When I had started my PhD, I thought the writing part of a paper was just the last thing I needed to do to summarize my results, like a boring epilogue to the more exciting science. What surprised me was how much of the scientific process relied on my ability to convey my ideas to someone else. And to be able to do that you need clarity of mind, you need to have worked through multiple drafts to be able to get to your point as efficiently and clearly as possible. So many times I only discovered what I was actually researching during the writing part.

The problem with AI writing is that it makes people believe that writing is just writing and not a tool for thinking very deeply about the topic you are writing about. I am not completely opposed to AI assisted writing, but if I see AI writing, it’s telling me that the author tried to take a shortcut in their own thinking and it’s a good heuristic that the ideas will not be thought through enough to warrant my complete attention.

Most of my projects are born out of scribbles on paper, system diagrams with boxes and little arrows to try to describe the system I want to build or my thought process written down like in this post.

When I get it on paper and everything feels right I start creating the codebase but I have to get it down first, feels like I remember it more after I save my thoughts to external paper storage.

It's an attractive thought, this comparative look at FA and TM. However it is misleading to an extent.

A Turing Machine's capabilities exceed the FA's because it has a 'store of knowledge'. It is both recording and reading, repeatedly. There is erasure, too. So if we're aspiring to TM-hood, the guidance seems to be write, and re-read (your own thoughts), and re-evaluate, and re-write. This process is subject to the halting problem. /g

Writing as a thinking tool has become sort of a meme these days.

And, yes, I also generally believe it’s a good thing to use it as a tool. I try to do use it as often as I can.

But… I think it’s also important to note that there are - like with almost anything - pitfalls and downsides. I rarely see them discussed and thus want to bring them up:

For highly analytical people, writing may become counterproductive. Especially, when it is used to continuously elaborate thoughts rather than to challenge assumptions, test hypotheses or reach decisions.

It can lead to over-analyzing or pseudo-rationalizing.

Ask your favorite LLM for scientific references like this one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40137068/

Writing is a good (and necessary) tool for thinking.

Not all writing needs to be published.

Beyond all this, there's also tailoring your message to your audience.

In sales, you might call this finding "words that work" or "the pain points". AI will not know how to do this because it's getting a vibe check of the room.

You cannot merely be a sensory part for the AI unless you want to sound as cringe and out-of-touch as the majority of the training data (stale social media). Garbage in, garbage out.

> Yet the only difference between a FA and a TM is that

> the TM, unlike the FA, has paper and pencil.

> Think about it.

The analogy doesn't works if you really think about it. A TM with a finite tape is equivalent to an FA. The fundamental difference between a TM and an FA is that a TM has infinite space.

(Yes, I know I missed the point and am not very fun at parties.)

[flagged]

[dead]