Please, no. Don't blog about things you don't understand yet. We have far too many people and LLMs doing that. After you really understand it, <i>then</i> consider blogging.
One of the best ways to clarify your thoughts about a subject is to write about it, and one of the best ways to prove to yourself that you understand it is to be able to write about it <i>clearly</i>. Indeed, my primary motivation to write is to order my thoughts and better understand the universe I live in.<p>It is surprisingly difficult work, but so is lifting weights. That is precisely why I insist on doing it myself. If I let an AI write for me, it would be the same as letting a robot lift weights for me. Yeah, it would be easier, but I would not get stronger, nor would I gain the confidence and self discipline that comes from doing hard things.
I think a better way to understand is talk and discuss it rather than just write about it. AI can be useful for this, like instead of it lifting for you, it is holding the punching bag instead in your metaphor.<p>Yes, writing clearly makes you understand your thoughts etc. But it is <i>one</i> of the methods and we shouldn't extraploate how much a person understands things based on whether they write or not.<p>Arguments and discussions are still superior form of learning to me than just purely writing and thinking.
You raise an interesting point. I agree that discussing a subject with a knowledgeable mentor, AI or otherwise, is a great way to learn. But I think back-and-forth discussions are limited as a means of testing your mastery of a subject. Especially with complex and nuanced subjects, being able to organize them in your mind is an essential part of mastery. You will not know if you have mastered them unless you can generate a clear and coherent description of them entirely on your own. With a mentor prompting you, step by step, you are relying in part on the mentor’s understanding of the subject to guide your thinking.<p>It is like the difference between multiple-choice and essay exams. In the former, the questions you are asked reveal much about the structure of the subject to be explored and of the relative importance of its facets and the many nuances within. In the latter, you are on your own: you must conceive of a coherent map, render its form onto a blank sheet, and populate it with what is important, with everything being sensibly connected.
I was more excited before I realized the title was imperative rather than descriptive.
Seeing the title, I expected this to be a blog post trying to convince me what to blog about, written by a person who does not yet understand if his perspective is correct.
I used to do exactly this, but 99% of my blog's traffic was bots, so I shut it down.<p>The web is on its last legs. Why bother publishing if nobody will read it? Nowadays I just write explorative/study notes in a notebook. I retain that better than typed writing anyways.
If I may, one reason to write about it is to understand it more clearly. Even if nobody reads something I wrote, at least I got better at it.
>Why bother publishing if nobody will read it?<p>The vast majority of blogs go unread, even back on the old web. I used to blog almost every day, for years, back in the early 2000s, and probably no one noticed.<p>But the fun was in the activity and the self-expression, both in blogging and discovering blogs. And if someone happened to come along and say hi it was a bonus. I'm trying to recapture some of that fun but it's difficult.
[flagged]