[xtracto]

Someone way more eloquent than me should write a column titled "Why do we read?"

Way back in the past (around 30 years ago) I remember reading an article on "how to read a book" or a similar subject. They argued that, you should not skip the acknowledgments, preface and other "personal" related sections of a book, because it was there where you got a glimpse of the person that was writing the book. The idea being that, you should had in mind that the person writing was explaining something through you.

Carl Sagan even has a video where he argues Books/Writing is some sort of communication through time.

Now, this has been the case historically: A person writes some text (even in botched language like my writing, as English is not my first language) with thinking that someone else in the future will read the ideas and reason about them.

But what about text written by an LLM? Does it have inherent intention? When reading LLM text, it feels like looking at those "this is not a person" photos. Yeah, they are words, yeah they form sentences and paragraphs but... they lack "soul".

[devin]

It's not "Why do we read?" but something related that is coming up a lot in my thinking lately is Walter J. Ong's "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought".

[avador]

Isn’t “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought” another way of saying that “feedback has an effect”?

If so, this seems to be a trivial (still worthy) assertion.

For example, I intend to, say, construct a shed. I make mistakes that I only see because I actually constructed. I revise future endeavours involving sheds.

I admit to not having read this piece, and am merely reacting to the title.

—-

Okay, I got through the first paragraph of Walter’s writings. While I nod to the bitterness (I assent to the existence of it), I do not bow.

[fcarraldo]

Do you think the first paragraph is enough of a basis to form an opinion from?

[avador]

Not normally, no. Can you point to a divergence of the bitterness in the subsequent text?

What I find to be the normal pattern (by intuition) is that the condensed leading text belies the expansive following text. This is likely lazy (a shortcut) and I am open to correction at your effort. If a call to your effort (I apologize) is unpalatable then I concede.

[cortesoft]

> Way back in the past (around 30 years ago) I remember reading an article on "how to read a book" or a similar subject. They argued that, you should not skip the acknowledgments, preface and other "personal" related sections of a book, because it was there where you got a glimpse of the person that was writing the book. The idea being that, you should had in mind that the person writing was explaining something through you

Maybe? That is one reason to read, but there are a lot of other reasons, too. It doesn't mean you are doing it wrong if you want to read something and don't care at all about the person who wrote it.

[customguy]

Yeah, but when we talk about food, there are different tastes, and there is stuff like "you can also use it as a doorstop". Fine, but that doesn't make a doorstop food.