Comment by xpe

Comment by xpe 6 months ago

> In recent times I had to learn Rust, Go, TypeScript, WASM, Java and C# for various projects, and I wouldn't delegate this learning effort to an AI, even if it saved me time.

Either/or fallacy. There exist a varied set of ways to engage with the technology. You can read reference material and ask for summarization. You can use language models to challenge your own understanding.

Are people really this clueless? (Yes, I know the answer, but this is a rhetorical device.)

Think, people. Human intelligence is competing against artificial intelligence, and we need to step it up. Probably a good time to stop talking like we’re in Brad Pitt’s latest movie, Logical Fallacy Club. If we want to prove our value in a competitive world, we need to think and write well.

I sometimes feel like bashing flawed writing is mean, but maybe the feedback will get through. Better to set a quality bar. We should aim to be our best.

Fraterkes 6 months ago

Let me help you remove the beam from your own eye first: this comment leaves me with the impression that your writing isn’t great.

Reply View 4 replies

xpe 6 months ago

I welcome specific and actionable criticism. Would you like to engage with my (a) substance; (b) tone; (c) something else?

Reply View | 3 replies
- saulpw 6 months ago
  
  It's not organized well. As the reader I had to do too much work to discern your point and what was relevant. I'm sure it's obvious to you the writer, but one of the foundational skills of a good writer is empathy for their reader, whoever they may be. Even here, you think you're being open-minded, but you offered a multiple choice question, where the choices are reductive and it comes off as defensive. An open-ended question like "What problem did you have with my writing?" might elicit a better response.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  xpe 6 months ago
  
  Thanks for the feedback.
  > As the reader I had to do too much work to discern your point and what was relevant.
  Re-reading, I hope the first ~15 words make my main point:
  > Either/or fallacy. There exist a varied set of ways to engage with the technology...
  Was this part unclear? Something else?
  > you think you're being open-minded...
  "Open minded" can mean very different things to different people. I recommend the article "The Proper Use of Humility" by Yudkowsky [1] because it rings true to me. I'm open to hearing other people's points of view, up to a point, given enough time. (Everyone has their limit, whether we admit it or not.) When it comes to assessing truth, I care about good arguments and good evidence, and I heavily discount anything else. If someone says I'm not "open minded" because of what I just wrote, then my reply would be "what do you want me to be more open to?"
  There is a gem from in a comment below the above article that deserves repeating:
  > People often take open disagreement as a sign of intellectual arrogance, while it is a display of respect and humility; showing respect with the honest acknowledgment of your disagreement, and showing humility in affording the other person a chance to defend themselves and prove you wrong. To say nothing is to treat that person's beliefs dismissively, as if they don't matter, and then assume that discussion was futile because they're incapable of understanding the truth, and of course, couldn't possible have anything to teach you.
  > ...but you offered a multiple choice question, where the choices are reductive...
  I offered two specific categories (tone or substance) and a third option for "anything else". I'm not following why this feels reductive to you; it leaves space for someone to reply however they like.
  > and it comes off as defensive.
  I've thought about this word quite a bit. From dictionary.com defensive means "excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings." I'm open to criticism and happy to learn. If I'm wrong, I strive to admit it and apologize where needed. At the same time, I am confident enough to push back, stand up for myself, and defend my ideas (which is a different sense of 'defensive').
  Here is the backstory to my second comment. The comment I replied to did not strike me as kind, much less well-intentioned. It probably was intended to be an insult, but I replied anyway. I gave the benefit of the doubt while challenging the commenter to give constructive criticism. I strived for clarity and confidence without being defensive or going on a counter-attack. This is a hard balance to strike.
  [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper...
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  saulpw 6 months ago
  
  Humility is a good thing to strive for. It's clear to me from your comments that you stop short of the amount of humility that would improve your writing. It's not my responsibility to argue with you about it though, and I've hit my limit. Keep reflecting on it! Just remember that reflection is quiet listening, unlike most of what you'd consider "thinking" is just loudly asserting.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies