Thoughts on Letting AI Write For You [en]

I was planning to write another blog post. I may still write it – or not. But as I opened my computer, I had a pile of open tabs. I’d clicked on a bunch of articles of Daniel Miessler’s blog for possible further reading. Daniel is the guy behind LifeOS (previously PAI), a personal AI framework (infrastructure) I have written about and spent many (many!) hours battling with since April.

It had been a pleasant surprise to discover Daniel’s blog was active, and even more that it was readable, as most of what I’ve seen “from him” these last months is in the GitHub repo or PAI/LifeOS documentation and rather AI-sloppy, sometimes even to the extent that it sounds like his DA (Digital Assistant) posting on his behalf. (I say this with all due respect, the thinking behind PAI/LifeOS is genius.)

Not so with the blog, clearly well-written by a human (see, by the way, his AI Influence Level system, something in the same vein as AI Labels).

So I fell in the trap of looking at the topmost open tab before closing it, and I started reading, and I was even more pleasantly (ephorically?) surprised to read this:

I value text because I see it as one step away from thought.

I believe thinking is the one thing we should be careful not to outsource, and I worry what this idea smuggles in is a major step toward making our creations opaque to humans. Not just AI’s creations, but ours as well.

The reason I value Paul Graham so much is because of the idea compression work that goes into writing super clean prose. It’s difficult to write clearly because it requires thinking clearly.

Daniel Miessler, “Text is Thought, and Thought is Holy“

I worry that if we vibe-think to AI and have it spit out amazing HTML, we’re instantly disconnected from the idea. Like where did the idea go? It started as vibes and got put through a woodchipper and turned into someone else’s HTML.

I see this happen so much. A lot of writing is a way of thinking, it’s not “path to an output”. And I think that when thinking is missing in the process, we feel it, which is why AI Slop and even many “decently AI-generated texts” are so distasteful to read.

Because the “thought” they contain is not coherent, not organic, and we cannot access it comfortably through the text we’re reading. We need to do extra work to try to get at it – and sometimes it’s not even there. Just like “over-optimised” administrative processes end up outsourcing a large part of the work they’re supposed to do to the people they should be serving, “over-optimised” text production outsources part of its work to the reader.

We could maybe apply this analysis to badly constructed, hastily-written reports whose sections have been copy-pasted to death and which lack overall integrity and structure.

Jens-Christian wrote about this too in “Keep Your Voice“.

Daniel again:

I just feel like if you didn’t put the hard thinking and writing work into the original idea, and then maintain it in a format that’s easy for humans to read and edit, then you have somehow surrendered something Holy to the machines. I say this as a total AI maximalist.

This reminds me of two things that came upon my radar recently.

The first is this post by Alex Hillman about how generative AI has broken the social contract by upending the balance of effort from producing to consuming content. What used to be expensive (writing, creating a song, shooting a video, etc.) is now super cheap, in terms of effort (if not tokens). Sure, we used to have content farms and the like, but it was still a lot of manual labour. Now I can feed a one-line prompt to an AI model, leave the computer running and come back to a whole book of content. Sloppy, but a lot of words.

Over time, the world we live in has shifted more and more in the direction of “too much content, not enough brain time to absorb it”. It’s something humans have been complaining of since before the internet. But like everything, it’s speeding up like a hockey stick. The democratisation of online publishing, and social media on its heels, has brought in another height of cognitive overload and collective anguish about there being “too much stuff out there”. And now that more and more of this stuff is produced by machines that never need to sleep or eat (except a prompt or two), the overall quality of what is out there is going down as fast as its quantity is going up.

This reminds me somewhat of my thoughts about audio and video versus text, back in the day. If you record a 30-minute video and post it online, it took you 30 minutes, but it will also take each person who watches it 30 minutes. If you spend 30 minutes writing up your message, it will take the people reading it much less time.

Because what has not changed is the finitude of human existence. Not only is our time limited, but also our energy and ability to read, watch, learn, concentrate. This is, now more than ever, our bottleneck. Producing something today is pretty much worthless. Producing more is senseless. What has value is: does it enter somebody’s mind in a meaningful way?

There is a link between this and the AI brain fry explanation that I referenced some time back. AI has no limits on the concurrent projects it can work on, and no limits on how much content it can produce. But we have limits on how much delegation we can supervise, how many open loops we can stand, and how much content we can absorb.

And this brings me to the second thing: understanding cannot be outsourced. Andrej Karpathy now famously said you can outsource thinking, but not understanding. A lot of what AI produces does not help us understand anything. It gives the illusion of opening the door to that, but it’s more often than not just word froth. Reading is about understanding. It’s about meaning. There is no shortcut to that. Only you can learn and understand so that you later know.

When Karpathy says you can outsource thinking: well, some of it. But what we writers-as-thinkers know very well is that the thinking that we do when we write is the kind of thinking that leads to understanding. Saying that thinking can be outsourced is a slippery slope because it drags down a chunk of understanding with it.

Writing is thinking is understanding.

Well, that was the first open tap. 27 more to go. (Just kidding. I’m going to close them. I might write my Paléo Festival blog post tomorrow.)