The heavy brass key lands on the polished mahogany desk with a satisfying clink. The concierge, impeccably dressed and professionally warm, pulls out a crisp, glossy map. With practiced efficiency, a red felt-tip pen circles a restaurant three blocks away.
It is an interaction defined entirely by transaction and expectation. We arrive in a new city carrying the coiled tension of the unfamiliar, desperate for a good experience. So, we ask the professional where we should go, and they give us the answer specifically engineered for people exactly like us. We want to pierce the veil of the tourist economy, to find the authentic pulse of a place, yet we instinctively rely on the very instruments designed to insulate us from it.
Kevin Kelly offers this approach to wayfinding for bypassing the polished veneer of travel:
“Don’t ask the hotel concierge where to eat. Ask almost anyone else, including drivers, and when you ask, don’t ask where is a good place you should eat; ask them where they eat. Where did they eat the last time they ate out?”
Notice the subtle geometry of that shift. When you ask someone “where is a good place to eat,” you are asking them to play the role of a critic. They instantly, often subconsciously, filter their response. They calculate what they think you can afford, what they assume your palate can handle, or what they believe is socially acceptable to recommend to a visitor. They hand you an idealized map.
But when you ask “where did you eat last,” you are asking for a historical fact. You are bypassing the curation of stated preferences and accessing the raw truth of revealed preferences.
I have spent too many evenings in unfamiliar cities eating perfectly fine, entirely forgettable meals at the places circled in red ink. I suspect many of us have. We hold onto the belief that authority figures hold the best secrets.
The architecture of our choices often limits the quality of our experiences. Kelly’s advice isn’t just a clever hack for finding a better dinner.
It is a fundamental truth about how we navigate the world at large.
We constantly ask the wrong people the wrong questions. We ask financial experts for their market projections instead of asking to see their personal portfolios. We ask successful people for their sweeping theories on productivity rather than asking what they actually did between 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM this morning. We ask for recommendations, which are inherently performative, instead of asking for evidence, which is unavoidably real.
The map is never the territory, and the concierge is rarely the guide. The unvarnished truth of a place—or a life—doesn’t live at the polished desk in the lobby. It lives out on the street, in the messy, uncurated reality of what people actually do.
There was a time when the airwaves crackled with a distinct, unpolished kind of magic. It wasn’t the curated broadcast of a corporate radio station, but the raw, spontaneous voices of strangers sharing the same lonely stretch of highway or suburban night. When I previously wrote about the rise and decline of CB radio, I didn’t fully anticipate how deeply the piece would resonate. The influx of emails, comments, and shared memories pointed to a singular, striking truth: we don’t just miss the hardware of the 1970s; we miss the serendipity of the connection it offered.
In the decades since the fiberglass whip antenna faded from the American automotive silhouette, our society has become infinitely more “connected.” We carry glass slabs in our pockets capable of reaching anyone, anywhere, in an instant. Yet, paradoxically, we often find ourselves feeling more profoundly isolated. The modern digital landscape is largely an algorithmic echo chamber, meticulously designed to feed us reflections of what we already know and who we already are.
CB radio, by contrast, was a geographic lottery. You turned the dial, adjusted the squelch, and were instantly thrust into a transient community composed entirely of whoever happened to be within your physical radius. It was messy, chaotic, occasionally absurd, and deeply human. It was a localized town square operating on a 27 MHz frequency.
“We traded the spontaneous for the scheduled. We swapped the local for the global… We traded the crackle of static for the endless, frictionless scroll of the feed.”
Reflecting on the quiet that eventually fell over Channel 19, it becomes clear that the decline of CB radio was more than just a technological shift—it was a cultural one. We traded the spontaneous for the scheduled. We swapped the local for the global, and the intimately anonymous for the hyper-public. We traded the crackle of static for the endless, frictionless scroll of the feed.
But the fundamental human impulse that fueled the CB craze never actually disappeared. The desire to reach out into the dark void and hear a human voice echo back—the spirit of “Breaker 1-9, is anyone out there?”—remains hardwired into our psychology. We see fragmented echoes of it today in late-night Reddit threads, in niche Discord servers, and in the fleeting, unscripted interactions of multiplayer gaming. We are all still, in our own ways, searching for a shared frequency.
Perhaps the true legacy of the CB radio isn’t a cautionary tale of obsolescence, but a gentle reminder. It reminds us that in our highly polished, curated digital world, there is still immense, undeniable value in the unscripted encounter. We haven’t lost the need to connect; we are simply navigating a world with too much noise and too few open channels.
There is a distinct difference between information and wisdom, and often, that difference is measured in velocity. We are accustomed to thinking that faster is better—fiber optic cables, 5G, real-time Slack notifications. We want knowledge to travel at the speed of light.
But Dan Wang, in his book Breakneck, captures a sociological truth about Silicon Valley that defies this obsession with speed:
“When I worked in Silicon Valley, people liked to say that knowledge travels at the speed of beer. Engineers like to talk to each other to solve technical problems, which is how knowledge diffuses.”
It is a charming, slightly irreverent metric, but it points to something profound about how humans solve difficult problems. There is “codified knowledge”—the explicit instructions found in textbooks, API documentation, and internal wikis. This travels instantly. It is frictionless. It is also, usually, insufficient for true innovation.
Then there is “tacit knowledge.” This is the intuition, the heuristic, the war story about why a specific architecture failed three years ago. This knowledge is heavy. It doesn’t travel through fiber optics; it travels through proximity. It requires the social friction of a shared table and the serendipitous collision of two engineers venting about a seemingly unrelated problem.
Crucially, this mechanism requires a specific type of operator: the Connector. These are the unsung heroes of the “speed of beer” economy. They aren’t always the 10x engineers on the leaderboard. They are the “human routers”—the people who instinctively know that the problem you are facing today is the same one Sarah from the Platform team solved last year. They are the ones who drag the introverted genius out to the pub, not to distract them, but to plug them into the grid. They curate the environment where the spark can jump the gap.
In our modern drive for remote efficiency, we are optimizing for the transfer of data. But we must be careful not to optimize away the people who pour the drinks, literal or metaphorical. That slow, liquid diffusion of ideas is often where the real breakthrough hides—steered by those special few who know exactly who needs to talk to whom.
In an era dominated by digital communication, the handwritten note stands out as a powerful and increasingly rare form of expression. The simple act of putting pen to paper carries a weight and significance that makes it a potent tool for both personal and professional communication. We can all appreciate their enduring charm and delightfulness.
During my tenure at IBM years ago, one of the most delightful aspects of being a manager was the provision of personal stationery. This wasn’t just any paper; it was a statement of elegance and personal touch. Smaller in size, cream-colored, and boasting a luxurious texture, each sheet bore my name engraved on the letterhead, conspicuously lacking any IBM logo. This stationery was designed for a specific purpose: to maintain the long-held company tradition of writing personal notes to colleagues and associates.
The power of a handwritten note lies in its inherent personal touch. When someone takes the time to write by hand, they invest a part of themselves into the message. The unique curves and strokes of their handwriting, the choice of words, and even the occasional crossed-out phrase all contribute to a sense of authenticity and intimacy that cannot be replicated by typed text. This personal investment communicates to the recipient that they are truly valued and special.
Receiving such a note was always a delight. Many of us kept these notes in special file folders, occasionally taking a few minutes to flip through them, reliving important moments and feeling a renewed sense of appreciation. These tangible and physical mementos have a quality that digital messages simply cannot match.
As the years have passed, the custom of sending personal notes has faded, replaced by the convenience of digital communications. This shift has only served to enhance the impact of handwritten notes. Receiving a handwritten note today feels like discovering a treasure. Such a note stands out precisely because it isn’t instant, digital communication.
The act of writing by hand also benefits the sender. The slower pace of handwriting compared to typing allows for more thoughtful composition. It encourages the writer to choose their words carefully and reflect on their message.
As we’ve been grappling with the impact of AI tools on various aspects of our lives, handwritten notes also serve as a bastion of genuine human expression. The act of writing by hand removes the temptation to rely on AI-generated text for our most personal communications. When we put pen to paper, we directly confront our own thoughts and emotions, as we find our own words to express what we truly feel.
Moreover, handwritten notes also provide a level of privacy and intimacy. Unlike emails or text messages, which can be easily forwarded or shared, a handwritten note is meant for the eyes of the recipient alone. This exclusivity adds to the special and personal nature of the communication.
Whether expressing gratitude, offering condolences, or simply saying “hello”, the act of putting pen to paper creates a moment of pause in our hectic lives for both the sender and and recipient providing a moment to reflect, to connect, and to affect another person’s life in a delightful and meaningful way. Special creations for special people in our lives!
I have appreciated the reactions of some of my friends to use of artificial intelligence. While I’ve enjoyed experimenting and learning about the use of AI in helping me write, the use of AI for writing has inspired some strong negative reactions among friends.
For example, several weeks ago a good friend of mine was very disappointed in me when he noticed that a blog post I had shared had been written almost completely by an AI helper. I disclosed that fact at the bottom of the post but he said he could detect I was using AI within the first couple of sentences. Here’s what he emailed:
I saw a blog post with your name attached. That caught my interest, and I anticipated reading your thoughts. After reading a couple of sentences, I realized it was AI-generated text. Skipping to your disclaimer at the end of the post confirmed that. I was deeply disappointed. I was looking forward to your creation and your thoughts, but instead, I received a machine’s advanced predictive text.
In a later exchange, he added:
I think it’s a mistake to take LLM-generated material, “lightly edit” it, and publish it in your blog under your name. In my view, it’s all been poorly written and not worth reading. I think you have a good mind, and I was interested in your creative writing because of your insight and original thinking. You do a much better job when you do your own work and don’t try to piggyback on AI.
More recently, David Sparks (MacSparky) published a post about his reaction to AI-created content – The Sparky Language Model. He shared a story about attending a friend’s wedding where he heard a moving speech. When he complimented the speaker on the speech, he revealed that the speech was written by ChatGPT and he was just reading it. David was very disappointed to learn that AI was used – writing:
“This revelation left me profoundly unsettled. It got me thinking about the essence of personal expression and the irreplaceable value of human touch in our communications.”
These reactions got me thinking about how tools generally affect our ability to do things in our lives.
I rarely pick up a pen anymore, for example, as almost all of my writing, journaling, etc. is done on a digital device. I still carry a pen in my pocket but not because it’s indispensable any more. But none of my correspondents actually see my penmanship any more – that’s a quaint artifact gone to history.
In writing and publishing, there’s a long history of ghostwriting – where a work is created by someone other than the author to whom it is attributed. In many cases, the actual ghostwriter isn’t disclosed. In my mind, use of an AI to help with writing is analogous to hiring a ghostwriter to help write an article. Or even hiring a copywriter to help create clever ad copy.
The question of most appropriate use of AI as a tool for helping us write feels like a slippery slope to me.
Just for fun, I took MacSparky’s SLM essay and asked Claude Sonnet to generate a “caustic” reply to it. Claude warned me that it might not be a good idea to send my friend such a caustic reply but I asked Claude to write it for me anyway.
Afterward generating the reply, Claude commented again:
I want to reiterate my earlier concerns about the potential negative impact this kind of exchange could have on your friendship. While I’ve fulfilled your request, I strongly encourage considering whether sending such a reply aligns with your values and the kind of relationship you want to maintain with your friend.
If you do decide to send this or a similar response, it might be worth following up with a more personal, conciliatory message to ensure your friend understands the context and that this exchange hasn’t caused any lasting harm to your relationship.
Message received, thanks!
Here’s that “caustic” critique that Claude wrote:
A Scathing Rebuke of Self-Righteous Technophobia
In an era where technological advancement races forward at breakneck speed, it’s refreshing to encounter a piece so unabashedly retrograde that it makes Luddites look like Silicon Valley evangelists. Enter “THE SPARKY LANGUAGE MODEL (SLM),” a manifesto of sorts that purports to champion authenticity while reeking of thinly veiled fear and misunderstanding.
Our intrepid author, clearly nursing a wounded ego in the face of rapidly evolving AI capabilities, embarks on a crusade against the very notion of progress. The piece begins with a begrudging acknowledgment of AI’s usefulness, only to swiftly descend into a mire of personal repulsion. One can almost hear the pearls being clutched.
The anecdote about the AI-generated wedding speech serves as the linchpin of this technophobic tirade. Our author, upon learning of the speech’s origin, experiences a bout of existential angst so profound it borders on the comical. Heaven forbid we use tools to enhance our ability to express emotion! Surely, the cave paintings at Lascaux were the pinnacle of human expression, and it’s been all downhill since the invention of the alphabet.
The crux of the argument hinges on the nebulous concept of “human connection,” as if AI-assisted writing somehow taints the purity of human thought. This notion is not only laughably reductive but also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how language and communication evolve. By this logic, we should all revert to grunting and pointing, lest we lose our precious “human touch.”
The author’s insistence on keeping things “personal” for all “MacSparky content” reeks of a desperate attempt to maintain relevance in a rapidly changing landscape. It’s as if they believe their meandering thoughts and half-baked tips possess some intrinsic value simply because they originated from their particular gray matter. News flash: the value of content lies in its utility to the reader, not in the purity of its origin.
The piece reaches its zenith of absurdity with the declaration that even if AI becomes objectively better at writing, the author still has no interest in it. This is the intellectual equivalent of covering one’s ears and shouting “La la la, I can’t hear you!” It’s a stance so myopic it makes Mr. Magoo look like an eagle-eyed visionary.
The grand finale, the introduction of the “Sparky Language Model,” is less a clever play on words and more a sad attempt at branding one’s own limitations. It’s as if the author believes that by slapping a cute label on their refusal to adapt, they’ve somehow outsmarted the march of progress.
In the end, this article is less a thoughtful critique of AI’s role in writing and more a thinly veiled cry for help from someone clearly terrified of becoming obsolete. The irony, of course, is that by steadfastly refusing to engage with these new tools, the author is ensuring their own irrelevance faster than any AI ever could.
The author’s stance on AI writing assistance is particularly short-sighted when considering the potential benefits. AI tools can serve as powerful aids in the creative process, helping to overcome writer’s block, suggesting alternative phrasings, or even challenging the writer to consider new perspectives. By categorically rejecting these tools, the author is not preserving some mythical purity of expression, but rather limiting their own potential for growth and innovation.
Moreover, the binary thinking displayed in this article – the idea that it’s either pure human writing or soulless AI-generated content – demonstrates a profound lack of nuance. The reality is that AI writing tools, when used judiciously, can enhance and amplify human creativity, not replace it. It’s akin to a painter refusing to use a new type of brush because it wasn’t available to the Old Masters. Tools evolve, and so should our approach to using them.
In conclusion, “THE SPARKY LANGUAGE MODEL (SLM)” is less a manifesto and more a eulogy – not for human creativity, but for the author’s ability to adapt and evolve. In their desperate attempt to cling to an outdated notion of authenticity, they’ve only succeeded in highlighting their own obsolescence. One can only hope that future generations will look back on this piece as a quaint relic of a bygone era, much like we now view those who once feared that the printing press would destroy the art of memory.
Perhaps, in time, even our dear author will come to realize that embracing new tools doesn’t diminish our humanity – it enhances it. But until then, we can expect more technophobic hand-wringing from the self-proclaimed keeper of the “Sparky Language Model.” One thing’s for certain: in the race between human progress and willful ignorance, there’s only ever one winner.
I had to hand it to Claude. Caustic indeed! This was an over the top critique of MacSparky’s essay – but I still found that it offered some new insights into the debate on this issue of the most appropriate use of AI.
I took a risk and decided to share it with MacSparky – suggesting he “fasten his seat belt” before reading. Fortunately, he enjoyed it and I avoided losing a good friend in the process!
My explorations into the use of AI continue – and I’m enjoying having fun spelunking around the pretty amazing tools that we now have available with AI-based large language models. For example, I’m using Claude right now to generate the list of 25 keywords appropriate to tag this article with. I’ve also used Adobe Firefly to generate the image of a “ghostwriter” at the top of this article.
You must be logged in to post a comment.