Item — HN Reader

I'm from a generation that used all-physical systems (pen/paper/articles...). Now everything is digital. So, for example, for work that need intensive digital research and such, our actual tools are almost "unhealthy" (I did not say unproductive) to use for any length of time.

That is why we need to experiment with better tools for information manipulation and discovery (I did not say tool for thought).

I'm, like you, quite familiar with the explosion in digital music. Don't you think we need better designed "tools for music creation" to explore this infinite ocean of sound possibilities that has opened before us? I believe we do.

It is very similar for Knowledge. But given the more fundamental, "personal" and malleable nature of "thought", this will take a lot of guess work (and stupid ideas). In the long term though, I believe we need these better tools to adapt ourselves to this almost unhuman ocean of (mostly outer) information.

1 comments

You use the word explore. I like that and definitely agree we should pursue tools for exploration.

To me, knowledge and music do seem like infinite landscapes, and I'm excited by the idea of ways to extend the range and speed of exploring that infinity.

But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms.

Or rather, that's not what technology allows them. An additional layer has grown over the top; People who have opinions on what others should think, say, do and listen to, and those critics, censors, pundits, marketers, influencers and companies who fence-off the roads and place their signposts decide what may or may not be explored.

To call that exploration is a stretch. The tools they end up with, perhaps from choice, are not a pith hat, map and compass for exploration. Not a hitchhikers guide. Not even a taxi service. They are strapped into a roller-coaster and spun around a track by someone who has decided their "user experience".

Exploration is risky. Explorers freeze to death, or are eaten by lions. I don't see a lot of call for that, sadly. Given what we've built in entertainment I am a little pessimistic about extending that to knowledge engineering. The idea that computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing.

> Nobody can create a transparent "tool for thought" that doesn't impose hidden values on the operator

> That computers might bring that same culture of constraint and approval to the very act of thought, a kind of thinking-on-rails, is depressing.

Well, these are exactly the kind of problems the "tft community" need to engage in more.

For others, the naming (tool for thought) should not obscure the real implication of this domain : there will be 300 million college educated people by 2030, and a lot of them will be staring right at these kind of tools for hours every day.

> the "tft community" need to engage in

If there's a way I can help them please tell me more (PM me) via Digital Vegan.

One thing I stress a great deal in my lectures is the difference between AI and IA.

Intelligence Amplification, to me, is the original purpose of computing, and while AI can aid IA, most current thinking goes the opposite way, toward usurping or minimising human intelligence. I often point to the existence of a UIX culture in which book titles like "Don't make me think" have become a tagline for an entire industry.

the "tft community" is a nebulous (like thought itself) thing centred mostly around twitter as a space, and around (again, mostly) note-taking tools as a subject. I'm not part of it.

This HN article is a nice summary. If you want a deep hyperdive into their "ways of thinking and linking" (IA is actually not that far), you can follow some rabbit holes on are.ena like this one https://www.are.na/krish/tools-for-thought-lnujvshtshi

Thanks for the pointers and the exchange Cryptic respex

> But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms.

Tough luck. Scientists and those who want to go off-road still need tools for their thought. I'm happy to let the majority hold onto their 'curated exprience', but we need to have our needs met too.

You will, if you can pay for them. Unfortunately, the number of entertainment or corporate IT dollars available is way way more than the number of research grant dollars, so your tools will probably be worse since less can be spent creating and maintaining them.

Alternatively, researchers can try to use the same digital tools that entertainment consumers or corporate knowledge workers use. They might be less suited, but can potentially make up for it with extra polish.

Another interesting wrinkle in this whole conversation is that research tools that are useful for normal people tend to eagerly escape the lab. This happened with (off the top of my head only): SQL/RDBMS, the Internet, Email, garbage collected languages, object-orientation/actor model, research UNIX, and the WWW. The list is endless.

When this happens, the researchers (who were the initial user base) basically lose control of the technology. This process can benefit the researchers or not, but is basically indifferent to their needs.