Hey Wyatt. I appreciate the tear that you have been on recently with the substack, lots of very thought provoking stuff. The concept of the "Shadow Man" who mistakes the product for the process is a absolutely a danger. If we imagine that we are having a machine do our thinking, our minds and souls will atrophy.
However, I’d offer a distinction regarding the "friction" of writing. You argue that the struggle to pull words onto the page is inherently a spiritual friction, a wrestling with the self/Nous. I suggest that for some minds, I can't say how many, that friction is merely mechanical.
I am aware I probably have a fairly unique way of viewing the world with 4 standard deviations between my verbal IQ and my working memory.
This means my "Nous" moves significantly faster than my hands or mouth for that matter. For me, a blank page doesn't feel a mirror for the soul, but often like a brick wall I have to poke holes in. The struggle isn't determining what is true; it is holding the paragraph in memory long enough to serialize it before it evaporates. For me the friction isn't forming my soul; it is silencing it.
Steve Jobs famously described the computer as a "bicycle for the mind." A bicycle doesn't move unless you pedal it; it just converts your energy more efficiently so you can reach destinations that were previously out of range.
When I use AI, it functions as that bicycle. It handles the linear serialization of text so that I can function as an Architect. I don't accept its output passively. I treat it more like clay: evaluating it, rejecting it, and reworking it to match the vision I already had in my mind before.
Historically, we accepted this distinction with authors like Milton or Churchill, who dictated their works. They didn't physically "write," yet we don't accuse them of bypassing the soul. They moved the site of their labour from typist to editor and composer. And even for lower quality works, we generally accept an autobiography that has been ghost-written as being that person's autobiography. It was the origin of the souls movement, not the terminus that made it their work.
Or to put it in theological language, we distinguish between the Principal Cause and the Instrumental Cause. A carpenter is the Principal Cause; the saw is the Instrument. The saw cuts, but the cabinet exists in the mind of the carpenter, not the saw. Even if the instrument is complex (like an AI or a human secretary), it remains an instrument if the form and end are determined by the Principal.
I wonder if we can view the "soul-making" of writing not just in the drafting, but in the judgment? If I spend three hours wrestling with an AI draft to shape it into the form in my mind, have I avoided the friction, or have I simply moved the friction to a new location that better fits my mind?
As I said, I am aware that I am statistically extremely unusual, but I do think that the utility that I have found isn't purely unique to me.
Great thoughts. I tried to make a distinction early on that I am mostly talking about writers who use AI to farm engagement. As a replacement for traditional writing.
I also use AI, and I think you are right that you can use it in ways that benefit us as humans. In a sense, AI can help us write and think. I have no problem with using it as a tool towards an end.
But do note that I am saying "writing" but mean the kind of intellectual development that meant that Churchill could dictate. I am using the word to mean a lot more than it is often does mean today.
Hey Wyatt. I appreciate the tear that you have been on recently with the substack, lots of very thought provoking stuff. The concept of the "Shadow Man" who mistakes the product for the process is a absolutely a danger. If we imagine that we are having a machine do our thinking, our minds and souls will atrophy.
However, I’d offer a distinction regarding the "friction" of writing. You argue that the struggle to pull words onto the page is inherently a spiritual friction, a wrestling with the self/Nous. I suggest that for some minds, I can't say how many, that friction is merely mechanical.
I am aware I probably have a fairly unique way of viewing the world with 4 standard deviations between my verbal IQ and my working memory.
This means my "Nous" moves significantly faster than my hands or mouth for that matter. For me, a blank page doesn't feel a mirror for the soul, but often like a brick wall I have to poke holes in. The struggle isn't determining what is true; it is holding the paragraph in memory long enough to serialize it before it evaporates. For me the friction isn't forming my soul; it is silencing it.
Steve Jobs famously described the computer as a "bicycle for the mind." A bicycle doesn't move unless you pedal it; it just converts your energy more efficiently so you can reach destinations that were previously out of range.
When I use AI, it functions as that bicycle. It handles the linear serialization of text so that I can function as an Architect. I don't accept its output passively. I treat it more like clay: evaluating it, rejecting it, and reworking it to match the vision I already had in my mind before.
Historically, we accepted this distinction with authors like Milton or Churchill, who dictated their works. They didn't physically "write," yet we don't accuse them of bypassing the soul. They moved the site of their labour from typist to editor and composer. And even for lower quality works, we generally accept an autobiography that has been ghost-written as being that person's autobiography. It was the origin of the souls movement, not the terminus that made it their work.
Or to put it in theological language, we distinguish between the Principal Cause and the Instrumental Cause. A carpenter is the Principal Cause; the saw is the Instrument. The saw cuts, but the cabinet exists in the mind of the carpenter, not the saw. Even if the instrument is complex (like an AI or a human secretary), it remains an instrument if the form and end are determined by the Principal.
I wonder if we can view the "soul-making" of writing not just in the drafting, but in the judgment? If I spend three hours wrestling with an AI draft to shape it into the form in my mind, have I avoided the friction, or have I simply moved the friction to a new location that better fits my mind?
As I said, I am aware that I am statistically extremely unusual, but I do think that the utility that I have found isn't purely unique to me.
Hi Alastair,
Great thoughts. I tried to make a distinction early on that I am mostly talking about writers who use AI to farm engagement. As a replacement for traditional writing.
I also use AI, and I think you are right that you can use it in ways that benefit us as humans. In a sense, AI can help us write and think. I have no problem with using it as a tool towards an end.
But do note that I am saying "writing" but mean the kind of intellectual development that meant that Churchill could dictate. I am using the word to mean a lot more than it is often does mean today.
Ah that makes sense. I think we're basically agreeing then!
Appreciate the clarification. Good stuff as always - particularly liked the Van Mastricht article.