I rescue and rehabilitate injured pigeons, and occasionally other animals.

See: Animal rescue

Drugs

I don't consume any drug, including alcohol and coffee.

I try to use ergonomic products to improve my health and comfort.

I sit on a Herman Miller Embody I bought second-hand. I choose it green like the Dolce Tutti Frutti Sofa from The Sims, since it was the most comfortable sofa of the original game.

I sleep with an ergonomic pillow*, and a small generic pillow between my knees (if sideways) or behind my lower legs (if on my back).

I use a stool* to rise my legs while sitting on the toilet.

I know I should do some exercise for my health, but I just don't have the time (and also hate it).

I do radio taiso every morning, and occasional short exercises with dumbbells.

To me, being an artist is about thinking of interesting experiences, refining them, and making them a reality. However, the process of making them a reality is slow and painful, particularly for video games, and is heavily limited by your skill and resources. Crafting, while often fun or fulfilling, is ultimately a required chore. It would be wonderful to be able to skip crafting altogether, to just describe your idea in detail and have it automatically generated. To me, that's what the idea of gen AI represents.

Current AI is unable to follow detailed specifications and its output is generally unusable for anything even remotely serious, but a future in which it can actually deliver what you want is promising.

Anti-AI rhetoric purposely misses the point, pretending that the expected use of AI is to prompt it to generate "art" without any further human input. Using a theoretical future AI that properly delivers on your prompts and allows for iteration would be no less artistic than hiring a freelancer. It would actually be potentially more artistic, as it would allow you to bring your vision to life more accurately, and the time and costs savings would allow you to make more and better art.

I don't think it's unethical to train an AI model using my art without my permission. As an artist, I don't believe I have, nor should have, any right to decide who can or cannot use my art to train an AI model. In the same way you can learn from some else's work or ask an artist to mimic someone else's style, so should an AI model be able to do so (and if it gets too close, criticism would be warranted, as it does with human art).

I can understand that it sucks to be out of a job because a technology has made your job obsolete, but that has little to do with art (you can still do all the art you want, you just won't be hired to do someone else's art), and it's not a valid reason to stop technological advancements.

My highest concern is that private companies maintain control over AI and apply their usual nefarious practices, but that has more to do with capitalism than with AI as a tool.

I apply face moisturizer every day, and sunscreen before going out.

I don't like owning much physical stuff. I try to get rid of everything I don't find useful. Being surrounded by stuff, particularly stuff that is not properly organized, gives me a certain degree of anxiety. Not having to care at all about such stuff because it doesn't exist feels liberating.

This extends to digital media to some extent. While it doesn't occupy a physical space around me other than some memory drive, if even, having hundreds of unorganized files feel similarly anxiety-inducing, so I'm also lean with my digital files.

Morality is demonstrably objective, and reducing the suffering in the world to the degree we are able to is our moral obligation. That's why I'm vegan, donate money, and rescue pigeons.

I used to donate a percentage of my income to charity, and it was my goal to reach 50%, but I have gradually increased my pigeon rescue efforts to the point my home is now an animal sanctuary and I'm the one who could use some donations.

I was raised Catholic but I don't believe in any religion. I believe an actual god wouldn't care about something as petty and irrational as rituals of faith.

However, it is a logical conclusion that a god must exist. It doesn't make sense that something exists instead of nothing, and it makes less sense that something exists for no purpose. The idea that a complex world, governed by complicated and detailed physics rules, and the presence of sentience beings to experience it, just happens to exist by random chance, without any thought, design, or purpose behind it, is ludicrous.

Existence is irrelevant without sentience. Without the possibility of a sentient entity that could experience it, whether something exists or not makes no difference. This proves that our world is not a product of pure chance, for we are sentient, and a world that couldn't produce sentience would not exist.

Unfortunately, this only implies the existence of some kind of force of creation beyond our understanding, not that the human experience is the purpose of existence, that our lives have any meaning, or that there is an afterlife. But there is some hope for something non-existential-dreading to happen after death.

I make games on a Windows PC, using Godot (previously Unity).

For a complete list of relevant software and hardware that I use, see: Software & hardware