Have you ever wondered if there’s a way to make challenging texts more accessible without losing the intellectual workout that real understanding requires? Non-linear prose, adapted to each reader’s background and needs seems like a worthwhile use case of some new technologies.
While it was exhausting at times, I've learned the most from having to grapple with challenging texts, particularly in prose whose diction or syntax was difficult for me to make sense of. Some of the chatter around LLMs points to using them as tools to do the parsing for you when you encounter difficult texts. Part of the value of a difficult text however is the journey you have to take yourself to understand it. At the same time I think there is place for having tools like LLMs enrich the kinds of complex media we create. Having a short cut to understanding sold to us is not a new phenomenon (Hi cliffsnotes!)
Digital presentations allow us to explore texts in a non-linear fashion, even if they were originally meant to be read front to back. This approach can be especially helpful in educational settings, where authors typically have to guess how much the reader already knows and carefully calibrate the flow of new information.
Non-linear reading paths can solve this dilemma by adapting to the individual reader’s level of comfort and knowledge. It’s a delicate balance, though. In school cliffsnotes offered a quick fix, but it never replaced the depth of truly wrestling with the text. Similarly, having an LLM summarize a complex work might save time, yet it risks stripping away the experiential richness that comes from navigating complexity.
So how do we harness LLMs without losing the magic of discovery? I don't know! An idea I'm considering is to transform the way we interact with a common non-linear prose many of us interact with daily, trees of comments under a post. LLMs could be used to transform sprawling discussions into curated “paths” from root to leaf. These paths add value if they are categorized into sets each offering unique insights or perspectives. These paths make it possible to consume the information contained in the tree structure but present it in a way that a human reader might engage with the important ideas (if there are any at all) in the whole tree. (I don't mean to gloss over the issue of whether or not there exist comment trees worth reading but that's a post for another day).
I’d love to know your thoughts: how can we best use LLMs to support non-linear prose without turning reading into a purely passive experience? And in particular, if you have seen interesting use cases of LLMs augmenting consumption of text rather than digesting it for the reader please point me in that direction.
While it was exhausting at times, I've learned the most from having to grapple with challenging texts, particularly in prose whose diction or syntax was difficult for me to make sense of. Some of the chatter around LLMs points to using them as tools to do the parsing for you when you encounter difficult texts. Part of the value of a difficult text however is the journey you have to take yourself to understand it. At the same time I think there is place for having tools like LLMs enrich the kinds of complex media we create. Having a short cut to understanding sold to us is not a new phenomenon (Hi cliffsnotes!)
Digital presentations allow us to explore texts in a non-linear fashion, even if they were originally meant to be read front to back. This approach can be especially helpful in educational settings, where authors typically have to guess how much the reader already knows and carefully calibrate the flow of new information.
Non-linear reading paths can solve this dilemma by adapting to the individual reader’s level of comfort and knowledge. It’s a delicate balance, though. In school cliffsnotes offered a quick fix, but it never replaced the depth of truly wrestling with the text. Similarly, having an LLM summarize a complex work might save time, yet it risks stripping away the experiential richness that comes from navigating complexity.
So how do we harness LLMs without losing the magic of discovery? I don't know! An idea I'm considering is to transform the way we interact with a common non-linear prose many of us interact with daily, trees of comments under a post. LLMs could be used to transform sprawling discussions into curated “paths” from root to leaf. These paths add value if they are categorized into sets each offering unique insights or perspectives. These paths make it possible to consume the information contained in the tree structure but present it in a way that a human reader might engage with the important ideas (if there are any at all) in the whole tree. (I don't mean to gloss over the issue of whether or not there exist comment trees worth reading but that's a post for another day).
I’d love to know your thoughts: how can we best use LLMs to support non-linear prose without turning reading into a purely passive experience? And in particular, if you have seen interesting use cases of LLMs augmenting consumption of text rather than digesting it for the reader please point me in that direction.