True. Writing by hand is even better.
Writing is thinking
101–110 of 135 posts
Re: Writing is thinking
#102To add: Reading is also thinking (ideally). And because reading and writing are thinking we must not delegate it to AI models as a matter of habit. In particular, during students' formative time, they need to learn how to think in reading and writing mode - reflecting, note-taking etc. Compare it with the use of a pocket calculator: once you have a solid grounding, it's fine to use electronic calculators, but first o…
Compare it with the invention of writing: > To [Thamus] came Thoth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Thoth in praise or blame of the var…
IMO it's not the recording of ideas that is thinking, but rather the act of putting thoughts into language. To me there isn't a big cognitive difference between conversing about a topic (during which you put thoughts into words) and writing about it.
When you speak or write instead of just think, you create something that did not previously exist: new words and sentences. When you write instead of speak, you aren't exactly creating something new — you're often just recording words that just as well could have been spoken. Using an LLM is much closer to the first case. It's creating something that didn't previously exist (an expanded thesis on a brief thought provided by you), and therefore seems to possibly risk the user's ability to think atrophying.
Re: Writing is thinking
#103I see a lot of people say "writing is so important," and I think what they mean is "I feel really smart/good when I write." And I think what they are experiencing is that they've been assembling ideas in their heads for weeks, and only when it's all come together are they ready synthesize that information at a higher level, and they mistake this synthesis for the writing itself (rather than the writing being a sympto…
This is a really cynical take. People work differently and get value from different things. It’s probably safe to assume most aren’t virtue signalling about writing.
Re: Writing is thinking
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably less grating though than broken English. (Copyediting is also different from pure LLM replies which don't involve editing anything.)
Broken English still has its charm and brings the structure of the writer's native language to the fore, which makes it relatively easier to parse and glean intentions from than polished LLM-speak.
That might be true, but I think it's false. Or more precisely, I think manuscripts with broken English have statistically a higher probability of being rejected than ones that are copyedited with AI.
Re: Writing is thinking
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading is thinking someone else's thoughts. Writing is thinking your own thoughts. There's a big difference, and is why writing is so painful for so many people. It's also why writing is critically important. edit: Likewise teaching is really important. Crystallization of thought is incredible valuable and difficult.
Reading is thinking someone else's thoughts => That is true if you are strictly reading passively. Typically what happens is that reading opens many doors that leads to your own thinking. Of course depends on the type of material you are reading as well. But often reading broadens your thinking relative to just putting your own on paper.
I think the best way to actively read is to write down your own thoughts as commentary.
Re: Writing is thinking
#106I am quite puzzled how an LLM could even start "write" a scientific paper. Say you start with a set of findings, for example, western blots, data from a transgenic mouse engineered for the relevant gene, and some single cell sequencing data. Your manuscript describes the identification of a novel protein, editing the gene in a mouse and showing what pathways are affected in the mouse. What material would you give the…
When we go to grad school, we’re taught how to write a research paper. Each field has a more or less standard format, where different types of data go in specific sections. So if an LLM is trained on enough papers in that field, it can learn to plug in the information you provide according to those conventions. In that sense, you’d give the LLM the purpose of the paper, the field you’re writing in, and the relevant d…
I am experienced in writing scientific papers, so I know what it takes.
I remain to be convinced that the tasks you propose an LLM could do contribute any more to the process of writing a paper than dictating to a typist could do in the 1950's. It's impressive for a machine, but not particularly productivity-boosting. Tedious tasks such as correctly formatting references belong to the copy-editing stage (i.e. very last stage of writing a paper), where indeed I have seen journals adopt "AI" approaches. But these processes are not a bottleneck in the scientist's workflow.
I certainly don't think the performance of LLMs that I'm familiar with would be any use at all in compiling the original data into scientifically accurate figures and text, and providing meaningful interpretations. Most likely they would simply throw out random "hallucinations" in grammatically correct prose.
Re: Writing is thinking
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare it with the invention of writing: > To [Thamus] came Thoth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Thoth in praise or blame of the var…
IMO it's not the recording of ideas that is thinking, but rather the act of putting thoughts into language. To me there isn't a big cognitive difference between conversing about a topic (during which you put thoughts into words) and writing about it. When you speak or write instead of just think, you create something that did not previously exist: new words and sentences. When you write instead of speak, you aren't e…
> IMO it's not the recording of ideas that is thinking, but rather the act of putting thoughts into language.
I agree with you but that article itself says, "for example, handwriting can lead to widespread brain connectivity."
Re: Writing is thinking
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare it with the invention of writing: > To [Thamus] came Thoth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Thoth in praise or blame of the var…
Or, from the perspective of memetics, writing has always been using us for everything.
Skullface sends his regards. I kneel Hideo Kojima.
Re: Writing is thinking
#109To add: Reading is also thinking (ideally). And because reading and writing are thinking we must not delegate it to AI models as a matter of habit. In particular, during students' formative time, they need to learn how to think in reading and writing mode - reflecting, note-taking etc. Compare it with the use of a pocket calculator: once you have a solid grounding, it's fine to use electronic calculators, but first o…
> To add: Reading is also thinking (ideally).
I've heard that some philosophers like Schopenhauer argue that reading can become a passive process, where we simply follow another person's thoughts without engaging our own critical thinking. It's interesting to consider that it's not just LLMs but we too would become like stochastic parrots under certain circumstances.
Re: Writing is thinking
#110I love this! Especially the part about if writing is thinking, are we not then reading the ‘thoughts’ of the LLM rather than those of the researchers behind the paper?