3 ms·

Seems you wrote this at the same time I was responding to someone else. Since I addressed that point in the other reply, I link there and quote the relevant sec

by latexr 9mo ago

Seems you wrote this at the same time I was responding to someone else. Since I addressed that point in the other reply, I link there and quote the relevant section. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955703#46958713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955703#46958713 > There is value in exploring obvious concepts when you’ve thought about them for longer, maybe researched what others before you had to say on the matter, and you can highlight and improve on all of that. Everyone benefits from a thoughtful approach. I’m not saying “don’t share the obvious”, because what is obvious to one person won’t be for someone else. What I am advocating for is thinking more before doing so. In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time. Often you also share a half-baked thought which only later gets the nuance it requires. More often than not, it’s clear the thoughts should have been stewed for longer to develop into better, more powerful and cohesive ideas. Furthermore, that approach will truly give you back time and relaxation. I take no pleasure in you being exhausted, that is a disservice to everyone.

simonw 9mo ago
> In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time. One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". I write about opposing ideas because they have their own merits. I believe that most of the criticisms of generative AI are genuine problems. I also believe that generative AI provides incredible value to people who learn how to use it effectively. I like to think I'm consistent about most of the topics I write about though. Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency?
- latexr 9mo ago
  > One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". Which is, of course, true in some cases and false in others. But again, not what I’m talking about. > Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency? Sorry, I don’t. You publish too often and obviously I’m not going to trawl through a sea of posts to find specific examples. I’m not trying to attack you. Again, my initial post was written in empathy; you’re of course free to take it in earnest and reflect on it or ignore it. Also, I haven’t called you inconsistent. You’re using that word. I’m not saying you’re constantly flip-flopping or anything like that, and it’s not inconsistent to change one’s mind or evolve one’s ideas. It feels like you’re doing in these comments what I have just described: going in too fast with the replies without really thinking it through, without pausing to understand what the argument is. It’s difficult to have a proper honest conversation if I’m trying to be deliberate towards you but you’re being solely reactive. That is, frankly, exhaustive, and that’s precisely what I’m advocating against.
  - simonw 9mo ago
    OK, I think I get it. Your primary argument here is that it's better to sit with ideas for a while before writing about them. My counter-argument is that's what I do... for my long form writing (aka "entries"). My link blog is faster reactions and has different standards - while I try to add value to everything I write there it's still a high volume of content where my goal is to be useful and accurate and interesting but not necessarily deep and thoughtful. And yeah, you're absolutely right that the speed at which I comment here is that same thing again. I treat comments like they were an in-person conversation. They're how I flesh out ideas. I wrote about my philosophy around blogging in one of my long-form pieces a few years ago: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/ https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/ > I’ve definitely felt the self-imposed pressure to only write something if it’s new, and unique, and feels like it’s never been said before. This is a mental trap that does nothing but hold you back. That's why I like having different content types - links and quotes and notes and TILs - that reduce the pressure to only publish if I have something deep, thoughtful and unique to say.
    - uyhsadf 9mo ago
      No his primary argument is that you are a fraudulent internet spammer masquerading as a software expert.

by latexr 9mo ago

simonw 9mo ago

> In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time. One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". I write about opposing ideas because they have their own merits. I believe that most of the criticisms of generative AI are genuine problems. I also believe that generative AI provides incredible value to people who learn how to use it effectively. I like to think I'm consistent about most of the topics I write about though. Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency?

latexr 9mo ago
> One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". Which is, of course, true in some cases and false in others. But again, not what I’m talking about. > Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency? Sorry, I don’t. You publish too often and obviously I’m not going to trawl through a sea of posts to find specific examples. I’m not trying to attack you. Again, my initial post was written in empathy; you’re of course free to take it in earnest and reflect on it or ignore it. Also, I haven’t called you inconsistent. You’re using that word. I’m not saying you’re constantly flip-flopping or anything like that, and it’s not inconsistent to change one’s mind or evolve one’s ideas. It feels like you’re doing in these comments what I have just described: going in too fast with the replies without really thinking it through, without pausing to understand what the argument is. It’s difficult to have a proper honest conversation if I’m trying to be deliberate towards you but you’re being solely reactive. That is, frankly, exhaustive, and that’s precisely what I’m advocating against.
- simonw 9mo ago
  OK, I think I get it. Your primary argument here is that it's better to sit with ideas for a while before writing about them. My counter-argument is that's what I do... for my long form writing (aka "entries"). My link blog is faster reactions and has different standards - while I try to add value to everything I write there it's still a high volume of content where my goal is to be useful and accurate and interesting but not necessarily deep and thoughtful. And yeah, you're absolutely right that the speed at which I comment here is that same thing again. I treat comments like they were an in-person conversation. They're how I flesh out ideas. I wrote about my philosophy around blogging in one of my long-form pieces a few years ago: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/ https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/ > I’ve definitely felt the self-imposed pressure to only write something if it’s new, and unique, and feels like it’s never been said before. This is a mental trap that does nothing but hold you back. That's why I like having different content types - links and quotes and notes and TILs - that reduce the pressure to only publish if I have something deep, thoughtful and unique to say.
  - uyhsadf 9mo ago
    No his primary argument is that you are a fraudulent internet spammer masquerading as a software expert.