This is (almost) verbatim text from a chemistry unit project I did in Grade 12, and I still think it holds up, so I’m putting it up here. Damn, I was so funny back then. I miss the version of me that was willing to be so cheeky on assignments.

When I first started doing this writeup, I did not expect to still be working on it 6 months later. Finishing this was a long, long overdue task for a while. This is the second write-up I’ve done of a talk I’ve given. The first one I did was for “How to be a Talentless Hack in Public”, which I published in zine form first, before then publishing the text on this blog several months later.

Here’s a thought: The set of “public knowledge” and the set of “human knowledge” are very different things: the first is a strict subset of the latter.

Researchers get paid to advance human knowledge. They do NOT paid to advance public knowledge.

So who advances “public knowledge”? Is it journalists? Educators? Should it be the burden of researchers?

Here’s another question: should all human knowledge be packaged in such a way that the public understands it? Is that a good use of time and resources? Does the average person actually need to be able to understand the newest developments in esoteric fields?

In this day and age, we need more cross-disciplinary interaction than ever, because technology has rapidly become everyone’s problem in a way it wasn’t before, and we all need to have common language to discuss what is happening.

I was listening to an English grad student talk about the environmental impact of “algorithms” during an academic panel today, and while I know that what he was talking about was really generative AI, technical people aren’t going to take you seriously if while critiquing them, you start conflating generative AI with algorithms in general.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the value of writing recently, especially in regard to how it’s been influenced by the advent of generative AI. In the past few months, I’ve had a lot of conversations in which people claimed that generative AI is just as good at writing as humans now, or better, in many cases. While I agree that AI generation tools are, at this point, better at the mechanics of writing than the average person, I have always found their outputs to be shallow and devoid of interesting surprises.