Have you ever thought: “Will AI do it better?” That is, will AI be able to aid or completely replace what I am about to learn? I did yesterday.
This lends itself to analyzing the essence—the why—and the method being used—the how of the skill.
For this experiment, I will do two things:
Firstly, I will write about why I’ve opted to work on learning to write better despite AI.
Secondly, I will prompt ChatGPT to write a piece on the same topic with the same constraints (format).
My primary purpose in learning online writing is to understand and manufacture taste.
Possessing good taste is a skill, but reproducing it is different. The projects I am pursuing all require reproducing taste and have the same structure. Hook (attention) => Pacing (engagement) => Payoff (value).
The key to this lies in the process.
The writing process involves turning an idea into a bunch of words, clearly and concisely communicating the essence.
As a dev, I've used ChatGPT and GitHub copilot. The results range from helpful and convenient to “Dafuq?” Using AI may give instant results, but you miss out on the friction of the process. This develops your intuition of why certain things do and don't work.
You can only use AI effectively if you deeply understand "why".
AI is a valuable tool to leverage to be more effective and efficient in various areas of life.
It can provide us with many outputs/results, but ultimately, we must decide. Therefore, it is essential to understand which parts of the process can currently be automated and which can't.
AI may be helpful for speed-running learning.
If AI is accessible and widely used, then how do you distinguish yourself? You zig when they all zag.
Vincent Chee
