[HN Gopher] Building a Knowledge System That Enhances Rather Tha...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Building a Knowledge System That Enhances Rather Than Replaces
       Thought
        
       Author : nsavage
       Score  : 146 points
       Date   : 2025-01-02 18:47 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (nsavage.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (nsavage.substack.com)
        
       | uludag wrote:
       | This article touches on a tension I've been feeling too with the
       | rise of LLMs. I feel that analogies can be drawn to time
       | management and systems of productivity, like GTD. Like in a GTD
       | system, you almost need the various projects, tasks, next steps,
       | deadlines, commitments, etc. to live in your head so you can make
       | intuitive decisions about what you should be working on at the
       | moment; something that AI almost by definition can't do, since
       | your subjectivity is essential in this process, but in certain
       | ways may be able to assist.
        
         | treetalker wrote:
         | I've been sensing this too: people seem to forget about the
         | principal and beneficial internal effect on the mind that
         | results from mental exertion. I raised a similar point in
         | another HN post today and someone downvoted me because they
         | interpreted my statement as being too anti-LLM!
         | 
         | We're reliving Socrates's lament about writing.
        
           | nuancebydefault wrote:
           | Gave you an upvote to compensate
        
       | Terr_ wrote:
       | > From Socrates worrying that writing would destroy memory [...]
       | Think of it as a partnership: the computer handles the
       | organizational heavy lifting, while you focus on the thinking.
       | 
       | I'm less worried about memory _per se_ and more about failing to
       | think, or getting brainwashed /ring-led by a system with its own
       | biases and quirks. Any sufficiently complex organizing _is_
       | thinking!
       | 
       | Perhaps the simplest example is when quantities (numbers, easy to
       | record) get a mental weight that overshadows and hides their
       | dimensions (the definitions, what they really mean.) For example,
       | a tendency to automatically assume a rising GDP number is an
       | unqualified good sign.
       | 
       | Stuff like LLMs bring that into newer and more-dangerous
       | territory, because the model also contains uncountable subtle
       | biases from its training data, and even if you _know_ it isn 't
       | aligned (heh) with your own mental models you can't reliably
       | change it. Much like false-memories implanted by interrogators,
       | patterns in those systems can and will leak into the users.
       | Whenever we can't "think about how our thinking is being
       | changed", I'd say that's _axiomatically bad_.
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | P.S.: Lest anyone think I'm a Luddite--not that I think that
         | appellation is actually that bad--an example where I _would_
         | use an LLM would be to help me generate synonyms or alternate
         | inputs to a more-traditional search for a discrete external
         | piece of information.
         | 
         | For example, I might remember a book with a jester playing a
         | lute and singing about ogres, and I just can't find any clear
         | search results, because it was actually a bard strumming a harp
         | with a poem about giants.
         | 
         | This is much less dangerous than just throwing every dang thing
         | into LLM inputs (since prompt injection isn't a fluke, it's a
         | way of life) or filtering the results back through the same
         | model in an opaque fashion.
        
       | vouaobrasil wrote:
       | > What parts of note-taking should we digitize? What aspects
       | should remain firmly in human hands? And most importantly, how do
       | I create a tool that enhances rather than replaces human thought?
       | 
       | My personal philosophy is to use the most primitive methods
       | possible and only use technology when there really is a strong
       | need to go to the next level. It exposes what I really need, what
       | are the weaknesses, etc. For example, I take all my notes with
       | pen and paper. But if I find that I'm really referring back to
       | something, I might write it up in a document. I don't see the
       | point in digitizing everything right away if I'm never going to
       | use what I write.
       | 
       | Moreover, writing things first by hand helps me remember them
       | better and "feel" the knowledge through my hands.
       | 
       | Same thing with photography. I don't tend to use the burst mode
       | on my camera unless I REALLY need it. When it comes to
       | accomplishing things, I found (personally) that asceticism with
       | tools is best.
        
         | RaftPeople wrote:
         | > _Moreover, writing things first by hand helps me remember
         | them better and "feel" the knowledge through my hands._
         | 
         | There was a science article recently that studied taking notes
         | and it's results were that handwritten notes improved recall
         | compared to typed notes.
        
           | mh- wrote:
           | It cramps my hand pretty badly to handwrite the amount of
           | notes I prefer to take in live meetings, so I really dislike
           | that this is true. (And anecdotally, it is true for me.)
        
             | vouaobrasil wrote:
             | I used to write a lot and one thing that helped was switch
             | to a mechanical pencil and use 2B lead. It's very soft and
             | requires very little pressure, even compared to pens.
        
               | wizzard0 wrote:
               | I had tried a ton of options, and settled on ceramic ball
               | pens.
               | 
               | They're both the softest and most robust on different
               | kinds of paper in case you don't have your preferred
               | notebook/whatever handy
        
         | hunter-gatherer wrote:
         | > My personal philosophy is to use the most primitive methods
         | possible and only use technology when there really is a strong
         | need to go to the next level.
         | 
         | This is a good take on life in general. My parents were atmy
         | house recently and my mother commented on how we never have
         | dirty dishes. I told them the solution to me was always
         | obviouse; don't own a dish washer. My wife and I have never
         | owned a dishwasher since we were married, which has forced us
         | to be more discriminatory about our dishware & forces us to
         | wash dishes immediately after use so they're available again.
         | People with dishwashers tend to have double what they need
         | because they wait to start a load until the washer is full.
         | Lots of the available technology we have has progressed past
         | the level of optimization IMO.
        
       | Kalq wrote:
       | With regards to zettelkasten, I've always worndered where
       | serendipitous discovery of notes goes from being actually
       | worthwhile to frequently getting distracted but justifying it as
       | productive.
        
       | randomcatuser wrote:
       | > create something that thoughtfully augments human intelligence
       | rather than replacing it
       | 
       | I htink this is a really cool design space, particularly with the
       | framing of the _purpose_ of Zettelkasten as reflecting your
       | personal understanding of the world, your views, rather than a
       | cold, dead categorization of facts and objects.
       | 
       | How can we design software systems that enhance our sensemaking?
       | 
       | - Encouraging us to ask more questions, or write down our
       | thoughts? You can imagine the AI bringing snippets to your
       | attention, asking: "What do you make of this?" or "How might we
       | connect these?"
       | 
       | - Augmenting our notes? Finding nubs of thought, and presenting
       | research/articles to help us develop those lines some more
       | 
       | - Collaboration suggestions? People who wrote about the same
       | things?
        
       | gmuslera wrote:
       | Try to build bridges, not roads. Sometimes your flow is
       | interrupted or is inefficient because you are searching for the
       | right word, or have a small understanding of a concept. or a
       | better way to express a concept. Try to have a tool that does
       | that small push. but without overwhelming you with data and
       | disrupt your own process.
       | 
       | You usually are not writing for someone else, but for you, and
       | the reward is the process you went through more than the final
       | text. Maybe the user want to go with an AI all the way in, or
       | not, but it must be user decision,and by default it should be
       | something small and not intrusive.
        
       | le-mark wrote:
       | Recently I've been imaging a world where social media algorithms
       | were tuned to help people instead of "driving engagement" with
       | ever more outrage bait. Oh you're watching clips about machining
       | and by your data profile you're an uneducated adult? Here are
       | some trade school, financial assistance, and self help links to
       | nudge you toward a better life! What a world that would be.
        
         | BadHumans wrote:
         | Isn't this what Tiktok is in China? It mostly promotes
         | educational and science content.
        
           | drekipus wrote:
           | yes, for natives.
           | 
           | but it also ties in with censorship/propaganda, ie: "no such
           | thing as homeless people in china"
           | 
           | If you're a westerner, it will show how bad US is, lusty
           | images, drug use, gambling. etc.
           | 
           | It's a super double-edged sword. We could have it in the west
           | but we'd need a government that is looking out for the
           | interests of people, not
           | israeli/multinationals/lobbies/industry etc.
        
       | henning wrote:
       | it's hard to understand what problem this person wants to solve.
       | 
       | is a version controlled directory of Markdown files + grep
       | enough? or a super trivial wiki Rails app that will turn WikiText
       | into links that you could probably prototype in an hour or less?
       | why or why not?
        
         | UmYeahNo wrote:
         | What you're describing sounds an awful lot like a barebones
         | obsidian vault.(https://obsdian.md)
         | 
         | I'm not familiar with the OP's notion of a "zettlegarden" but I
         | get the impression that they want something a bit more than
         | just markdown files. Perhaps the idea is to increase the notion
         | of connection between captured notes, whether intentional
         | created, or "serendipitous".
        
       | visarga wrote:
       | > When you're dealing with ten notes, it's trivial to dump them
       | into an LLM and generate connections. With a hundred notes, it's
       | still manageable. But what happens when you hit 10,000 notes? Or
       | a million? We quickly run into the limitations of context windows
       | and processing capacity. Vector search helps narrow things down,
       | but it's prone to missing important connections that a human mind
       | might naturally make.
       | 
       | I run into the same problem. I made a RAG system and imported 15
       | years of reddit and HN content (my own message logs) + 2 years of
       | LLM chats, totaling about 80MB of text. I can use it to retrieve
       | fragments but there is duplication, and almost all duplicate
       | fragments have slightly different approaches. How do I merge all
       | of them, and how do I get a deduplicated taxonomy? I got about
       | 290K unique keywords extracted from the text, it doesn't fit into
       | LLMs.
       | 
       | I am gravitating towards building graphs of ideas, and having a
       | way to generate unique (non duplicate) new ideas while ingesting
       | new text.
        
         | austinjp wrote:
         | Intriguing. I've been thinking of something similar. Do you
         | have any notion of what constitutes an 'idea' in this context?
        
           | visarga wrote:
           | I am using a LLM to extract ideas from text, as a numbered
           | list, each one self contained, about 50-100 words long. It
           | also generates relations between ideas (supporting,
           | contradicting, expands on, etc...)
           | 
           | The idea extraction step is simple when starting from
           | scratch, but when you got megabytes of text deduplication
           | becomes a problem. I like to circle back a lot.
        
         | nsavage wrote:
         | Author here. Glad I'm not the only one with this problem!
         | 
         | What I'm experimenting with is building a graph out of
         | "entities", which I'm calling people, places and things found
         | in each card. The point I guess is to allow the LLMs to make
         | connections between cards, but this won't be replacing user
         | made connections.
         | 
         | This lets me pick up all cards that reference something like, I
         | don't know, "factories" as a concept, which isn't something the
         | user will necessarily want to directly connect.
         | 
         | Downside is that deduplicated taxonomy: I have, from a scan
         | through my list, "factories", "Factory" and "Factories". My
         | attempt to head this off is by vector searching based on the
         | proposed entity keywords and having an LLM decide if they are
         | the same or not. I think I need to work on my prompt for this
         | though.
        
           | lukev wrote:
           | I have a thesis that RDF is good for this sort of work (I
           | gave a talk on it at Clojure Conj last year,
           | https://youtu.be/OxzUjpihIH4 if you're interested.)
           | 
           | It's good for bridging the gaps between LLMs, ontologies,
           | traditional structured data, and logic programming.
        
             | ketedrum wrote:
             | Interesting, thank you! Gonna watch this asap
        
             | uoaei wrote:
             | Do you know of any good RDF datasets or repositories to
             | look for? I am familiar with linked data / semantic web but
             | have not kept up on developments for a long while now.
        
               | zozbot234 wrote:
               | You can refer to the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud for a
               | network of openly available RDF datasets. Wikidata
               | currently serves as the unofficial "hub" for the cloud, a
               | role that was formerly played by DBpedia.
        
             | spothedog1 wrote:
             | yup I've been working on building a platform entirely built
             | on RDF Ontologies. Excited to try to combine it with LLMs
             | in the not-to-distant future.
        
       | voidhorse wrote:
       | After trying out a bunch of digital zettelkasten tools, I just
       | went back to paper.
       | 
       | This take may be a bit hot, but I actually think paper and pen is
       | _already_ the optimal maxima for _thinking_ --not for retrieval,
       | mind you, but for helping us _produce new thoughts_. Zettelkasten
       | (at least the way Luhmann used it) is meant for this purpose--it
       | is not a system for storing information and retrieving it but
       | rather for supporting the _creation_ of new connections.
       | 
       | The computer aided tools are suboptimal for this because they
       | lack the good constrains of paper (severely limiting the search
       | space) and the good features (seamless ability to incorporate a
       | variety of representational modes, text, image, equation, with
       | zero overhead, and the ability to organize things freely in
       | space). As much as the digital knowledge base sounds good in
       | theory, I don't think it will ever be as optimal for _generation
       | of thought_. If all you want to do is summon existing
       | information, digital tools are evidently superior. I personally
       | think a hybrid system where one  "thinks" on paper and "archives"
       | digitally (after the thinking is done) might be best, but
       | ultimately, we will be most productive with whatever system we
       | actually _enjoy_ using.
        
         | harlanji wrote:
         | Tried Inkscape? I was all paper for a long time but it's taken
         | over as I've gotten used to it an the hot keys. I carry a
         | little Wacom tablet that works good with it too, but seldom
         | even get it out of my bag.
         | 
         | It does have a (configurable) fixed page size, no ability to
         | multi-page which was kind of annoying but I started thinking of
         | it as a feature as well.
        
           | exe34 wrote:
           | have you come across scribus?
           | 
           | https://impagina.org/features
           | 
           | you don't have to use all the desktop publishing features,
           | but it does have multi page, flows the text from page to
           | page, some basic vector drawing etc.
        
           | dflock wrote:
           | Inkscape does have multi page, now, if you still want that.
        
         | JellyBeanThief wrote:
         | > the ability to organize things freely in space
         | 
         | This is the key. It's not enough for digital tools to just put
         | things in folders or tag them. It's the links themselves that
         | need elevation. People need to add metadata to links, they need
         | to apply rules specifying what links to crawl and how to
         | arrange them in space, they need to specify how content should
         | be displayed in islands of connected content. Then they need to
         | be able to arrange islands on a 2d, 2.5d, or 3d canvas.
         | 
         | We have information input and retrieval solved. For some reason
         | it's taking a real long time for people to get to _spread out_.
        
         | egormakarov wrote:
         | I sometimes dream of video stickers, where you could put some
         | short video on it, and then just put it on the paper notebook
         | page
        
           | buggy6257 wrote:
           | Hypothetically with a sticker printer like a Cricut or
           | something you could do little QR stickers...
        
         | Dennip wrote:
         | would something like an ipad + apple pencil not bridge this
         | concept? The usage of pen & paper with the addition of the
         | digital world; OCR, tagging etc.
        
           | sdwr wrote:
           | You would think so, but the micro-interruptions of switching
           | modes, selecting documents, selecting tools, etc make a huge
           | difference in terms of flow.
           | 
           | It sounds small, but "taking a second to select a new
           | brushstroke from a list of options" is exactly what OP is
           | talking about in terms of raw creation vs synthesis.
        
             | Dennip wrote:
             | I guess so, but those are also all optional right? IF you
             | would only write freehand with a ballpoint in real life
             | then you wont use any of those menu options on-device
             | either? IIRC the native notes app on iPad will dynamically
             | create bullet lists, rule lines etc from your freehand
             | typing without needing to select things.
        
               | sdwr wrote:
               | Every piece of the digital experience is (in this case)
               | simulating the real world imperfectly. Paper is, screens
               | are pixels and direct light and refresh rates. A pen is,
               | a menu option is not.
               | 
               | There are definitely advantages to digital, but there's
               | no denying that, by adding a middleman between yourself
               | and the world, you lose raw experience.
        
             | 1123581321 wrote:
             | There are a couple apps that try to address that problem.
             | My favorite is Muse. You just open it up, pan to a blank
             | area and start writing. Tools are deliberately limited so
             | there's no point futzing with colors and thicknesses.
             | There's no document selection, just optional nested boards,
             | so your spatial orientation is always engaged, like with
             | paper.
        
         | LeroyRaz wrote:
         | Why do you prefer paper to a word processor or latex?
        
         | jrm4 wrote:
         | Wow, so glad to see the author's idea and this as well.
         | 
         | After playing with this stuff it hit me why these systems are
         | simultaneously so attractive and also not amazing.
         | 
         | Human brains are still way better at the very cool linking
         | thing. We make those connections better than the bots.
         | 
         | Which is why I dream of, and tried to start work on one that
         | was basically "cards."
         | 
         | I'd love to see one with "the card" as the main atom/unit --
         | but that had a zillion different visual "arrangement" methods.
         | Give me alphabetical, give me semantic, give me random etc etc.
        
         | two_handfuls wrote:
         | The Livescribe pen goes well with this philosophy.
        
       | Rochus wrote:
       | > _It 's reminiscent of Luhmann's original zettelkasten system,
       | where physical proximity created a kind of "neighbor effect" that
       | digital systems struggle to replicate._
       | 
       | That's what outliners are good for. You automatically generate
       | context and proximity when adding/indenting outline items. And we
       | have the thing called hypertext for cross-referencing and
       | navigation. I think Luhmann's zettelkasten is a quite poor
       | concept in comparison, because the cards are small and don't
       | adjust to the size of a topic, so we have to split topics, and we
       | have to take care of identification and referencing the cards
       | ourselves. When translating zettelkasten to digital, then at
       | least we can get rid of some of these limitations, but we still
       | don't have all the advantages of outliners.
       | 
       | In my experience, it is purely a matter of habit whether you
       | write down ideas or thoughts by hand on paper or enter them
       | directly into an outline on the computer. Before I had tools like
       | Ecco or my own CrossLine (https://github.com/rochus-
       | keller/crossline/), I also produced a lot of notes on paper.
       | After a few years of working with these tools, I got rid of paper
       | completely. With CrossLine, I also solved the problem of linking
       | to other documents or emails, so that I can link any information
       | or put it in the necessary context. And it scales well. I have
       | outline files with thousands of notes, minutes, concepts,
       | specifications and the like, everything cross-referenced and
       | full-text searchable. I can still reproduce e.g. meetings or
       | paths to decicions taken ten or more years ago with little
       | effort.
        
       | pxeger1 wrote:
       | I write with a similar approach to zettelkasten. My technique is
       | purely digital. Paper is too easy to lose, damage, or not have on
       | you when you need it, compared to a digital file that can be
       | copied, synced, and backed up.
       | 
       | I keep everything in just one long file, which I think gives a
       | similar feeling to what the article describes about notecards -
       | by using folds and reordering where necessary it's quite easy to
       | always have whatever you want visible; there's nothing forcibly
       | hidden from you by a file structure.
       | 
       | I use plain text (with a tiny bit of custom syntax highlighting)
       | in vim, because I like the simplicity and it fits my needs. But I
       | think a one-file approach could work fine in a Markdown or
       | WYSIWYG format.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-03 23:01 UTC)