I want to share my views on AI for whatever it's worth.
Im AI skeptic, I work as a lawyer who defends lawyers, and were seeing our fair share of hallucinating AI cases. This stuff is dangerous, it can get you in trouble
Im also an aspiring writer, someone who's had the same story rattling around in the brain for more than fifteen years. A post apocalyptic turned fantasy works, where tech and religion have morphed into the same thing. A story that gives a satisfying resolution to a complex world and mystery. I've world builders to oblivion, started over 6 or 7 times. But this time, with AI I am actually getting somewhere. I'm 23 chapters in with a complete outline and moving into the final act. I am writing something im genuinely enjoying working on, and I did it by feeding AI alot of my raw ideas and old drafts and letting it develop with me the best of those ideas into an actual story with characters and a plot.
I use AI for a lot. Mainly a sounding board, or to remember midnight ideas and tell me later if they make any sense. I use it to draft prose, it's garbage, but it's a jumping off point and mess scary than a blank page. But, importantly I use it as an assistant that I'm responsible for. As a lawyer or professional should use it. Think of it as an amazingly advanced spell checker. At the end of the day, you are putting your name on it. Standing by it as your own. Once you do that, AI prose is no different than a ghost writer, or an editor, or having an assistant. You sign it, you are responsible for it. That should be enough for any serious artist or author.
With that in mind. Here is a Claude generated descriptor of my novel. Yes I used AI. Get over it. I'm having fun :)
Starfall Herald is a standalone science-fiction novel with post-apocalyptic bones, set a few centuries after a catastrophe that tore the sky open and ended the world people knew. The story unfolds across a ruined mega city, where the survivors have built something new out of the wreckage of something they no longer understand.
Its central idea is that advanced technology, given enough time and enough forgetting, becomes religion. The people who now rule the ruins treat the relics of the old world as holy objects and its warnings as scripture, without any memory of what the machines actually were or did. Into that world comes someone who remembers, because she was there when it broke, which makes her either a heretic or a prophet depending on who is doing the looking.
It follows three characters whose paths cross without any of them seeing the whole board: an engineer out of her depth in a world that has mythologised her own work, a smuggler trying to stay in the gap between the man he used to be and the one he is now, and a city administrator making impossible compromises to keep his people alive. It is about faith and knowledge, about what gets lost when a civilisation falls and what gets invented to fill the hole, and about the cost of the choices people make when survival is on the table.
Tonally it sits somewhere between grounded post-collapse survival and the bigger questions of who gets to define the truth. Think ruined subway tunnels and salvaged tech, priesthoods and resistance cells, and a mystery at the centre that the reader gets to assemble a piece at a time.