Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also useful to point out that historical verbal tradition trained a very specific type of memory recall but that doesn't automatically make anyone wise. Just because you memorized 10000 random articles on Wikipedia, doesn't mean you now have the wisdom to apply that in a particular circumstance. Very much like early AI models.
> also useful to point out that historical verbal tradition trained a very specific type of memory recall I'm genuinely curious, why do you think this is relevant? How would you differentiate "specific types of memory recall" scientifically?
When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
231–240 of 593 posts
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plato's warning is true, actually. Since I started to write, I remember less and less about the things I have written down, because the brain replaces them with a pointer. However, writing for thinking and writing for storage is two different things, and it activates different parts of the brain. I'm an avid pen and paper user, and using a real pen on a paper allows me to think much more deeply. It regulates thinking…
I know this is HN, but can we please stop drawing these vague parallels between basic programming concepts and the functioning of the human brain? No, the brain does not "replace written information with a pointer". I cannot tell you with complete confidence whether writing stuff down improves recall or diminishes it, but I can tell you that you can construct computer analogies in support of either case. I could posi…
Why? Those are perfectly good parallels, and quite specific at that. Forgetting the thing, and replacing that memory with the memory of the location of that thing - that's an "indirect reference", i.e. a pointer in programming terms.
> I cannot tell you with complete confidence whether writing stuff down improves recall or diminishes it, but I can tell you that you can construct computer analogies in support of either case.
You can construct analogies to anything in support of anything, what matters is whether the analogy is bringing the reader towards or away from the truth.
Also, even when you have two similar analogies pointing in opposite direction, that doesn't mean either is wrong - they may be talking about two different things. For instance:
> I could posit that writing actually improves your memory, because the minute movements of your arm require more of your brain to compute, therefore creating more neural connections and possibilities of recall.
I believe that to be true just as much as GP's pointer analogy. In fact, I attribute my learning of irregular verbs in English directly to my grandfather insisting I copy the verb table by hand several times. Doing it, I went from near-zero recall to near-perfect recall in two sessions (with each having me copy the table once or twice).
Now the difference here is, in case of irregular verbs, I wanted to memorize them. The act of writing the information down myself somehow helped commit it to memory, perhaps because the brain was more focused, or because I was more invested, or a bit of both.
In case of GP's (and mine too!) experience with TODO list, the act of writing serves the explicit purpose of getting the thing out of your head. This is the opposite of memorization - you literally want to forget about tasks you write down, so they stop circling around in your head, distracting and stressing you.
Incidentally, when I write some TODOs by hand, I actually improve my immediate recall of them - should I try and check. But I don't, because I don't want to reinforce those thoughts. My brain understands, and before I know it, I no longer remember most of them in detail.
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#233Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plato's criticism is very true on an individual basis. What he didn't consider was the effect the written word had on a social scale in terms of being able to exchange ideas over physical and temporal distances. It turns out that was a greater benefit that to some extent makes up for losing the exceptionally well trained memory of scholars from a verbal tradition. Not that that last part isn't a loss though, and his…
It's also useful to point out that historical verbal tradition trained a very specific type of memory recall but that doesn't automatically make anyone wise. Just because you memorized 10000 random articles on Wikipedia, doesn't mean you now have the wisdom to apply that in a particular circumstance. Very much like early AI models.
> He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks written words are of any use except to remind him who knows the matter about which they are written.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#235Sometimes I wonder if I'm using the same ChatGPT as everyone else. I pay for GPT4 access in ChatGPT, and it is a really terrible writer. I also pay for Copilot, and I think a can count the number of times it has been helpful with one hand. I'm trying to get on this hype train, but I'm left with an empty feeling every time I try to seriously spend some time with these new tools.
I feel like this is the bias of a very smart, highly educated, highly capable person. If you are already an excellent writer and coder, can take vast fields of knowledge and blossoming ideas and spit them out onto paper in skilled form with minimal anxiety, GPT probably does very little for you. Maybe you could see if you were missing something very obvious and average. I read for probably 8-12 hours a day. I write e…
I agree that GPT isn’t much of a conversationalist. But it is an exceptionally good tool some of us. It has already proved invaluable for me in helping diagnose a medical issue with a family member — one that escaped several ICU doctors and nurses. And a couple of weeks ago helped me fix an issue with my car.
A good analogy might be a calculator. There are some people who can do calculations in their heads near instantly. And some of these people could do arithmetic of numbers too large to be represented by calculators even. But for most of us, calculators were immensely useful.
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Humans are not as random as an LLM. // Humans you know and trust, sure. Humans you think you're conversing with online, not so much.
> Humans you think you're conversing with online, not so much. Two decades of experience shows me otherwise. Even your two comments shows a consistent tone. We're just started to discuss, yet I have started to build an image of you thanks to your comments. This is one of the mechanisms we don't fully understand and don't dare to dig much, because tinkering with people's minds are dangerous.
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#237Quickly scanning the comments here I didn't find anyone mentioning this, a bit further in the thread: > catalinmpit: Too bad the content written by ChatGPT is average at best. > paulg: That's a step up for most people. That's what my impression is: yes, ChatGPT produces mediocre writing and Copilot produces mediocre code, but it's already more legible than many (not sure if "most") people are capable of. I'm not sure…
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#238I think this can be generalized to, “when you lose the ability to create a certain Form, you also lose some of your ability to imagine new types of that Form, and instead just rely on shuffling existing versions of it around to generate novelty.” A bit wordy, but I have the skill of drawing/sketching in mind. There is a big difference between sketching an idea on a blank sheet of paper, and using some kind of softwar…
And it has a very serious consequence: "when you lose the ability to write, you lose the ability to create new content on which future LLMs are going to be trained".
One guy has been exposed for producing one computer programming book per week, for six months or a year straight, all with 5 stars reviews.
How many people like him are gaming, for their own benefits, the system?
It's all too obvious on GitHub and StackOverflow already: people gaming the system with automatically generated code that just, to reuse you words, "rely on shuffling existing versions".
How can this LLM-generated content possibly be used to created a better LLM?
Basically: how do we train future LLMs using content produced by those among the humans whom didn't lose their ability to think?
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#239> Most people hate to write as much as they hate math. Way more than admit it I fucking love writing. Most people I know also fucking love writing, and I do mean love . Some do it for pleasure, some do it as a career, others do it as a means to an end in their career, and they haven't found value in LLMs. There's writing and writing . If all you're doing is rewording what someone else has already done like a high sch…
Do people really hate writing? If so the comment sections of HN and Reddit, the timelines of Facebook and Twitter, the whole Medium... would be so empty.
Re: When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think
#240Sometimes I wonder if I'm using the same ChatGPT as everyone else. I pay for GPT4 access in ChatGPT, and it is a really terrible writer. I also pay for Copilot, and I think a can count the number of times it has been helpful with one hand. I'm trying to get on this hype train, but I'm left with an empty feeling every time I try to seriously spend some time with these new tools.
I can see it guide me in the right direction if I have a more generic question but even then, if I am not specific enough I fear I might go down a rabbit hole that ends no where.
It may be better than google in finding something but when I manage to find something on google the information is usually correct and not totally wrong. Especially technical problem that someone wrote somewhere on a forum regarding a specific device.
Finding the things I am looking for on google allows me to judge the correctness of the data. When I find answers in what is clearly blog spam I know that the info is probably wrong. Which ChatGPT I have no idea how it arrived at the conclusion it gives me.
A good example is if I want to know the max current rating for a chip. If I search google and find the manufacturers datasheet, I know the information is correct. If however the same information is on stack overflow or some forum I may not take it as a fact but more as a guidance.
ChatGPT would be 100 times more useful is it cited a source. Like "The max rating of chip ... is ... according to the manufactures datasheet dated ... which you can find here ...". I guess Bing and Google are trying to do something like that.