This is where I put all the things I've created which I hope may somehow be useful to others.
I believe in modular, purpose-built software. The more freely a program or library can be adapted and joined to other software the better. This of course begs the question of interoperability, documentation and cooperation amongst developers, and is why I am a sharp proponent of free software. I cannot stress how important it is, not simply just for myself (in that regard I find it to be an unparalleled educational tool), but rather for humanity as a whole. It is the actualization of creating software without constraints of intellectual ownership/micromanagement.
I have a strong interest in distributed software systems, especially favoring self-healing networks and distributed data structures and associated techniques. Beyond that I prefer to create purpose-built, practical use applications in a variety of languages. Practical in that their sole use isn't to pad a resume, but rather be of some use to others now and in the future beyond direct use even, either for design ideas or coding practices. Being able to riddle off a list of intangibles for the sole purpose of creating a list reeks of convenience, if nothing else. Above all else, I would hope what I have created can be of some use to people, even if only pedagogical.
In retrospect, I have since come to understand that I am a very design-driven developer, perhaps even over designing at times. A vast majority of my effort is prepaid out beforehand designing multiple approaches and ideas. Generally this pays off since perfect information about the task at hand rarely exists (so much for SCRUM), and I'd rather fall back on a secondary design than have to re-design again on the fly. Over-designing also helps the implementation in terms of knowing what you'll expect out of certain parts of the program. Despite modern languages offering an over-abundance of higher-order constructs, I honestly don't believe in their liberal use, ie. Php's magic methods. Most of the highly extrapolated capabilities of modern languages are more reliably implemented by means of lower level controls. Illustratively, one could implement an alternative, and more highly-tailored form of reflection in any language that doesn't support it by means of status accessor methods. Judgment calls will inescapably need to be made about any design decision and in some cases these constructs can be indispensable, however a rush to be highly reflexive/dynamic isn't always the best approach, as readability can suffer.
I really hate the term AI, especially when used in its contemporary setting. At the very best what we see are methods of computational models, statistical combinatronic synthesis, and particular forms of a stochastic parrot at work, be it visual art or text. Eventually, soon to be permeated thoughout the entirety of the range of known human outputs.
Whether it is at all good or not is entirely up to your frame of mind. Two distinct personality type pools come to mind, and I posit that the predominantly sensing to prefer the new x-model creation engines, and likewise the intuitional will shun it in favor of more "genuine" forms of human invention/inspiration.
What lies ahead however is the headlong intersection of this new tech with society and particularly its conflict with existing laws, most specifically copyright.
One such fight is being hashed out via comments on copyright.gov. It is there I of course submitted my two cents.
https://copyright.gov/policy/artificial-intelligence/
I think the question of Copyright and AI has hit a crossroads. Obviously there have been problems with copyright for decades but with the trivialization of the 'creative' process which have been brought to light recently via the use of generative processes to recombine, ad infinitum, various elements much like random notes in a song, we have been left with an introspection into what it takes to create, and it is much less than satisfying. We want to believe in inspiration and I truly believe there is such a concept. There is however at least some fraction of every work, which is taken in at least some trans formative way from past works and experiences. This is inescapably so, and will always be part of the human experience. This however, is not in itself an argument for a conditional form of copyright, one which would otherwise rest on needing to provide ones sources. Since there will always be some form of adaptive plagiarism, we must always look as to whether the new work is sufficiently distinct and not merely a ripoff of some work prior.
The main aspect of what copyright must accomplish is based then on what it at least aims to achieve, that is, an incentive to innovate. Its this incentive which even though at times won't be fully achieved and may not even hold so honestly, still it must persist as the goal, which in turn will be rewarded with the protections of copyright, at least for a time.
Looking at how AI or at the very least generative processes work and recombine elements, and then listen to the derivative technologies, one can only be left with bewilderment. At the very least for a huge range of the processes underlying it few can say with absolute certainty what the aim of the machine was at a macroscopic level. The technology is extremely hard to gauge at the atomic level too, especially so when at scales seen presently. So then what are we to be left with, trying to apply a reward to such a system. How can it value such incentives? At the very least one can expect someone or some group pushing the buttons to reap the rewards of said works. This furthers the strong at the expense of the weak and their government, to crank out marginally unique ideas, a perversion of the system. In the end, sadly, not much can be done to prevent this angle. As groups can simply claim their ideas were self-inspired. It should not however be considered fruitless to enforce, that no conspiratorially generative based system can "claim" copyright over randomly seeded works, in spite of this. Rights should only be awarded to individuals/groups made of individuals, on the grounds that it can inspire and entice further works to be generated.
The second angle of AI with respect to pre-existant copyrighted works regards to their training. I see no reason such a system cannot and shouldn't be allowed to operate. Firstly because in an of itself there doesn't pose any immediate attack on existing works and the copyright system, granted my first angle holds. This again being that generative or non-human systems cannot be used to yield newly copyrighted works. In essence this aspect is taken care of granted the first holds. Unfortunately the future is extremely messy and will be riddled with exceptions of groups trying to subvert both issues, and in bad faith.