“And when Morgan reached Caltech, he did something that was very peculiar. He banned the Friden calculator – which was the computer of that age – from the biology department. Everybody else at Caltech used the Friden calculator endlessly for all kinds of statistical correlations and much else. Morgan banned it.
And they asked, “Why are you doing this?” He said, “I’m so located in life that I’m like a gold miner in 1848 who could just walk along the banks of the river and pick up enormous nuggets of gold with organized common sense. And as long as I can do this, I’m not going to use scarce resources in placer mining.”
Well, that’s the way I go at life. I think if you get the big points with organized common sense, it’s amazing the placer mining you never have to do…
But is there still enormous gain to be made with organized common sense that doesn’t require a computer? I think the answer is “yes.” Are there dangers in getting too caught up in the minutiae of using a computer so that you miss the organized common sense? There are huge dangers. There’ll always be huge dangers.
Maybe we need to think about what we're trying to accomplish. I think our focus should be on understanding and improving ourselves and good things will follow. Technological advances are just tools and we need to use them to reach our goals.
Great post, Chris, on a somewhat unpopular opinion! I think what you pointed out is aligned with what I've observed in tech over the years: tech can both improve and degrade our skills.
Literal crutches are perfect examples. When people use them as temporary assists while they restore their physical abilities, it's a powerful augmentation tool. On the other hand, if a person has no intention of rehabbing, they may rely on crutches the rest of their lives.
Every technology can augment or replace our skills. It's all in how we, as users, choose to use them.
Put another way, every tech can augment or replace our taste.
For example, I think those who use AI to generate writing will lose their ability to communicate in writing. And think. Because I'm a big believer that writing helps us think. On the other hand, those who use AI as more of a learning tool to improve their own writing skills would fare better in the long run.
I don't want to say that you should do grunt work though for the sake of doing it. I was a little conflicted as I wrote this because I thought some readers might think that you need to grind and "put the time in". Which I think you do, but I think there's nuance. You shouldn't do it to prove to someone else, you should do it because you need to improve your taste. Maybe it's related to Ira Glass' taste gap.
Maybe you need to grind when you see that your taste can be improved or when you see there's a gap between your taste and ability. Or maybe you grind when you're interested or curious about something and your taste will improve naturally. Or maybe look at the negative. Don't grind when someone tells you to and can't explain why.
This response isn't really related to your comment but the thoughts came up and I didn't know where to put them.
I agree! I don't think I'd ever want to grind for the sake of it or grind for some external motivator. I don't think either is sustainable anyway.
Actually, as I think about it more, I'd say that maybe when we're grinding for the "right" reasons, it doesn't *feel* like a grind.
For example, I publish for my newsletter every 2 weeks. To an outsider, that probably looks like a grind. But I never felt that way. Sure, I'm always working on improving, but the process is fun for me, and I don't equate "fun" with "grind."
And from what I've observed, the people who persevere are those who enjoy the process (of improvement). They don't think of it as a grind. And because of that, they're not solely focused on achieving a goal. They have fun along the way.
I think if we "feel the need to grind," we might need to revisit our motivations.
I'm so glad you are saying this. It seems to me it's the greatest danger we face, is that AI lulls humans into thinking they can kick back and relax whatever vigilance they currently bring to their thinking, their ability to articulate that thinking for themselves using their own expression muscles.
It reminds me of this a little bit:
“And when Morgan reached Caltech, he did something that was very peculiar. He banned the Friden calculator – which was the computer of that age – from the biology department. Everybody else at Caltech used the Friden calculator endlessly for all kinds of statistical correlations and much else. Morgan banned it.
And they asked, “Why are you doing this?” He said, “I’m so located in life that I’m like a gold miner in 1848 who could just walk along the banks of the river and pick up enormous nuggets of gold with organized common sense. And as long as I can do this, I’m not going to use scarce resources in placer mining.”
Well, that’s the way I go at life. I think if you get the big points with organized common sense, it’s amazing the placer mining you never have to do…
But is there still enormous gain to be made with organized common sense that doesn’t require a computer? I think the answer is “yes.” Are there dangers in getting too caught up in the minutiae of using a computer so that you miss the organized common sense? There are huge dangers. There’ll always be huge dangers.
People calculate too much and think too little.”
https://fs.blog/charlie-munger-on-avoiding-computers/
Maybe we need to think about what we're trying to accomplish. I think our focus should be on understanding and improving ourselves and good things will follow. Technological advances are just tools and we need to use them to reach our goals.
Thanks for sharing these ideas, Chris.
As we’ve seen through human history: We shape our tools, and they in turn shape us — often in more ways than we recognize at the time.
That's a great way to look at it! Need to think dynamically when the default is static.
Great post, Chris, on a somewhat unpopular opinion! I think what you pointed out is aligned with what I've observed in tech over the years: tech can both improve and degrade our skills.
Literal crutches are perfect examples. When people use them as temporary assists while they restore their physical abilities, it's a powerful augmentation tool. On the other hand, if a person has no intention of rehabbing, they may rely on crutches the rest of their lives.
Every technology can augment or replace our skills. It's all in how we, as users, choose to use them.
Put another way, every tech can augment or replace our taste.
For example, I think those who use AI to generate writing will lose their ability to communicate in writing. And think. Because I'm a big believer that writing helps us think. On the other hand, those who use AI as more of a learning tool to improve their own writing skills would fare better in the long run.
But all that is just my opinion. :)
I don't want to say that you should do grunt work though for the sake of doing it. I was a little conflicted as I wrote this because I thought some readers might think that you need to grind and "put the time in". Which I think you do, but I think there's nuance. You shouldn't do it to prove to someone else, you should do it because you need to improve your taste. Maybe it's related to Ira Glass' taste gap.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/29/ira-glass-success-daniel-sax/
Maybe you need to grind when you see that your taste can be improved or when you see there's a gap between your taste and ability. Or maybe you grind when you're interested or curious about something and your taste will improve naturally. Or maybe look at the negative. Don't grind when someone tells you to and can't explain why.
This response isn't really related to your comment but the thoughts came up and I didn't know where to put them.
I agree! I don't think I'd ever want to grind for the sake of it or grind for some external motivator. I don't think either is sustainable anyway.
Actually, as I think about it more, I'd say that maybe when we're grinding for the "right" reasons, it doesn't *feel* like a grind.
For example, I publish for my newsletter every 2 weeks. To an outsider, that probably looks like a grind. But I never felt that way. Sure, I'm always working on improving, but the process is fun for me, and I don't equate "fun" with "grind."
And from what I've observed, the people who persevere are those who enjoy the process (of improvement). They don't think of it as a grind. And because of that, they're not solely focused on achieving a goal. They have fun along the way.
I think if we "feel the need to grind," we might need to revisit our motivations.
I'm so glad you are saying this. It seems to me it's the greatest danger we face, is that AI lulls humans into thinking they can kick back and relax whatever vigilance they currently bring to their thinking, their ability to articulate that thinking for themselves using their own expression muscles.
Yes, it's a false dichotomy that AI will either save mankind or start an apocalypse.
You might find this essay interesting: https://innerwilds.blog/p/solving-mcgilchrists-big-problem
I wonder what using this approach in the context of AI would look like.
Also, your piece makes me wonder if the algos of TikTok or reels are now the ultimate arbiter of taste? Is that what we are fighting against?
Haha, envisioning the mid-twit meme, and you’re saying we are all going to be mid-twits 🤯