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

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#81

Post by safety1st »

baxtr wrote: post #17
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…

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.

I think what he's getting at is that while you CAN use an AI to assist with "ideation," we will inevitably create new, low paying jobs where there is no ideation and the employee just operates an AI, because economics. That will in turn create a large cohort within society who are functionally illiterate. Literacy profoundly alters the brain for the better, and this won't happen to those people.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#83

Post by [deleted] »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #62
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But I can also achieve the same (act of redrafting) by refactoring my source code, working on a math formula or you know just sit there and think in my mind. All of those are related to language, because our thinking (and also math and logic) is based on language. But just because we think in language, does not imply that writing is the only form of reasoning. It is ok when it is your preference and certainly has a v…

[deleted]

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#84

Post by hackable_sand »

safety1st wrote: post #79
tim333 wrote: post #76

>in a couple decades there won't be many people who can write seems quite wrong to me. If anything the trend seems to go the other way - when I was younger pre internet most communication was face to face or voice over the phone. Now the predominant thing seems text - sms, whatsapp, this text box I'm typing into now. I saw a stat the other day that online / app dating had gone from a minority to over 50% of how coupl…

10-15 years ago I think this take was correct, the Internet was about writing. It isn't anymore, not for newer generations - e.g. Gen Z spending most of their time on Tiktok and phones, and not knowing how to use a word processor. In the span of ~30 years pg is talking about I can absolutely imagine some job where you speak to the AI and it writes the documents for you and you never learned how to write one yourself.…

Less internet for you.

More going outside for you.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#85

Post by spencerchubb »

dartharva wrote: post #9
082349872349872 wrote: post #2

Another (albeit optimistic) possibility: today we have an informal oral culture contrasted with a formal literary culture, so Graham perceives the latter as synonymous with thinking. However, before literacy was widespread there was, on top of the informal oral culture, also a formal oral culture, so maybe with the popularity of short video clips we might see a resurgence in structured speech?

If you observe the trend speech has actually devolved with the arrival of popular internet networks. Today's elites talk in a fashion that would embarrass even their immediate parents, let alone their ancestors. Just look at the quality of presidential debates and political discourse we've been having for the past decade. Not just in the US, but all over the world. The situation is perilous.

Devolved by what metric?

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#86

Post by baxtr »

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

Here are two examples:

a) No / little data: Whenever you are starting to think about a subject, you can ask it to give you a structure / categories.

b) Existing data: What I do very often is to give it a lot of "raw data" like unstructured thoughts or an unstructured article, then I ask him to find suitable top categories.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#87

Post by hackable_sand »

mikewarot wrote: post #51

I follow Paul's argument about the consequences of the churning of low quality output by AI, but I think there's a second order effect that's more concerning. The ability to judge other people's knowledge of a subject area will become exceedingly rare and priceless. Unlike younger generations, who are growing up surrounded by AI-generated content, many of us older folks have had the experience of engaging directly wi…

Yes

I been intentionally changing up my candor so that people

Who get caught up in the structure, lose the message

If u know you know

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#88

Post by dig1 »

tim333 wrote: post #76

>in a couple decades there won't be many people who can write seems quite wrong to me. If anything the trend seems to go the other way - when I was younger pre internet most communication was face to face or voice over the phone. Now the predominant thing seems text - sms, whatsapp, this text box I'm typing into now. I saw a stat the other day that online / app dating had gone from a minority to over 50% of how coupl…

The issue with the modern internet is that it's primarily used for communication (via short writing), often resulting in poorly written messages. Animals communicate through sounds, but this doesn't mean they can talk.

I agree with PG on this point and have noticed that people around me are often surprised when they receive well-written wsapp/sms messages that include proper punctuation and other linguistic markers. Additionally, many people rarely engage in handwriting today, and handwriting is known to improve clear thinking and literacy skills.

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#89

Post by hackable_sand »

DandyDev wrote: post #40
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…

You said the same exact thing as parent

Tf

Re: Writes and Write-Nots

#90

Post by ndarray »

mikewarot wrote: post #51

I follow Paul's argument about the consequences of the churning of low quality output by AI, but I think there's a second order effect that's more concerning. The ability to judge other people's knowledge of a subject area will become exceedingly rare and priceless. Unlike younger generations, who are growing up surrounded by AI-generated content, many of us older folks have had the experience of engaging directly wi…

Judging other's competence will only be a problem if brain-computer interfaces become widespread before AI largely replaces the competent workforce, and my money is on AI replacement coming first.

- Only a brain chip could make AI usage undetectable in practice. Without that you can tell if the person is checking his phone etc. Though you're right that an in-person interaction will be needed, otherwise there's no way of knowing what the other person is doing or if he's a real person at all... And since the latter problem (dead internet) will only grow, perhaps beyond the rectifiable, in-person communication will surely be in business again.

- Once AI replacement of competent humans has reached a certain threshold, what do you stand to gain from testing a human's level thereof? Are you interviewing for "above AI" positions? If not, relying on AI will be as normal as relying on a calculator.

Post reply on HN