upvote
> Writing helps us think about the world, it’s a pivotal intellectual technology.

Much like money decoupled selling and buying to move away from bartering, writing decoupled saying and hearing so they didn't have to happen at the same time. The incredible step that happened was not that people had to think a whole lot, it was that thinking that was already happening had to happen once.

> All writing is thinking when done by a human, you’re literally distilling your thoughts into words. You can’t write without thought.

Of course you can. You can write down exactly what you hear, for dictation.

You can write down a stream of consciousness and put barely any thought into it at all.

I can't help but feel most here are massively over estimating human writing. Human writing is, almost universally, terrible. We have entire jobs that are hard to fill just to make things sort of ok. Good writing is a small subset of human output.

reply
This is an example of the problem. I did choose to write it in the way that although I knew it can be interpreted trivially, if the reader assumes I'm an imbecile. It was a "punchy" recap of the relatively long explanation for a HN comment and hopefully decently argued point.
reply
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?

reply
> 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.

reply
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.
reply
> 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?

reply
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.
reply
> 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.

reply
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.
reply