Humans have been thinking long before writing was invented. Why is code special?
And look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
> Why is code special?
You don't get better at thinking without doing. With code the "doing" part is writing.
In your view, it is reasonable to expect HS students to thoroughly read a book on trigonometry and then ace the exam? We know, from experience, that only by doing problems does the student actually learn. We also know that when you stop doing problems the facility atrophys.
Why is code different?
>And look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
Yeah, look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.
[peers into the dim ancient past]
Sorry, my time-machine spectacles are on leave or on strike today.
And congrats on being a multi-millen(ium)arian, and a mind reader, who could both 1) exist so far back in the past, and 2) be able to know the thoughts of people who didn't write them down, because they didn't know writing.
/s
How can you know how poorly they did it?
Their lack of progress. Humans existed in the same basic form for around 100k years before they finally invented agriculture, which led to some improvements, and then rapid progress once writing was invented.
IOW, hunter-gatherers follow the best habitat, so controlling for habitat is always going to have the conclusion this paper reached.
I'd be very interested in other studies that support this conclusion; after all, that's how science works - a single study proves nothing if many studies conclude the opposite.
While I mostly agree with this notion, given that all of our understanding of human progress historically comes from writing, there's a selection effect happening here.
Like, why do we talk about the Dark Ages? Because there was less writing, so obviously things were terrible.
There's a bit of a selection bias there, because writing itself is used as a measurement of progress.
But, ignoring writing as a measurement of progress, we can pretty much see that for about 100k years the only tech were primitive tools.
Even after the domestication of wolves (about 40k years ago) there were no visible improvement in tech. After agriculture (10k-12k years ago, maybe?), there's visible progress in tech (tools), but not by much, and visible improvement in societies (also, not by much).
Enter writing - those civilisations that had more advanced writing progressed rapidly, and those that did not barely progressed at all, tech-wise.
Because not all civilisations progressed at the same rate, we can see quite clearly that writing is highly correlated[1] with progress.
---------------------
[1] While correlation does not imply causation, as the data mounts it lends more and more weight to the causation bit.
That's a big "If". The observation we have is that civilisations that never invented writing simply died out with no tech-tree advancement; and this happened for 100k years at least.
We've got 100k years of "no writing, no tech". We've got around 5k years of "with writing came tech".
The actual tech to write was there for much of the 100k years (cave art), but without writing, the tech never improved.
> How can you know how poorly they did it?
You could probably get some sense by comparing illiterate people to literate people.
Each last for a different amount of time and you generally can’t write or even read anything. But in my personal experience, all three lead to solving the most difficult software problems.
When writing, thoughts become forced and linear in my view as opposed to floating in a specific way from point to point. Like I lose the natural creativity.
Writing is about remembering or communicating, so it is summarizing the thoughts, but it is not thinking itself, it is more so thinking about how to communicate efficiently or how to make a note so you don't forget. It is not creativity for me.
Kind of imagine building an idea in your head while running and then you write down the summary of it.
When I sit down to try and write them down, I blank out. Or the thoughts that I thought were good/useful, I second guess when writing them down. Perhaps it's just lack of practice on writing them down (I'm trying to use a typewriter to do so recently).
I am skeptical that you were able to get any good at Maths or Physics without drilling problems.
A lot of people observe that their thoughts get better when they do the work to write them out. It's not just a straightforward encoding process (as maybe a software engineer would conceive of it).
E.g. I iterate and see the architecture or the system work out, or I get other ideas because of something I don't like, etc.
This is a poor argument. The trial and error is the LLMs trial and error of your intention (ironically driven by you), not your trial and error.
It's like saying "It wouldn't matter if I instructed an LLM to solve my trigonometry problem or if I wrote the the solution myself; either way I'm learning trig".
> E.g. I iterate and see the architecture or the system work out, or I get other ideas because of something I don't like, etc.
What exactly are you needed for in this scenario, other than saying "make me $PRODUCT"? The LLm is going to be a lot better at architecture than you are. Your role is limited to A/B testing the result for human use.
I kinda [wrote about this before](https://dielsonsales.github.io/2023/05/11/starting-a-new-blo...) but the takeaway is that writing forces you to structure your thoughts, giving them a final shape and enables you to notice flaws or gaps in your own thinking process. It’s impossible to do this without writing.
As to your post, I think rather than writing it's the act of pressuring yourself to figure the thing out that is making you more knowledgeable about the thing.
You are putting it out publicly out there so you really want to be certain that you are correct, and therefore you do a lot of research.
If you wanted to be accurate and prove a point, the motivation mechanism could vary, but also the eventual communication mechanism could vary. It doesn't necessarily have to be in writing, it could be a live debate or simply something else you built. The writing or the product are end product, but the process of wanting to produce something is what made you research and to understand.
You could be writing to yourself into a Google Docs, and not care and you would not go deep to research since there's no incentive to be accurate.
E.g. I could be doing a home project whether hardware, software or DIY, that in order to produce this output I have to learn and think. Similar to as good set of words to communicate some idea. But also I could build some slop without thinking and I could produce slop writing without thinking, and about nothing special.
There's more to it than that: writing is thinking. If you stop writing code, you aren't thinking anymore.
Many argue that they're now thinking at a higher level (maybe they weren't before?), but, guess what, that high-level design can be done better by the LLM than by you anyway. It's only temporary.