- Aug 2023
-
remikalir.com remikalir.com
-
Nonetheless, Claude is first AI tool that has really made me pause and think. Because, I’ve got to admit, Claude is a useful tool to think with—especially if I’m thinking about, and then writing about, another text.
-
- Jan 2023
-
escapingflatland.substack.com escapingflatland.substack.com
-
Are we really on the main branch here? And all of these things that Torbjörn is screaming—are they more or less generative than usual? If less, in what way can I change the way I probe the conversation to make us more generative?
How often does one meet a conversational partner that is interested in generative thought? This practice takes some work, but how could one particularly encourage it in classroom setting?
-
- Nov 2022
-
dougbelshaw.com dougbelshaw.com
-
https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2015/01/22/volcanoes-and-ambiguity/
<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Aaron Davis </span> in 📑 The Two Definitions of Zettelkasten | Read Write Collect (<time class='dt-published'>11/18/2022 19:54:00</time>)</cite></small>
-
- Feb 2022
-
Local file Local file
-
There is one reliable sign if you managedto structure your workflow according to the fact that writing is not alinear process, but a circular one: the problem of finding a topic isreplaced by the problem of having too many topics to write about.
Writing is a circular generative process and not a finite, linear one.
-
As the only way to find outif something is worth reading is by reading it (even just bits of it), itmakes sense to use the time spent in the best possible way. Weconstantly encounter interesting ideas along the way and only afraction of them are useful for the particular paper we started readingit for. Why let them go to waste? Make a note and add it to your slip-box. It improves it. Every idea adds to what can become a criticalmass that turns a mere collection of ideas into an idea-generator.
Even if the paper or book you're reading doesn't answer the particular question you're researching, you're bound to come across other novel ideas and potential questions. Don't let these go to waste, but instead note them down and save them into your note taking system. They may be useful in the future, particularly if you found them interesting or intriguing.
It turns out "waste not, want not" is applicable to ideas as well.
I can't help but also thinking "waste note, want note" as an interesting turn of expression.
-
-
www.obsidianroundup.org www.obsidianroundup.org
-
As much as I automate things, though,none of my thinking is done by a tool.Even with plugins like Graph Analysis, I never feel like I'm being presented with emergent connections — tho this is what the plugin is intended for, and I believe it works for other people.
At what point could digital tools be said to be thinking? Do they need to be generative? It certainly needs to be on the other side of serendipitously juxtaposing two interesting ideas. One can juxtapose millions of ideas, it's the selection of a tiny subset of these as "better" or more interesting than the others and then building off of that that constitutes this sort of generative thought.
-