Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writes and Write-Nots

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 158 posts

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#31

Post by James_K »

Yet again, Paul Graham states his view that people other than him are incapable of thought. I'm shocked at how frequently he does this. I would be embarrassed to make such an assertion in public even once, let alone repeatedly. While the notion that AI will replace writing is somewhat prescient, the idea that it will replace thought most certainly isn't. Paul Graham is someone who writes to think, therefore he assumes writing is the only way to think. Entirely consistent with his massive and unrelenting ego and simultaneous total lack of empathy or understanding of the differences between people. I shall leave you with this quote of his—the most sneering text I've ever read:

“It's not surprising that conventional-minded people would dislike inequality if independent-mindedness is one of the biggest drivers of it. But it's not simply that they don't want anyone to have what they can't. The conventional-minded literally can't imagine what it's like to have novel ideas. So the whole phenomenon of great variation in performance seems unnatural to them, and when they encounter it they assume it must be due to cheating or to some malign external influence.” - https://paulgraham.com/superlinear.html#f12n

There you have it folks. The genius Paul Graham is one of a select few people with the ability to have ideas, something which those who disagree with him are simply incapable of comprehending.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#32

Post by Veen »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #23
baxtr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is weird he doesn’t think of AI as deep thinking tool at all. Sure some will thoughtlessly copy and paste but for many AI helps to structure their thoughts and they think clearer as a result.

Can you expand on that? I can't see any sense in which an LLM improves the structure of the user's thought process

It's useful for ideation: suggesting ideas and concepts that you might not think of. A bit like a conceptual thesaurus. But it doesn't replace the hard work of thinking for yourself.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#33

Post by songshu »

mwidell wrote: post #8

That writing is the only way to do deep, clear, thinking simply isn't true. Stephen Hawking is the first example that comes to mind. He developed a remarkable ability to perform complex calculations and visualize intricate mathematical concepts entirely in his mind. He once mentioned that his ALS diagnosis, which limited his physical abilities, led him to focus intensely on theoretical physics, as it required more in…

Best-selling author Stephen Hawking?

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#34

Post by voltaireodactyl »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #18

I think this is a bit too simple. Some people might be good at thinking (e.g. in math) but bad at writing. AI can just help them to do their job better. I am for example very good at math and reasoning etc. But when I write something I tend to construct long complicated sentences (probably because I think that way^^) and the result whould often be considered badly written. Now of course you can feel superiour, for yo…

For what it’s worth, I don’t think “reasoning” and “conveying that reasoning via writing” are quite as siloed as you suggest. Many people write long and complicated sentences in a first draft, but it is the subsequent drafts where that initial block of mental marble is carved and honed into a compelling argument. I believe it is in fact that very act of redrafting — seeing one’s work through the eyes of others — that leads to one’s own greater understanding. Skipping that step with AI limits that potential to whatever ended up in the first draft, and Hemingway’s words apply to far more than fiction.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#35

Post by rcarmo »

karpathy wrote: post #27

Can this be put in analogy to arithmetic and calculators? People had to be a lot better at mental math and calculator removed the pressure. You could imagine making similar arguments that losing the ability would be disastrous. The reasons it wasn’t was 1) people still learn and get tested in school without calculator 2) they still need to do enough mental math in day to day life without a calculator at hand so the a…

Arithmetic tends to be a one-shot thing to perform a step in a daily activity. Writing tends to be about planning or communicating more complex things.

Not that, say, doing long division in your head isn't a valuable skill, mind.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#36

Post by sixhobbits »

karpathy wrote: post #27

Can this be put in analogy to arithmetic and calculators? People had to be a lot better at mental math and calculator removed the pressure. You could imagine making similar arguments that losing the ability would be disastrous. The reasons it wasn’t was 1) people still learn and get tested in school without calculator 2) they still need to do enough mental math in day to day life without a calculator at hand so the a…

I think this is a good comparison.

I wonder if some people would argue that it _was_ disastrous though?

We seem to struggle with things like putting people on the moon and not making airplanes fail compared to 50 years ago.

Maybe there was some critical mass of mental maths skills that engineers had in the 60s that we've lost now? Are we still inventing things at the same rate as before?

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#37

Post by beardyw »

There seems to be a modern fallacy which says that everything is knowable, and what is knowable is expressible. It seems all thoughts should have a lead weight tied to them so that they stay nicely on the ground where they can be admired, discussed and replicated. No wonder our age so pedestrian.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#38

Post by Moru »

Veen wrote: post #32
JonChesterfield wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on that? I can't see any sense in which an LLM improves the structure of the user's thought process

It's useful for ideation: suggesting ideas and concepts that you might not think of. A bit like a conceptual thesaurus. But it doesn't replace the hard work of thinking for yourself.

In the same way it can detour your thoughts to the mainstream and lead you away from a line of thought that might have ended up somewhere else.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#39

Post by bsenftner »

He doesn't get it. It is not "those that can write", it will be those that can communicate, really communicate versus those that cannot. It's amazing now how few people can explain themselves, without thinking that act of explaining themselves is somehow a punishment or a lead up to a punishment. Beyond that, how few developers can explain what they do without the use of empty acronyms and a host of gobbledygook that they probably only know as a pile of gobbledygook because they don't work in that stuff, they just use it, tangentially.

But the real issue is people that are not already engaged and knowledgeable about what one another are doing, the key moment when a non-tech needs to discuss a tech need with someone from the tech developer sphere: can they even communicate, and I'm not talking through a salesperson, but actually discuss what one needs and what one provides without resorting to empty jargon? Real communications needs no jargon and does not use jargon, it modifies itself to be understood by the audience, using the audience's terms.

This is critical in the coming decades: learn to communicate, professionally communicate, and I'm not talking about being a media talking head, I'm talking about learning how to speak to anyone anywhere from any stature. It's a critical skill and it is damn well needed now as well as tenfold in our fast approaching future.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#40

Post by DandyDev »

James_K wrote: post #31

Yet again, Paul Graham states his view that people other than him are incapable of thought. I'm shocked at how frequently he does this. I would be embarrassed to make such an assertion in public even once, let alone repeatedly. While the notion that AI will replace writing is somewhat prescient, the idea that it will replace thought most certainly isn't. Paul Graham is someone who writes to think, therefore he assume…

How is that your takeaway? Please quote the sections from his essay that led you to your conclusion.

My takeaway: people that know how to write, that have trained that muscle, are better at thinking in a structured way and articulating their thoughts. The number of people that know how to write is declining, at least in part due to the advent of GenAI. The number of people who know how to write is still non zero and is not limited to only Paul Graham.

Post reply on HN