Re:Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke
by 27183 on Monday July 13, 2026 @08:15AM
(#48891539)
Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke
by Leonard_of_Q on Monday July 13, 2026 @09:12AM
(#48892163)
Is writing thinking? Good writing requires thinking but does that also go for sloppy writing? What is thinking? This is the subject of a discussion [1, 2] I'm in - which in true HN style has been greyed-out because of ${reasons} - regarding the question whether these models 'think'. Your comment on writing [being] thinking supports the idea that what these models do is a form of thinking: selecting the next most likely descriptor given the current problem space including all previously added descriptors.
Re:Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke
by efficax on Monday July 13, 2026 @09:42AM
(#48892545)
writing is a form of thinking, but there are others
Re:Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke
by jgraham on Monday July 13, 2026 @09:55AM
(#48892737)
It's not that writing _is_ thinking, but (effective) writing _requires_ thinking. It forces you to take a collection of lose and incoherent thoughts and reify them into an argument that can hold its own weight.