4 ms·

I have been thinking over this comment for a while now. I think yes, you are correct that thought is involved in writing but I don't think it is possible to cla

I have been thinking over this comment for a while now. I think yes, you are correct that thought is involved in writing but I don't think it is possible to claim "all writing is thinking when done by a human". Like what type of thinking are you claiming here? Because one can copy a text and write it down and that involves thinking in the sense that anything we do involves thinking fundamentally. But that thinking is different from thinking logically about a concept and writing it down which I think is where you are getting at. The definition of writing and thinking is too broad in that sentence even though it does apply in several obvious cateogires within that at different levels. And also "writing helps us think about the world" is too broad again. Why? Why does me writing "apt apt apt apt apt apt apt" help me think about the world? I just wrote it because i felt like writing it. Why wouldn't you consider that writing?

max__dev 20d ago
You wrote "apt apt apt apt apt apt" to prove a very specific point no? Absolutely requires reasoning and understanding the problem to go there. And good luck getting an LLM to do that.
- IanCal 20d ago
  > And good luck getting an LLM to do that. Have you never asked a decent model to explain something to you? You should try it.
- altmanaltman 19d ago
  Yes, I wrote it to prove that writing doesn't mean I understand the world. It responds to "writing helps you understand the world." My point was that, yes, of course you can find categories within it that apply, which is why the answer is not fundamentally incorrect. Claiming "writing = thinking" in a general sense is very broad, and that's my point.
lelanthran 20d ago
> Why does me writing "apt apt apt apt apt apt apt" help me think about the world? Poor example. You wrote it to make a point, after all.
- altmanaltman 19d ago
  Yes, but not to understand or think about the world. In this case, writing was to express something, not to understand something. The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously.
  - lelanthran 19d ago
    > The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously. Do you have any non-contrived example of writing that was done with zero thought?
    - altmanaltman 19d ago
      That's what I am saying, zero thoughts is not possible unless you define what thoughts/thinking are you referring too. Of course you cannot do anything without like basic thought otherwise you will not be able to do anything. So I am not sure what you mean by non-contrived? It has to be contrived because we are talking specifics like I said. If thinking = consiousness then yes you cannot write without being consious. But if thinking = having complex logical thoughts and writing about them then I would say yes it is possible to write without that. My only claim is that just because you are writing something doesn't automatically mean you are having complex thoughts about what you are writing. So writing = thinking doesn't sit right. I can tell you i often just mindlessly write words on my journal sometimes but that is also a contrived example. Yet the existence of the example is the point. You cannot categorically claim something if exceptions (no matter how contrived) can be raised.

max__dev 20d ago

You wrote "apt apt apt apt apt apt" to prove a very specific point no? Absolutely requires reasoning and understanding the problem to go there. And good luck getting an LLM to do that.

IanCal 20d ago
> And good luck getting an LLM to do that. Have you never asked a decent model to explain something to you? You should try it.
altmanaltman 19d ago
Yes, I wrote it to prove that writing doesn't mean I understand the world. It responds to "writing helps you understand the world." My point was that, yes, of course you can find categories within it that apply, which is why the answer is not fundamentally incorrect. Claiming "writing = thinking" in a general sense is very broad, and that's my point.

lelanthran 20d ago

> Why does me writing "apt apt apt apt apt apt apt" help me think about the world? Poor example. You wrote it to make a point, after all.

altmanaltman 19d ago
Yes, but not to understand or think about the world. In this case, writing was to express something, not to understand something. The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously.
- lelanthran 19d ago
  > The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously. Do you have any non-contrived example of writing that was done with zero thought?
  - altmanaltman 19d ago
    That's what I am saying, zero thoughts is not possible unless you define what thoughts/thinking are you referring too. Of course you cannot do anything without like basic thought otherwise you will not be able to do anything. So I am not sure what you mean by non-contrived? It has to be contrived because we are talking specifics like I said. If thinking = consiousness then yes you cannot write without being consious. But if thinking = having complex logical thoughts and writing about them then I would say yes it is possible to write without that. My only claim is that just because you are writing something doesn't automatically mean you are having complex thoughts about what you are writing. So writing = thinking doesn't sit right. I can tell you i often just mindlessly write words on my journal sometimes but that is also a contrived example. Yet the existence of the example is the point. You cannot categorically claim something if exceptions (no matter how contrived) can be raised.