An image I have found inspiring as a researcher in the age of LLMs:
A samurai orients their entire life towards preparing for a few decisive moments of combat. Awakening at dawn for hours of grueling daily combat training, certainly.
But also an intensive study of calligraphy, classical literature—why?
In that decisive moment of combat, whose movement is the more fluid, who by sense of righteousness is the more unflinching, they are the victors. The fluid breathing of the calligraphy brush, the moral fibre wrought by the classics—in that moment a lifetime of study is vindicated or revealed worthless.
Why study calculus if Claude already knows a hundred or a thousand times more math than I will on my deathbed? Not because I anticipate finding Claude has made a mistake in integrating by parts, but so that my mind and intuition are sharp—so that I know exactly what to ask, what to look for, and exactly what a good answer should look like—to know what kinds of analysis can reasonably yield what kinds of conclusions—to know on a thirty second skim whether Fable 5′s argument is natural or sidestepping the whole problem.
Perhaps this is just ‘taste’, but a large comparative advantage we have now over LLMs is choice in what we think about. LLMs are, if not constrained, then ‘conditioned’, by their starting prompt. Asked to solve a problem in economics, it will likely reason about economics and not biology—or if it does unprompted, any such connection will often-as-not be superficial obsequy, Fable 5 trying very hard to convince you that it is exactly ten IQ points above you. If you want some ex-ante-crazy connection between economics and biology, you have to know what you’re looking for in advance.
Object-level knowledge can be backfilled easily enough—Sol is excellent at writing bespoke tutorials. I think it is highly valuable now to read not for knowledge, but to see and internalize powerful thinking in action—more power to be found reading ‘the wealth of nations’ or ‘on the origin of species’ than an economics or biology textbook with a further century’s developments and pedagogy.
So the greater part of our life now as researchers is be given over to generating more moments of true choice—choice to think, choice what to think about. It’s hard to imagine we will long have truck with professionally-checking-Fable outputs. But I expect the ability to think clearly, grandly, freely, will have at least a longer shelf life. And probably it’s also good for your soul.
In this spirit, I’ll be reading ‘the wealth of nations’ this week. I invite anyone interested to do likewise with a ‘classic’ of their choosing.
Inspired by conversation with @richard_ngo and @Ashe Vazquez Nuñez, to each of whom my thanks.
That is plausible. But this purpose shouldn’t seek vindication in practical utility, or hope too fervently for existing moral luck in targeting an actually virtuous pursuit (in whatever sense).
knows a hundred or a thousand times more math than I will on my deathbed
A deathbed likely implies a ban/pause, for people who are not likely to die within 10-20 years.
The fluid breathing of the calligraphy brush, the moral fibre wrought by the classics—in that moment a lifetime of study is vindicated or revealed worthless.
Prestigious-sounding things are not necessarily good or useful, and blame for concrete failures needn’t relate to them.
An image I have found inspiring as a researcher in the age of LLMs:
A samurai orients their entire life towards preparing for a few decisive moments of combat. Awakening at dawn for hours of grueling daily combat training, certainly.
But also an intensive study of calligraphy, classical literature—why?
In that decisive moment of combat, whose movement is the more fluid, who by sense of righteousness is the more unflinching, they are the victors. The fluid breathing of the calligraphy brush, the moral fibre wrought by the classics—in that moment a lifetime of study is vindicated or revealed worthless.
Why study calculus if Claude already knows a hundred or a thousand times more math than I will on my deathbed? Not because I anticipate finding Claude has made a mistake in integrating by parts, but so that my mind and intuition are sharp—so that I know exactly what to ask, what to look for, and exactly what a good answer should look like—to know what kinds of analysis can reasonably yield what kinds of conclusions—to know on a thirty second skim whether Fable 5′s argument is natural or sidestepping the whole problem.
Perhaps this is just ‘taste’, but a large comparative advantage we have now over LLMs is choice in what we think about. LLMs are, if not constrained, then ‘conditioned’, by their starting prompt. Asked to solve a problem in economics, it will likely reason about economics and not biology—or if it does unprompted, any such connection will often-as-not be superficial obsequy, Fable 5 trying very hard to convince you that it is exactly ten IQ points above you. If you want some ex-ante-crazy connection between economics and biology, you have to know what you’re looking for in advance.
Object-level knowledge can be backfilled easily enough—Sol is excellent at writing bespoke tutorials. I think it is highly valuable now to read not for knowledge, but to see and internalize powerful thinking in action—more power to be found reading ‘the wealth of nations’ or ‘on the origin of species’ than an economics or biology textbook with a further century’s developments and pedagogy.
So the greater part of our life now as researchers is be given over to generating more moments of true choice—choice to think, choice what to think about. It’s hard to imagine we will long have truck with professionally-checking-Fable outputs. But I expect the ability to think clearly, grandly, freely, will have at least a longer shelf life. And probably it’s also good for your soul.
In this spirit, I’ll be reading ‘the wealth of nations’ this week. I invite anyone interested to do likewise with a ‘classic’ of their choosing.
Inspired by conversation with @richard_ngo and @Ashe Vazquez Nuñez, to each of whom my thanks.
That is plausible. But this purpose shouldn’t seek vindication in practical utility, or hope too fervently for existing moral luck in targeting an actually virtuous pursuit (in whatever sense).
A deathbed likely implies a ban/pause, for people who are not likely to die within 10-20 years.
Prestigious-sounding things are not necessarily good or useful, and blame for concrete failures needn’t relate to them.