I’m reading student responses to the first chapter of How to Read, Research, Make Notes, and Write. I uploaded a free copy of the book into the learning management system and I’m having them read and watch the
Dan, I'm hoping the student responds and proves you wrong ... maybe a budding Einstein?
So, by writing this, did I then think? No, I thought, then wrote this. Oh course, writing forces structure, in order to convey a message to a reader.
But, could it be that our brains are able to distill some mixture or stew of knowledge, even without remembering or writing individual details?
I have used TheBrain for about 28 years to note various thoughts and information through a simple search, following links, or a random review. In the latest version (15), AI is being applied to expand those capabilities. Since the beginning of Evernote, I've captured over 65,000 notes (and now AI is being applied there).
Multiple times a day, I now capture YT video content, PDFs, etc., using GetRecall.ai for things that "look interesting," but without having to spend all the time listening or reading all the details. Later, I can use AI to discover what I need at the moment for my writing.
> I hope the student proves you wrong—maybe a budding Einstein. Thinking precedes writing, but writing refines thought. Our minds can distill knowledge even without recalling every detail, much like how I use tools like TheBrain, Evernote, and GetRecall.ai to capture and explore ideas over decades—now enhanced by AI to connect insights when I need them.
I too hope the student surprises me, Pat. Haven't heard from him yet.
I think the "stew of knowledge, even without remembering or writing individual details" idea is interesting, but doesn't necessarily preclude the "writing is thinking" idea. I didn't say ONLY writing is thinking. As for automation, as we've discussed before, I tend to shy away from much of it because I think it increases the quantity of information that hits my note system but not necessarily the quality. I'm measuring quality in subjective terms, largely as the extent of my engagement with the ideas, which I think is enhanced by the degree of "processing" I have to do.
For example, I had an idea last week, reading student responses to my content in World History 1, that I ought to say something to them about the way ancient (stone age) people seem to have much more individual expertise and skills, in direct proportion to the lack of "cultural" infrastructure surrounding them. They had no technology at their fingertips, so they had to know how to do everything (or have a friend nearby who did).
If I had highlighted this in a book I read or on a website and then Readwise had "swept" it into my Obsidian or Heptabase vault, would the quality of this idea I'm developing be the same?
I like the phrase that Perplexity used in restating my comments: "Thinking precedes writing, but writing refines thought." Suggest you adopt it instead of, or in addition to, "writing is thinking."
It isn't that there is no value in writing something out in notes, it is an issue of efficiency, to use AI to capture and organize in summary the content, which is then readily available for further inquiry, highlighting, note-making and output as new content as needed.
I agree, but I also think that you after decades are in a different place with your note-making than students being exposed to it for the first time. I think they would benefit by learning how to do it manually before automating it. For myself, I like how limiting automations "slows down" my process and helps me focus.
I'm glad some of the students got some value out of the first chapter of your book and understood your message in it. Clearly that one student didn't understand your message, most likely because that student probably didn't even read the chapter. I've read both the previous edition of your book and the new one and got value out of both editions.
What that AI student doesn't seem to understand is that while AI can do the assignment, that simply means the student isn't needed in the process. That probably won't bother that AI student while they remain in school but the job world would is unlikely to keep that student employed since AI can, and is, doing their work.
Using AI and getting good results is a skill. Possibly even an employment worthy skill today. Tomorrow, maybe not. Down the line a little further, almost certainly not. Using AI is like typing when typewriters first came out. Not everyone knew how to use a typewriter back then. Being good at typing was an employment worthy skill. Today being able to type is expected and unremarkable. The devaluation of being skilled at using AI is going to be far more rapid than the devaluation of being able to type. I'd guess that being a skilled typist was an employment worthy skill for over a century. (Chris Aldrich would probably know for sure.) Being skilled at using AI is already starting to become expected and not worth putting on a resume.
You've shown that student a great kindness by letting them try again at the assignment. Odds are the student doesn't see it that way which is even more disappointing. They probably still see the assignment as grunt work to get through and not the life skill you are trying to help them learn.
It would be interesting to hear how this AI student does over the duration of the course. I suspect the other student that works at the elementary school is going to get far more out of your course than the AI student. You can teach the same thing to both students but only one of them seem like they are actually going to learn what you are teaching.
Thanks, John! I remind myself that I don't know this student's situation and maybe this little nudge will put them on a better path. Ironically, it probably doesn't take that much longer to write a reaction than to get ChatGPT to do it for you!
Dan, I'm hoping the student responds and proves you wrong ... maybe a budding Einstein?
So, by writing this, did I then think? No, I thought, then wrote this. Oh course, writing forces structure, in order to convey a message to a reader.
But, could it be that our brains are able to distill some mixture or stew of knowledge, even without remembering or writing individual details?
I have used TheBrain for about 28 years to note various thoughts and information through a simple search, following links, or a random review. In the latest version (15), AI is being applied to expand those capabilities. Since the beginning of Evernote, I've captured over 65,000 notes (and now AI is being applied there).
Multiple times a day, I now capture YT video content, PDFs, etc., using GetRecall.ai for things that "look interesting," but without having to spend all the time listening or reading all the details. Later, I can use AI to discover what I need at the moment for my writing.
BTW, Perplexity.ai says I could have written:
> I hope the student proves you wrong—maybe a budding Einstein. Thinking precedes writing, but writing refines thought. Our minds can distill knowledge even without recalling every detail, much like how I use tools like TheBrain, Evernote, and GetRecall.ai to capture and explore ideas over decades—now enhanced by AI to connect insights when I need them.
I too hope the student surprises me, Pat. Haven't heard from him yet.
I think the "stew of knowledge, even without remembering or writing individual details" idea is interesting, but doesn't necessarily preclude the "writing is thinking" idea. I didn't say ONLY writing is thinking. As for automation, as we've discussed before, I tend to shy away from much of it because I think it increases the quantity of information that hits my note system but not necessarily the quality. I'm measuring quality in subjective terms, largely as the extent of my engagement with the ideas, which I think is enhanced by the degree of "processing" I have to do.
For example, I had an idea last week, reading student responses to my content in World History 1, that I ought to say something to them about the way ancient (stone age) people seem to have much more individual expertise and skills, in direct proportion to the lack of "cultural" infrastructure surrounding them. They had no technology at their fingertips, so they had to know how to do everything (or have a friend nearby who did).
If I had highlighted this in a book I read or on a website and then Readwise had "swept" it into my Obsidian or Heptabase vault, would the quality of this idea I'm developing be the same?
I like the phrase that Perplexity used in restating my comments: "Thinking precedes writing, but writing refines thought." Suggest you adopt it instead of, or in addition to, "writing is thinking."
It isn't that there is no value in writing something out in notes, it is an issue of efficiency, to use AI to capture and organize in summary the content, which is then readily available for further inquiry, highlighting, note-making and output as new content as needed.
I agree, but I also think that you after decades are in a different place with your note-making than students being exposed to it for the first time. I think they would benefit by learning how to do it manually before automating it. For myself, I like how limiting automations "slows down" my process and helps me focus.
I'm glad some of the students got some value out of the first chapter of your book and understood your message in it. Clearly that one student didn't understand your message, most likely because that student probably didn't even read the chapter. I've read both the previous edition of your book and the new one and got value out of both editions.
What that AI student doesn't seem to understand is that while AI can do the assignment, that simply means the student isn't needed in the process. That probably won't bother that AI student while they remain in school but the job world would is unlikely to keep that student employed since AI can, and is, doing their work.
Using AI and getting good results is a skill. Possibly even an employment worthy skill today. Tomorrow, maybe not. Down the line a little further, almost certainly not. Using AI is like typing when typewriters first came out. Not everyone knew how to use a typewriter back then. Being good at typing was an employment worthy skill. Today being able to type is expected and unremarkable. The devaluation of being skilled at using AI is going to be far more rapid than the devaluation of being able to type. I'd guess that being a skilled typist was an employment worthy skill for over a century. (Chris Aldrich would probably know for sure.) Being skilled at using AI is already starting to become expected and not worth putting on a resume.
You've shown that student a great kindness by letting them try again at the assignment. Odds are the student doesn't see it that way which is even more disappointing. They probably still see the assignment as grunt work to get through and not the life skill you are trying to help them learn.
It would be interesting to hear how this AI student does over the duration of the course. I suspect the other student that works at the elementary school is going to get far more out of your course than the AI student. You can teach the same thing to both students but only one of them seem like they are actually going to learn what you are teaching.
Don't give up on the AI student just yet.
Thanks, John! I remind myself that I don't know this student's situation and maybe this little nudge will put them on a better path. Ironically, it probably doesn't take that much longer to write a reaction than to get ChatGPT to do it for you!