On Making

Core View

I gain a lot of fulfillment by making things. I don’t consider things built by others at my request to be made by me, and are therefore much less fulfilling.
[AI Synthesis] The author expresses discomfort with claiming authorship over AI-generated work, distinguishing between ‘making’ and ‘asking for something to be made’.
[AI Synthesis] The article contrasts hands-on creation (e.g., carpentry, art, TUI code) with AI-assisted or AI-generated output, emphasizing the emotional and psychological value of direct, physical, or cognitive engagement in creation.
[AI Synthesis] The author references personal projects: a Spanish flash card system, a TUI roguelike in Rust, and a woodcut painting, all grounded in tangible, human-driven design processes.
[AI Synthesis] The piece critiques the ‘AI dev schism’—loss of craft, low-level problem-solving, and fun—while asserting that the act of making, even when prompted, retains a deeper human value than passive consumption of AI output.

Rebuilt a front deck using cedar wood, a hands-on craft project that reflects a deep personal connection to tangible, physical creation.
Created a no-frills Spanish flash card system by hand, using only a prompt and no AI-generated code, and feels proud of the effort and personal investment.
Designed and coded a TUI adventure roguelike in Rust with a clear separation between UI and game logic, demonstrating structured, thoughtful software design principles.
[AI Synthesis] The author created a woodcut painting titled Mirrors of the Machine, which is both a personal and artistic expression of design thinking and human creativity.

Distinguishes between ‘making’ and ‘prompting’—believing that prompting an AI to generate code or art is not equivalent to the act of creation, which requires personal agency, intention, and physical or cognitive effort.
Compares the act of writing C code and having it compiled to the act of asking an AI to generate code, arguing that the latter feels less like ‘making’ and more like delegation.
[AI Synthesis] The author draws a parallel between using a hammer and using a compiler: both are tools, but the act of using a hammer to drive a nail feels more ‘authentic’ than asking a machine to do it for you.
Refers to the ‘making’ of software as distinct from the ‘prompting’ of software, suggesting that true design and craftsmanship emerge from direct, iterative, and human-driven processes.

[AI Synthesis] The article implies a need for new design frameworks that value human agency, physical or cognitive engagement, and tangible outcomes—especially in fields like product design, education, and personal development.
Suggests that design should not only focus on aesthetics or function, but also on the process of creation and the emotional experience of building something.
Highlights the importance of ‘low-level’ problem-solving and hands-on skills in fostering innovation and user trust—values central to human-centered design.

The emotional and psychological value of hands-on creation is greater than the output of AI-generated work, even when the latter is more efficient.
The distinction between ‘making’ and ‘prompting’ is crucial in understanding human agency and creative fulfillment.
Personal, tangible projects—like carpentry, art, and software design—serve as powerful anchors for human-centered design and personal growth.
Design should value process, intentionality, and physical or cognitive engagement over automation and efficiency alone.

Topics: Design
Tags: design craft making tangible-creation