←back to thread

Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

(maalvika.substack.com)
757 points alihm | 1 comments | 04 Jul 25 21:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
meander_water ◴[05 Jul 25 00:31 UTC] No.44469163[source]▶
> the "taste-skill discrepancy." Your taste (your ability to recognize quality) develops faster than your skill (your ability to produce it). This creates what Ira Glass famously called "the gap," but I think of it as the thing that separates creators from consumers.

This resonated quite strongly with me. It puts into words something that I've been feeling when working with AI. If you're new to something and using AI for it, it automatically boosts the floor of your taste, but not your skill. And you end up never slowing down to make mistakes and learn, because you can just do it without friction.

replies(8): >>44469175 #>>44469439 #>>44469556 #>>44469609 #>>44470520 #>>44470531 #>>44470633 #>>44474386 #
Loughla ◴[05 Jul 25 00:34 UTC] No.44469175[source]▶
This is the disconnect between proponents and detractors of AI.

Detractors say it's the process and learning that builds depth.

Proponents say it doesn't matter because the tool exists and will always exist.

It's interesting seeing people argue about AI, because they're plainly not speaking about the same issue and simply talking past each other.

replies(4): >>44469235 #>>44469655 #>>44469774 #>>44471477 #
1. jchw ◴[05 Jul 25 00:48 UTC] No.44469235[source]▶
> It's interesting seeing people argue about AI, because they're plainly not speaking about the same issue and simply talking past each other.

It's important to realize this is actually a general truth of humans arguing. Sometimes people do disagree about the facts on the ground and what is actually true versus what is bullshit, but a lot of the time what really happens is people completely agree on the facts and even most of the implications of the facts but completely disagree on how to frame them. Doesn't even have to be Internet arguments. A lot of hot-button political topics have always been like this, too.

It's easy to dismiss people's arguments as being irrelevant, but I think there's room to say that if you were to interrogate their worldview in detail you might find that they have coherent reasoning behind why it is relevant from their perspective, even if you disagree.

Though it hasn't really improved my ability to argue or even not argue (perhaps more important), I've definitely noticed this in myself when introspecting, and it definitely makes me think more about why I feel driven to argue, what good it is, and how to do it better.