because we have words, not the other way around. The more words we have, the better able we are to think conceptually. … As a child, when I came across a word I didn’t know, I didn’t stop reading the story to look it up, I just went on reading. And after I had come across the word in several books, I knew what it meant… We were capable of absorbing far more vocabulary when we read straight on than when we stopped to look up every word. … If our vocabulary dwindles to a few shopworn words, we are setting ourselves up for takeover by a dictator. When language becomes exhausted, our freedom dwindles…

Walking on Water, Madeleine L’Engle (p.29-31)

And circling back to the point of this class, AI uses the language we are already likely to use. It’s brain is the internet– the lump sum of human output and interaction– and especially when asking AI language programs to put together a creative piece, it calculates something that we are likely to understand. Instead of challenging us, it gives us what we are already comfortable with. Instead of leaving us asking questions or trusting the audience to be able to pick up particular details, it over-explains or makes things so obvious that the reader has no job but to consume. Creative writing is much more than consumption, awards, or race horses running around a track– it’s about the muse.

It just occurred to me to look up the actual definition of a muse. There are two forms of the word, both of which I find relevant.

  1. NOUN : a person or personified force who is the source of inspiration for a creative artist.
  2. VERB : to be absorbed in thought ; to say to oneself in a thoughtful manner ; to gaze thoughtfully at.

See, the muse is the source of inspiration, thought, or I would even dare to say it’s the source of questioning. The creative act is daring to explore those questions, while AI seeks merely to answer them. But because of the heavy idolization and reliance on technology, we’ve already been primed, in large part, to want answers more than adventure or experience.

The only other question I have regarding this topic for the moment is one that I already know my answer for– dare I even say, the answer to. I want to challenge you to think about it too though. What is the muse of the muse– it’s source and reason for existing in the first place? Given that the muse inspires so much in us as mere humans, and that we often still have some dominion over these muses, especially in a creative sense, how much more powerful do you think the Artist that created your muse is? Is that something that leaves you in awesome wonder and even asking more questions than the muse itself? I would think so if your answer is anything like mine.

The Murder of the Muse

After reading this weeks reads, my thoughts on AI technology once again are deteriorating. While it is here and doesn’t seem to slow down a bit, I was trying to remain on the positive side of the spectrum with this new profound way of using technology. But after reading the articles this weekend, I realized that AI is killing a lot more than just future academic writers. It’s killing the muse. Which is probably pretty obvious but when you’re not thinking about it, that can catch you off guard.

The world is already structured to feel like a horse race. People often times forget there is enough seats at the table for everybody. But I wonder how AI will further effect this horse race. In cooperate world and even in the music industry, if the environment is already so dishonest, will AI only make it worse? And if it does then what would even be the point anymore. What would be the point of listening to music, looking at art, reading books, or even going to school.

It’s human nature that we can tend to be a little lazy and enjoy relying on something that is fast and easy, We do this daily, even before AI existed. I rely on the Starbucks app to order my coffee beforehand making my way to the actual coffee shop. I like things to be quick and easy as well. It’s embedded in us a little bit. But I think with full (free) access to AI systems will really rob us of our creativeness and our muse, one of the few last things that separate us from these AI tools. Once we let that happen, then what’s the point anymore? We loose our value and what makes us important. Once a tool can create almost everything for us, then there will be no point in being creative and honest or even having a muse at all.


I already find myself glued to my phone enough. Watching everyone build-a-bot like some custom stuffed bear that we used to go out and interact with people to make ourselves with our own hands is… well… depressing. Putting off the pain via these mind-numbing intelligent artificial besties– however custom to the individual they may be– will only cause it to come crashing down if not in this generation, than in the next. Do we really want that for ourselves, let alone our children?

Though I do understand the many things that this sort of technology has helped with, there are many other things that just seem to have gotten worse.

I’m already starting to realize that the most difficult part of this project is somehow using artificial intelligence to write this story. I know how to use ChatGPT already, and last class helped me to understand how to use SudoWrite– I feel completely comfortable using both tools. The issue is arising that I already have an idea of where I want to go with this piece and since short pieces tend to be more of my forte, I’m not inclined to want help because I don’t feel like I need it. (I think part of it is also that these AI’s don’t exactly produce quality content).

As for how last class has helped me, I think being given time to try AI language generators that I haven’t explored yet helped. Before last week, I’d only gotten to try ChatGPT. I tried SudoWrite though; its design elicits more collaboration between the algorithm and the author. I didn’t like exactly how it was formatted, but once I figured that out I liked the way it functions better. I think the next step to this process is to try writing every other sentence based on what I already have written above.

Workshop Reflection

The workshop that was held last class on Thursday was extremely helpful and insightful. At first I was a bit confused about the overall idea of the final class project and what was expected from me but after spending an hour on zoom, I definitely have a better idea now. The examples were extremely helpful and also sparked some (maybe) a few creative ideas for myself when it comes to writing my piece.

One of the ways I was confused beforehand was the way we needed to implement Chat GPT within our writing process. But after Thursday’s class breakout rooms it is very clear how we should being using AI as an aid or a filler. Therefore I’m not so scared now but rather a little more at ease that it is too1. implemented as a source rather than an actual co-writer.

Here are a few of my ideas of the direction I would like to go with for my piece;

  1. The never ending essay: a student uses Chat GPT to cheat out of writing an essay. The system crashes and begins to write the longest paper in history. He can’t use his computer for anything or make it stop. His professor gets the google doc essay constantly as the AI writes the essay all day and night.
  2. The Good Teacher? : A teacher looses her own sense of identity and job culture as she relies on Teacher Bot to help her with everything in class management to grading. But that all changes and her real “skills” come to the test when she gets her yearly observation from the principal.
  3. The Serial AI Dater: Instead of joining the real world and making real connections, Gabe relies on an AI for dating. He spends his weekends filter different AI chats to talk with different “types of women” all while he falls for one AI chat, but he has a hard time accepting that AI can’t love him back.


In reading the articles for this week, all I could think of were the several places in the Bible where humanity is advised not to fall into a place of utmost dependence on anything or anyone but God. We should be able to use what He’s provided us with for what needs to get done.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Galatians 5:1, ESV

and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, ESV

In many ways, we are already pretty heavily enslaved to technology. Anyone else ever walked into a pole or tripped on something because you were on your phone? Ever witnessed that happen to someone else? Chances are at least one of those questions, when honestly answered, is a yes. I admit, I’m a yes to both.

This said, there is a scary element to AI that seems to be unfolding behind the major headlines of today. Ever hear of the Federal Reserve’s new FedNow system? It’s essentially a newly announced federal central online bank. Seems convenient, right? Well, let’s remember who’s running it– the government. Let’s also consider what other countries have similar systems already in place, like China, which now has the power to freeze and shut down accounts or take money from accounts when any particular citizen so much as jaywalks, let alone criticizes the establishment.

And AI has the ability to track these things and record them– the man behind the server being free to sell that information because even if it is illegal, the value that information holds will get him more than enough money to escape with hardly a slap on the wrist.

Now, this is hardly the first time that the idea of a central bank has been thrown around, but it is something to take into account with regard to how technology and AI might affect humanity. We can definitely look back to the short film we watched, frames.

Here’s one of the other things with AI: when we begin to rely on it, it’s like a pot that’s too small for a plant. Hear me out– a large plant in a small pot gets root-bound, meaning its own roots begin to suffocate one another as the plant grows until it just can’t grow or survive. In essence, when we hold heavy reliance in technology, we suffocate our own roots as human beings. We become the dry shrub rolling around that Jeremiah describes:

Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord. He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord. He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit.”

Jeremiah 17:5-8, ESV

But how is AI a small pot when its “brain” is so vast? The answer to that question is similar to the one I asked before regarding walking into poles or tripping on something because you or someone you observed was on…

We don’t pay attention anymore. We don’t learn to observe and we simply rely on internet searches and how-to guides and videos. We don’t learn to discover with our own hands, through our own mistakes when the use of this technology is so unchecked. Its pervasiveness isn’t what’s necessarily bad– it’s the fact that we have not addressed where the healthy boundary is so that we as humans can still survive without it. In many cases today, I doubt most people can, myself included (which as a Christian is definitely something I should seek more accountability on, hence why I include that detail here).

And there’s a quote that struck me from a book I’m currently reading regarding this (though not specifically AI) regarding writing. I highly, highly, highly recommend Walking on Water by Madeleine L’Engle, regardless of your faith. Even if you’re not a Christian, there’s a lot to be learned on writing and art from the A Wrinkle in Time author. The quote that struck me though is this:

When language is diminished, I am thereby diminished, too. In time of war language always dwindles… We think because we have words, not the other way around. The more words we have, the better able we are to think conceptually. … As a child, when I came across a word I didn’t know, I didn’t stop reading the story to look it up, I just went on reading. And after I had come across the word in several books, I knew what it meant… We were capable of absorbing far more vocabulary when we read straight on than when we stopped to look up every word. … If our vocabulary dwindles to a few shopworn words, we are setting ourselves up for takeover by a dictator. When language becomes exhausted, our freedom dwindles…

Walking on Water, Madeleine L’Engle (p.29-31)

There is a reason that The Word was in the beginning. God spoke everything into existence. Jesus is the Word that John refers to at the beginning of his Gospel narrative, demonstrating once again how the three persons of the trinity were present before, during, and after creation was created. Like I’ve said before though, the power of life and death is indeed in the tongue, whether in speech or on paper or on a screen.

It’s a really busy week ahead for me so I’m getting cut a little short on my thoughts here for time’s sake. I’ll just leave you with one more verse and a question though:

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV

How is AI and other technology being used to encourage people, and is it actually doing a good job at it?

(I think particularly of the strong correlations between both certain imperative, life-saving advancements as well as those that plague the minds and mental well being of so many, especially young people).

Andele andele mami, A.I, A.I 

*Nelly song reference*

The article “How A.I. Will Drive the Future of Work” discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the workplace and will continue to do so in the future. The author argues that AI will not only replace jobs, but also create new opportunities for workers. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to automate routine tasks, freeing up time for workers to focus on more creative and strategic work. AI can also assist workers in decision-making, providing data-driven insights that humans may not be able to identify on their own. The article “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans” explores the potential impact of AI on human society, raising both opportunities and concerns. The author argues that AI has the potential to revolutionize fields such as healthcare, transportation, and education, but that its implementation must be carefully considered. One of the main benefits of AI is its ability to process and analyze large amounts of data quickly and accurately. This could lead to significant advancements in healthcare, such as the development of personalized medicine and the ability to detect diseases at an early stage. In transportation, AI could lead to safer and more efficient modes of transportation, such as self-driving cars.

Suggestions that the articles make had resonated with me. I agree that we as humans in order too combat this, workers need to focus on developing skills that are difficult for AI to replicate, such as emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and problem-solving. This keeps us around, gives us more of a purpose. I’m not sure why we would have to put more effort to show that we as humans are needed compare to a machine, but hey, welcome to 2023 I guess.

I think it’s scary of how advanced AI has become and the possibility of how much more advanced it can get. But every individual has purpose and I don’t fully think we are replaceable. But it is a scary thought.


Found poetry is something we got to talking about a little bit last semester in e-lit when I got to talk a bit about the Blackout Poetry Tool. Keith Holyoak also talks some about it in his article which explores the question Can AI Write Authentic Poetry?

Holyoak dove too deep into that question of AI truly being able to create real poetry, the explanation for what found poetry is serves as an important reminder, yes, but also gives a good preface into his stance and somewhat even goes into the why.

I, for one, already have an idea of where I stand on this issue for the reasons expressed in one of my previous blogs. Artificial intelligence can only use what it’s been given, as is the case with humans also. But here’s the catch: even though humanity is given such boundless resources and knowledge, we still have limited knowledge of and access to much of it. I mean why do you think things like AI and other technologies are still developing and discovering things? Because there’s still more out there.

So that said, AI is still limited to human knowledge, language and opinions, with a “brain” modeled much after the mind of man (I mean, man created it after all, and its “brain” is the internet which includes record of the endless spewing of human thought, knowledge, stupidity, wisdom, and interaction). It may not be able to experience or develop the way we do, but it can calculate and model what our experience and development is like. On top of this, its “brain” has the ability to work much faster than ours do, in part because we have so heavily relied on it’s computational powers as a replacement for our own (rather than using it more like a crutch when some part of us needs rest).

And because this “brain” has become so vast with the developments of AI technology and its codes modeled to function similarly to humans that the way it functions is now somewhat unpredictable at times.

Computer programs can now learn from enormous sets of data using methods called deep learning. What the programs learn, and how they will behave after learning, is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to predict in advance. The question has arisen (semiseriously) whether computer programs ought to be listed as coauthors of scientific papers reporting discoveries to which they contributed. There is no doubt that some forms of creativity are within the reach, and indeed the grasp, of computer programs.

Can AI Write Authentic Poetry? Keith Holyoak

When we did AI-generated poems in class a few weeks ago and shared them, most did not include much wordplay or unique uses of clichés (rather, the clichés were used in the most cliché ways where it was not necessary to a strong poem). So given how fast AI can learn and develop, I decided to try it again with a poem I wrote last year and recently re-edited.

I think it goes without saying, but just to clarify, the first document attachment is my own work (with italics being words pulled from the English Standard Version of Psalm 22 John 19:30), while the second was AI generated. When it comes to creative writing, I’m sure that if we’ve made it this far into a degree in English Writing (regardless of our status as graduate or undergraduate) that we’ve had the phrase “show, don’t tell” beaten into our minds. AI language models like ChatGPT may see these words a lot, considering its vast “brain” that is the internet, but it hasn’t yet reached a point where it can understand the word. It associates definitions to words because there are online dictionaries, sure, and that leaves open the possibility; in the meantime, while it can connect the dots, it has not yet been able to elicit or create its own meaning from that in the same way we have because it has no ability to personally experience these things its prompted to write about.

(Sorry this post ends pretty abruptly, Holy Week is next level busy this year).

Can Artist Be Replaced ? I Think Not !



These videos are clips from the Joe Budden Podcast, some thing I am a frequent viewer of. I like when Joe brings the conversation of AI and the art of creating together because he himself is a creator. At one point he was a rapper, but he always prided himself on the ideas of freedom of expression and being authentic with lyrics for the artist who were his peers. All artist, whether they are musical artist, painters, sculptor’s, etc., are very passionate about the things they create because at some point it was literally an original feeling or thought towards something or someone that brought them to their creation, whether its a song, or painting.

We all know they are able to manufacture anything just about today, even the music can be produced through AI. This now creates a question with the authenticity of the music. This is how vocal artist can connect with their fans. Cinematographers connect through their lens with their fans and core audience. How will an AI truly connect with an audience if they are lacking the feelings and emotions that express empathy, that creates timeless pieces. Some may argue that when Vincent Vangough created his masterpieces their were no electronics and it was all done by hand with the most basic tools compared to what we see today, but this painting has been in galleries all around the world, and has inspired many individuals. Do we lose this if we give the power to AI to create what we as humans feel and express?

The article that spoke on Computational Creativity gives a great counter argument to the question on if AI’s and humans should be held to the same standard . “Rather than just seeing the computer as a tool to help human creators, we could see it as a creative entity in its own right. This view has triggered a new subfield of Artificial Intelligence called Computational Creativity.” Authenticity comes from the emotions humans have developed when dealing with life and going through new experiences. Computers are programmed by humans who have had these experiences, but it still wasn’t there to “feel” it for itself, so to speak. So what makes it authentic enough to be compared to great human artist who have shared from personal experience and personal knowledge.

AI is great with assisting artist in the production of their work. That comes with the many technological advances we are starting to make in shorter time spans, which leaves us with so many options to produce the best work faster. Because today everything moves pretty fast in our part of the world so keeping up with the mass production from peers artist today are trying to find faster ways to not only perfect their craft, but to also produce it at a faster rate to keep the engagement from their core audience interested. AI helps with this part when it comes to the money and circulation of the work the artist is selling, but from an authenticity point I can see it creating some issues with trust between artist and fans, nothing would seem real.