> The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
> Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Which is good.
But it makes me wonder about “wherever possible”. In which case wouldn’t it be possible and why would it remain if it’s not possible?
I view it as: each time you answer the same question you are forced to reincorporate everything you’ve learned since the last time you’ve answered it. Which makes you reassess your chain of thought and maybe come to a different conclusion. And thereby learning something new.
Ultimately it’s up to the author to make that explicit choice. I think that AI does and will enhance writing and depth and breadth of analysis one could perform. But, to be trustworthy, people will need to either lay out all cards on the table and/or work on other ways to gain trust over time. Maybe people need to provide some context to communicate what model was used and in which ways. What % of final output is AI vs author. I mean, if I see 100% composed by human author stated somewhere then there’s my cue to at the very least learn a little about the author. Certainly more complexity and discernment for readers. Depressing? In some ways maybe; but I’m kind of optimistic. Imagine what Tolkien could worldbuild armed with AI.. but then it wouldn’t be Tolkien.
Significant AI smell in this write up. As a result, my current reflex is to immediately stop reading. Not judgement on the actual analysis and human effort which went in. It’s just that the other context is missing.
I wonder what proportion of traffic is AI model weights being served. They are huge files, lots of mostly duplicated + fine tuned versions, lots of interest to download the latest and greatest, lots of ML aficionados grabbing them.
I like to drop anything interesting I find throughout my day into daily journal in Obsidian (using iOS “Share via..”) for later review.
It works fine, but:
1. I prefer how logseq displays each day as a timeline so I can review the last few days easily (in Obsidian you check each file for each day one by one)
2. I like that logseq operates more granular on block level (bullet points) as opposed to pages, so I could reference blocks instead of pages.
I think interlinking thoughts and noted on block/bullet level would be helpful in finding content or thoughts I came across in the past. In Obsidian, it’s only possible via searching, manual tagging, and manual content management, which seems like a waste of time. I want to eliminate the friction for inbound information.
Both of these apps actually suffer from the same issue — on iOS, if the app hasn’t been initialized recently, it won’t actually drop the content using “Share via..” widget, it will just open the note for today. Sometimes you have to do it twice.
In terms of configuration, the way it would work is, in Obsidian, you configure the daily journal to use the same directory and naming convention to match Logseq. They both read/write the same markdown files, so it works seamlessly.
I used Joplin for a few years and loved it. I quit evernote as soon as it lost all of my notes years ago.
Switched to Obsidian for faster startup time, which is at the top of my feature list for such apps. Joplin got worse over time with more notes. I considered Roam and Notion, but having to pay AND slow startup made no sense, although Notion features are quite nice.
Now thinking about adding Logseq to work with my Obsidian.
I also think DEVONthink is great closed source app for research especially where you can index and search all of your PDF collection and it will give you closest matching files and content with respect to your current file. Many other great features. But it’s Mac/iOS-only app, lacks of linux/windows support. Startup time is very slow. And UX for note taking is kind of unpleasant to work with. I really want to use it but I can’t for all of these reasons. It’s like an expensive car which you own but never want to drive.
Nice. I think you have potential to do great. You have a nice voice which is easy to listen to and you’re going at the right pace. Music volume is just right. Keep at it.
UX gripe: It would be nice if YouTube remembered where I stopped watching a 3 hour video, so that I would not have to seek myself next time I resume. Spotify does it and it’s so convenient!!!
> Generative AI statement
> The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
> Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Which is good.
But it makes me wonder about “wherever possible”. In which case wouldn’t it be possible and why would it remain if it’s not possible?
edits: formatting