1. A string of unicode characters is converted into an array of integers values (tokens) and input to a black box of choice.

2. The black box takes in the input, does its magic, and returns an output as an array of integer values.

3. The returned output is converted into a string of unicode characters and given to the user, or inserted in a code file, or whatever. At no point does the black box "read" the input in any way analogous to how a human reads.

Where people get "The AIs have emotions!!!" from returning an array of integers values is beyond me. It's definitely more complicated than "next token predictor", but it really is as simple as "Make words look like numbers, numbers go in, numbers come out, we make the numbers look like words."

My brother showed me stuff like Trilium circa 2017, but I hadn't the thinking process I do now to even know where to start racking my brain for stuff to write down.

When I read Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton, I was in awe of his ability to write so damn much. I never thought I'd be able to do that. Turns out the secret is just three things: have stuff you're passionate about, be able to recall it, and write so damn much about it. When your thinking process is based around "how would I phrase/word/frame this to write it down," if you have the right process and organization to be able to access it later, it's even easier than talking. For some they can keep everything they know in their head. I'm not one of them. but I can write everything down, and in writing it down I end up remembering it better. My professors were right all along.

And if one looks at the actual written letters people like Hamilton [1] and co. wrote, or even back to Isaaci Newtoni [2][3], They're riddled with spelling errors and strange latinesque grammar and informal formalities. Yet they're revered for their ability to write. Because it really is the thought that countts [4], not the words.

(Very little of these comments is new thoughts I'm having now. Most of it is thoughts I had and documented when I was super into PKM in 2023 and since, and now comes back up as those neurons fire again and I consider the new idea of "should AI be my PKM?" after reading the post.)

---

Yeah, the graphs are cool for a little bit. But only post-facto, once one has an amount of data points where it might become useful. If the AI is doing the organization then any personal significance is lost. Or rather it was never there to begin with.

Wikilinks is the feature I use most often, outside of my folder organization (PARA). Now when I have a thought, it goes down a chain of "do I have a note already this can go into," to "no, it should be a new note. are there any notes I should wikilink in this one, or link this one in?"

I think I made a good decision early on when I was inspired by the Emacs documentation to add a basic "Related: " line before the first header (and after the YAML). There I dump any wikilink I think might possibly be something I want to reference, or find this note via a backlink, without having to think about where to put it in the body.

E.g.

{YAML header}

Related: [[Artemis]], [[Artemis II]], [[NASA Engineering]], [[Space MOC]], [[NASA CAPCOM]],

# Artemis II Mission Timeline and Notes

{body and rest of note, my own record of things that happened as I watch the stream}

---

> AI tools certainly help with creating a mass of notes.

Agreed. Presuming the implication is it creates a mass of notes, but of generic information stated generically. I'm really proud of my 4100 notes, because I know (aside from a few catagories like web clipping) even if they're a mess, they're my mess. I definitely could have gone the last three years without having found Obsidian, but I wouldn't have as clear a record of them as I do now. Or the rest of my life, as I slowly add stuff about my past, or migrate old writing into it. I also definitely repeat myself by saying the same information in different places, but in different ways. It's not 'efficient' information density-wise, but it is designed for a human to read and see the human behind the writing.

I also believe I think clearer, as often when I'm recalling information I'm actually recalling my note in my head on that subject. I write so much that in conversation "I was thinking the other day" is analogous to "I wrote down in my notes".

I might be crazy but I would put my vault in my will as something to be passed on, because there's so much me in them. My yearly journals in /02 Areas/Journals/ are the most obvious ones, but I have a /02 Areas/Writing/ folder that's just notes I consider "writing", whic is distincy from the contents of /03 Resources/ folder that's the "general knowledge" knowledgebase.

---

Anyway, I guess my tl;dr is that AI can never write about thinking as well as a human can, and in my opinion it's the thinking that important, not the writing. the writing or the words is merely a tool in thinking. Karpathy mistakes the words to be the goal, rather than the thinking that caused the words.

---

One last thing: I just re-read the HN guidelines out of curiosity, and I noticed they recently added "Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments."

I could copy and paste almost anything from my vault into an HN comment without violating this rule. Anybody creating a PKM with this sytem could not. They would have to rewrite it in their own words. So one might as well just right it themself in the first place if they ever think they might want to reuse it in a place like HN.

---

[1] https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/rev/hamilton-laurens-le...

[2] https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/MIN...

[3] A while back, while in a Newton phase, I decided arbitrarily to refer to him as "Isaaci Newtoni," as that's how he called himself. I reinforced that by using that name for him in my notes. Now I call him that instinctually, not consciously.

[4] Intentional.

I'm not sure how you can get any closer to "turning your thinking over to machines." These tasks may be "grunt work," but it's while doing these things that new ideas pop in, or you decide on a particular or novel way to organize or frame information. Many of my insights in my (analog? vanilla? my human-written) Obsidian vault (that I consider my "personal wiki") have been made or expanded on because I happened to see one note after another in doing the "grunt work", or just by opening one note and seeing its title right beside a previously forgotten one.

There's nothing "personal" about a knowledge base you filled by asking AI questions. It's the AI's database, you just ask it to write stuff. Learn how to learn and answer your own damn questions.

Soon pedagogy will be a piece of paper that says "Ask AI."

I hate this idea that a result is all that matters, and the quicker you can get the result the better, at any cost (mental or financial, short-term or long-term).

If we optimized showers to be 20 seconds, we'd stop having shower thoughts. I like my shower thoughts. And so too my grunt-work thoughts.

---

As an aside, I'm not totally against AI writing in a personal knowledgebase. I include it at times in my own. But since I started my current obsidian vault in 2023 (now 4100 self-written notes, including maybe up to 5% Web Clipper notes), I've had a Templater (Obsidian plugin) template I wrap around anything AI-written to 'quarantine' it from my own words:

==BEGIN AI-GENERATED CONTENT==

<% tp.file.cursor(1) %>

==END AI-GENERATED CONTENT==

I've used this consistently and it's helped me keep (and develop) my own writing voice apart from any of my AI usage. It actually motivates me to write more, because I know I could always take the easy route and chunk whatever I'm thinking into the AI, but I'm choosing not to by writing it myself, with my own vocabulary, in my own voice, with my own framing. I trick myself into writing because my pride tells me I can express my knowledge better than the AI can.

I also manually copy and paste from wherever I'm using AI into my notes. Nothing automated. The friction keeps me from sliding into the happy path of turning my brain off.

That's all meta. Trivia. Decisions he made or feedback he gave, that while influencing the final product cannot be observed in the final product (e.g. show me the actual Spielberg-drawn storyboard in the film; It doesn't exist, because the storyboard turned into a sequence of shots made by the cinematographer, instructing the camerawoman to point the camera at the actors lit by the gaffers, or into a work breakdown strucutre then followed by the SFX team painstakingly drawing it frame by frame). No one but Spielberg could say "That part was me, this part was Kahn's." I can't find any of that out just by watching the movie. When I engage with a piece of media, I presume the author is dead. What is in the media is canon, and what's not in it isn't. The behind the scenes, or the director's biography, or the interviews aren't part of the art. Art shouldn't rely on "Oh it's good, or even better than you thought it was once you know this cool fact or that wild story from production."

Star Wars isn't good only because George Lucas was a genius, or because they spent a lot of time on the models and tried a cool new text intro sequence, or because of any of the other novel effects. Lots of movies spend a lot of time in production, with a lot of experts and a lot of novel ideas, and still fail. Star Wars is good because the finished movie is good. We credit Star Wars generally as being George Lucas' brainchild, but if you know the backstory, it's only good because he had good editors to reign him in. But that's meta. Nobody knew that in 1977. They just knew they enjoyed the movie and it said "written and directed by George Lucas."

When I watch the movie I don't see the storyboard, or the redlines in the screenplay, or the casting notes, or the conversations and discussions with Kahn. All I know from the movie is the credits, and the credits don't say "Written by Melissa Mathison (with close collaboration by Spielberg based on his childhood experience)". Those are, from a lay viewer's POV, 'facts not in evidence.'

E.T. was a single example. I'm comfortable claiming my argument applies to all directors of all films, and all forms of art that are created by more than one person. Another example: "Over The Edge" and "Off The Wall", two books about deaths in US national parks. They each have two authors. Only one author co-wrote both of them. To whom do I credit my love for those books? Only to Ghiglieri, since I can see the consistent tone between them? That would be unfair to Myers and Farabee. Only to Myers and Farabee, because they're the park rangers that witnessed a number of the emergencies and deaths? That would be unfair to Ghiglieri. What about the editors, who surely worked hard to make books that are basically a list of stories about death interesting as a cohesive narrative. My only option is to credit all the authors, and everyone else involved, equally, and not try to break down paragraphs between "this author wrote this one, and that author wrote that one." They didn't distinguish, so I can't either. [1]

I'm all over my essay. I drafted and organized the original outline. I've made substantial changes to the order of paragraphs and what and how the arguments are built and developed based on my personal experiences. I am the final say for whose quotes are included and which ones are cut. My relationship with myself is famously collaborative (famous among my family and friends).

None of that matters to the reader. Whether I wrote it myself or with a friend, or used a ghostwriter, or used an LLM, the audience is going to credit or blame it on the name at the top. My papers in college weren't graded based on whether I spent 300 hours on them and revised them 20 times, or whether it was I or my classmate who coined that pithy line I then used throughout, or because I used niche knowledge about the subject I knew before taking the class. That's trivia. They were graded on the final single copy I submitted. I got once chance.

The only difference between an essay of mine being written by a ghostwriter I hired and an LLM is that the LLM output is always going to sound like an LLM. They are identical in that neither of them are "me". The ghostwriter will sound either like the ghostwriter or like the ghostwriter trying to write like me. But whether I hired a ghostwriter and published their work under my name, or if I used an LLM and the audience didn't notice, at the end of the day they'll credit or blame me entirely, because my name is at the top, no different as if I'd written the entire thing from scratch. I have no excuses except for the final product.

For this essay specifically, If I ever did release it or publish it, it would be under my real name. Firstly because I've never liked being "anonymous" online (I feel I never act or write like myself unless I'm speaking under my own name; opposite of most in my experience), and second because I would want the reader to know that there's a human they can credit or blame for it. I guess for me that's the tradeoff. When anonymous I won't use LLMs, because my ethos comes from being (and sounding) like a human being who merely doesn't want to share their name. Under my real name, however, I feel more comfortable saying "directed and edited by [real name], drafted by [llm]," because then the reader can decide if the ethos associated with my real name and affilations is strong enough to justify reading a logos and pathos that the human freely admits is not entirely from their own fleshy brain.

[1] They do, actually, at times. When one of the authors was directly involved in one of the stories and is recounting their personal experience, they will write "I (Myers)..." or "I (Farabee).." Aside from that they do not say who wrote what, or who influenced who.

I've noticed this myself. Even in my Obsidian vault, which only I read and write in. I think it's a development into writing more imperatively, instinctually. Thinking more in instructions and commands than the speaking and writing habits I've developed organically over my life. Or just "talking to the computer" in plain English, after having to convert my thoughts to code anytime I want to make it do something.

I've been thinking about the role of "director" in media as an analogy to writing with LLMs. I'm working right now on an "essay," that I'm not sure I'll share with anyone, even family (who is my first audience). Right now, under the Authorship section, I wrote "Conceived, directed, and edited by Qaadika. Drafted by Claude", with a few sentences noting that I take responsibility for the content, and that the arguments, structure, audience, and editorial judgments are mine.

I had a unique idea and started with a single sentence prompt, and kept going from there until I realized it should be an essay. So the ideas in it are mine. The thesis is mine. I'm going back and forth with the LLM section by section. Some prompts are a sentence. Some are eight paragraphs. I can read the output and see exactly what was mine and what the LLM added. But my readers won't. They'll just see "Author: Qaadika" and presume every single word was mine. Or they'll sniff out the LLM-ness and stop reading.

I can make a film and call myself director without ever being seen in it. Is is the same if I direct the composition of words without ever writing any of the prose myself? Presuming I've written enough in prompts that it's identifiably unique from cheaper prompts and "LLM, fill in the blank".

We credit Steven Spielberg with E.T. But he didn't write the screenplay. He probably had comments on it, though. He didn't operate the camera. But he probably told the operators where to put it. He didn't act in it. But he probably told the actors where to stand and where to move and how to be. He didn't write the music. But he probably had a sense of when and where to place it in the audio. And he didn't spend every moment in the cutting room, placing every frame just so.

But his name is at the top. He must have done something, even if I can't point to anything specific. The "Vibe" of the film is Spielberg, but it's also the result of hundreds of minds, most of whole aren't named until the end of the film, and probably never read by most viewers.

His contribution to the film was instructions. Do this, don't do that. Let's move this scene to here. This shot would be better from this angle. The musical swell should be on this shot; cut it longer to fit.

So where, exactly, is "Spielberg" in E.T.? What can we objective credit him with, aside from the finished product: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial: Coming June 1982?

PRESS RELEASE: UNITED BURGLARS SOCIETY

The United Burglars Society understands that being burgled may be inconvenient for some. In response, UBS has introduced the Opt-Out system for those who wish not to be burgled.

Please understand that each burglar is an independent contractor, so those wishing not to burgled should go to the website for each burglar in their area and opt-out there. UBS is not responsible for unwanted burglaries due to failing to opt-out.

I didn't become paranoid, everybody else didn't!

Second response: Maybe? I press the little button to auto-generate commit titles and messages that showed up in my Github Desktop. Does that count?

I'm asking sincerely. I don't "use Copilot" as in using it in VS Code or while writing code, so I'm honestly not sure if I am.

That's my bar. My time is my time, and anything that takes time from me better have a damn good excuse. Github is not bringing any good reasons to the table to justify making me take my time to protect privacy I've had by default up to now.

> Should you decide to participate in this program, the interaction data we may collect and leverage includes:

> - Outputs accepted or modified by you

> - Inputs sent to GitHub Copilot, including code snippets shown to the model

> - Code context surrounding your cursor position

> - Comments and documentation you write

> - File names, repository structure, and navigation patterns

> - Interactions with Copilot features (chat, inline suggestions, etc.)

> - Your feedback on suggestions (thumbs up/down ratings)

"should you decide to participate.."??? You didn't ask if I wanted to participate. You asked if I didn't.

I didn't get to decide to participate. I had to decide not to. You made me do work to prevent my privacy from being violated.

And it's definitely possible to get in trouble for "fixing" something if you're not authorized to fix it.

I would call this "bypassing building controls to allow unauthorized access to the building." Frank has access to the building through the allowed means per his lease, not through any means. If his lease is like mine there's a whole page to initial about being granted access through the gates or pool or whatever with only the complex-assigned keys and RFID tags.

(I presume Frank lives in the US, and his state's tenancy laws similar to mine apply.)

I was hoping they'd mention something about the legality (or lack thereof), but I guess that's an exercise left to the reader who wants to try this out at their own apartment.

A "software engineering team" is human, so that does change the argument. It becomes a human-human problem, not a human-machine problem. Or in OSHA terms, a problem to be solved with administrative controls rather than engineering controls.

I've had to work to balance emails like this between "they don't want the nitty gritty, they just want to be satisfied the issue is solved" and "They will definitely want the nitty gritty and think something is up if the details seems suspiciously sparse". Especially if the recipients are technical, and they know that you know that they're technical. what are you hiding, Qaadika? you're usually more verbose than this.

I got this state ID using my previous state's ID. The old one is now void. So I need to get a new one. I'll need my birth certificate mailed to me from my parents, because I'm still in the habit of letting them keep all the important family documents. I move alot.

My car broke down a few months ago. Good thing I can walk the relatively (americanly) short distance to work. For after-hours or weekend travel I take the buses (the few my city has) or an uber. Even though it would take me 20 minutes to drive directly to the DMV, the bus route is an hour and ten minutes, and the Uber is going to cost me money. Even if the ID was free, I had to have money to get to the DMV to get it. If I drove, I'd still have paid for the gas.

My work is understaffed and I'm one of the more knowledgable non-managers. I'm working before business hours start and leaving after they end. I can't see a weekday in the next month where I can take time off during the day "just" to get an ID. My boss might understand a medical appointment, but the DMV is not on his list of "reasons I can lose Qaadika for half a day or more".

"you can get one at the DMV" is not an answer.

- "- Name - {Noun with modifiers} {comma} {verb-ing with modifiers}."

- "- Name - {Noun with modifiers} {comma} {verb-ing with modifiers}."

The phrasing is the same, which I notice sometimes happens in my own notes, but it's most noticeable when an LLM is asked to summarize items. An LLM written job description (without major prompting) for a resume comes out the same way, in my experience. It's the simplest full-sentence grammar for describing what something is, and then what something does.

If we used the developer's descriptions (from the github repo) to populate the info, it would look like this:

- hollance/neural-engine - Everything we actually know about the Apple Neural Engine (ANE)

- mdaiter/ane - Reverse engineered the Apple Neural Engine, with working Python and Objective C samples

- apple/ml-ane-transformers - eiln/ane - Reverse engineered Linux driver for the Apple Neural Engine (ANE).

- apple/ml-ane-transformers - Reference implementation of the Transformer architecture optimized for Apple Neural Engine (ANE)

IMO It may not be as information-packed as the LLM list, but it is more interesting to read. I can tell, or at least think I can tell, that different individuals wrote each description, and it's what they wanted me to know most about their project.

If I were making a list of software during research (that would eventually turn into a report), the particular details I write down in the moment would be different, depending on the solution I'm looking for or features it has or doesn't have, will add or won't add. I don't try to summarize "the Whole Project" in one clean bullet point, i (or my readers) can re-read the repo for that, or glean it from surrounding context (presuming enough surrounding context was written). But unless I made an effort later to normalize the list, the grammar, length, and subpoints would vary from the form-identifiable "LLM Concise Summary." It's more work for me to write to a standard, and even more work to consciously pick one.

EDIT: Upon re-reading the article, I noticed the "Prior Art" section is written in past-tense, as I would expect. But the list is in present tense. I feel like it jumps from "narrative" to "technical details list" back to "narrative". And the list is 70% of the section! I wouldn't mind reading a whole paragraph describing each project, what worked, what didn't, what they could use and what they couldn't, in the past tense, if it were interestingly-written. Something that tells me the author dove into the previous projects, experimented with them, or if they interacted with the developers. Or something interesting the author noticed while surveying the "prior art". but "interestingly-written" isn't really the LLMs goal, nor its ability. It's maximal information transfers with minimal word count. So the result is a list that smells like the author merely read the repo readme and wrote a summary for the masses in a technical report.

tl;dr The list is just "a list", and that makes it not interesting to read. If it was not interesting to read it was probably not interesting to write, which I take as an LLM writing it.