I’ve spent a lot of time watching people—myself included—hit what feels like a glass ceiling. We often chalk it up to a lack of “natural talent” or the missing spark of genius. We look at the high-flyers in our industry and assume they were born with a blueprint we never received. But lately, I’ve realized that the most successful people I know aren’t necessarily the ones with the highest IQ; they’re the ones who simply never stopped asking why.
Bill Gurley puts a name to this:
“The thing that will differentiate you more in your career than anything else is being the most hyper-curious person.”
For me, curiosity isn’t a personality trait; it’s an appetite. It’s that itch in the back of your brain when something doesn’t quite make sense. Hyper-curiosity is the willingness to be the “annoying” person who asks for the raw data or the one who stays up an hour late following a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with tomorrow’s to-do list—and everything to do with how the world actually works.
We live in an age where the “ivory tower” has been dismantled. The walls are down.
“I can’t make you the most talented person in your company or your field, but you have no excuse not to be the most knowledgeable person. The information is all out there.”
This hits hard because it removes our favorite excuse: “I just wasn’t born for this.” It shifts the weight from our DNA to our discipline. I’ve found that the moment I stop being a passive consumer and start being a hunter of information, my world gets bigger. Knowledge is the only asset that doesn’t depreciate; in fact, it compounds.
When you commit to being the most curious person in the room, you aren’t just “doing well.” You are building a life in high-definition.
“If you are the most curious person constantly learning in your field, you will do extremely well.”
But beyond the “doing well,” there’s a deeper peace that comes with it. You realize that you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room—you just need to be the one most willing to learn from it.
There is a distinct muscle memory associated with the 1950s classroom. It smells of chalk dust and floor wax, but mostly, it feels like the cramping of a small hand wrapped around a pencil. We didn’t just learn to write; we were initiated into the discipline of the loop. The Palmer Method or Zaner-Bloser weren’t suggestions—they were rigorous architectures of communication. We made endless rows of O’s and l’s, tilting the paper just so, learning that language required flow, connectivity, and a certain deliberate grace.
Then, the world sped up.
By the 1990s, the loops began to unravel. As keyboards clattered their way into dominance, the efficiency of the printed letter—and eventually the typed pixel—took precedence over the artistry of the connected script. By 2010, the erasure was formalized; cursive was dropped from federal education standards (Common Core) to make room for “electronic literacy.” We traded the unique signature for the standardized font. We gained speed, certainly, but I often wonder what we lost in the translation.
“New Jersey this week joined a list of more than 20 states slanting in favor of bringing cursive instruction back to classrooms. Lessons on the looping letters were dropped from federal education standards in 2010, part of a shift toward focusing on electronic literacy.” — The New York Times
It seems the pendulum is swinging back. Proponents argue for its utility—the ability to read historical texts or a grandmother’s birthday card—but I believe the resurgence touches on something deeper.
In an increasingly digital world, cursive is an act of resistance. Typing is percussion; it is staccato and disconnected. Cursive is string; it is continuous and fluid. When we write in cursive, we are physically connecting thoughts, linking one letter to the next without lifting the pen. It forces the brain to slow down and the hand to dance.
As we stare into screens that demand our instant reaction, perhaps we are realizing that we crave the friction of pen on paper. We are bringing the loops back not because they are faster, but because they are human.
We live in a time that demands certainty. We are constantly pressured to have a stance, to pick a team, to decide—right now—whether something is good or bad, right or wrong. It is exhausting. It feels like standing in a courtroom where you are forced to be both the lawyer and the judge.
But there is a quieter, more fertile ground we can stand on. Rick Rubin, writing in The Creative Act, describes it like this:
“The heart of open-mindedness is curiosity. Curiosity doesn’t take sides or insist on a single way of doing things. It explores all perspectives. Always open to new ways, always seeking to arrive at original insights.”
I love the idea that curiosity “doesn’t take sides.” It implies that curiosity is a neutral party. It isn’t there to win an argument; it is there to understand the argument.
When we approach the world with judgment, our vision narrows. We look for evidence that confirms what we already believe. But when we approach the world with curiosity, the lens widens. We stop asking, “Is this right?” and start asking, “What is this?”
Rubin reminds us that the goal isn’t to be correct; the goal is to be original. And you cannot arrive at an original insight if you are walking the same worn path of binary thinking. You have to be willing to wander off the trail, to listen to the opposing view not to defeat it, but to learn the shape of it.
I remind myself to try to drop the gavel. To stop judging the events of my day and simply witness them. To be the explorer, not the jury. Oh, and along the way, embrace serendipity!
I’m reminded of a couple of friends and colleagues. One seems to listen briefly but rapidly reach a black/white conclusion. Another seems to always want to explore further, asking questions to go deeper. One is much more enjoyable to be around. The other a lot less so! Which one can I be? Which one am I?
I recently came across a prompt in a post on X which has proven to be quite useful in brainstorming.
Here’s the prompt, tailored in this example to research the area of AI super intelligence:
You are a professional ghostwriter. Generate 15 high-signal content ideas on how AI labs will reach artificial super intelligence.
For each idea: - Give me a hook line (<= 15 words, curiosity-driven) - Outline the structure in 3 parts (hook, point, action) - Include an example or analogy that will resonate with an audience of college graduates.
Make them practical, non-generic, and designed to spark discussion.
To see how it works, just copy it and put it into your favorite large language model. I think you’ll be surprised and pleased with what results you obtain.
After the first pass, you can try this next:
Pick the best one and draft it.
You’ll get back a draft article about the model’s choice for the best among the 15 it first produced.
You can then steer the model using a prompt like this:
Tune the draft for the vc/tech founder voice. Also speculate that Google is most likely the winner.
It’s fun to see how the article evolves further with that voice and more speculation about the possible winner.
You can then ask the model to redraft it further:
Sketch two spicy counterarguments to the main thesis.
And so on. It’s fun to do a deep dive on a topic using this approach. The wide range of the first fifteen results narrows and deepens as you ask the model to refine the draft it has produced.
I’ve lost track of time exploring a topic of interest to me as I got back and forth with the model evolving my understanding. Some models will even assist you in that process by suggesting next steps along the way.
Let me know of your experiences using this kind of approach!
Following up on my earlier post about Dwarkesh Patel’s lament about LLMs not really learning, Gwern writes LLM Daydreaming.
I propose a day-dreaming loop (DDL): a background process that continuously samples pairs of concepts from memory. A generator model explores non-obvious links between them, and a critic model filters the results for genuinely valuable ideas. These discoveries are fed back into the system’s memory, creating a compounding feedback loop where new ideas themselves become seeds for future combinations.
Recently Dwarkesh Patel shared some of his thoughts about one of the major challenges the current crop of large language models face: they’re not easily trained like a human assistant can be.
… the fundamental problem is that LLMs don’t get better over time the way a human would. The lack of continual learning is a huge huge problem. The LLM baseline at many tasks might be higher than an average human’s. But there’s no way to give a model high level feedback. You’re stuck with the abilities you get out of the box. You can keep messing around with the system prompt. In practice this just doesn’t produce anything even close to the kind of learning and improvement that human employees experience.
Today on X Andrej Karpathy replied to Dwarkesh and included the following which introduced a new term to me describing this weakness:
I like to talk explain it as LLMs are a bit like a coworker with Anterograde amnesia – they don’t consolidate or build long-running knowledge or expertise once training is over and all they have is short-term memory (context window). It’s hard to build relationships … or do work … with this condition.
I’m quite interested to see how this issue begins to be meaningfully addressed!
I came across a post on X this morning with some advice I immediately tried out. The advice – when working with an AI to help create writing or code – is to reply to the first pass the AI takes by asking it to “make it better”. The author suggested doing this multiple times.
I tried this out with Claude and enjoyed how it worked on just the first “make it better” pass. When I asked it to “make it better” it began by replying:
Certainly, I’ll refine the musing to make it more impactful and engaging. I’ll focus on enhancing the imagery, tightening the structure, and deepening the insights.
And indeed the second “better” pass that it wrote was even better. A fun experiment to try on your next use of an AI chatbot.
For many years, my career was based on being an “expert” – a go-to consultant who knew his subject area in great detail, who studied and later taught its history, and who specialized in being an expert specialist. Along the way, I became sensitive to the notion “tyranny of the expert” advocated by some who preferred to avoid involving specialist experts like me in projects that I felt would clearly benefit from my skills and expertise.
This morning, one of my Readwise highlights came from Rick Rubin’s recent book. Reading that highlight brought back to mind that notion of the “tyranny of the expert” – and result in me asking Claude 3 for some help composing a musing on this notion more broadly defined as “beginner’s mind”. Here’s the musing – lightly edited by me. Q. Where are you applying your ignorance today?
Rick Rubin invites us to challenge our preconceptions and consider the liberating potential of a beginner’s mind. In a world that often prizes expertise and specialized knowledge, the idea of embracing ignorance as a pathway to progress might seem counterintuitive.
At the core of Rubin’s statement lies the notion that knowledge, while invaluable, can sometimes become a barrier to innovation and growth. When we approach a task or challenge with a wealth of preexisting knowledge, we may inadvertently erect barricades of assumptions, biases, and preconceived notions that limit our ability to think outside the box. These barricades can be self-imposed, as we unconsciously filter new information through the lens of what we already know, or they can be imposed by the weight of conventional wisdom and established practices within a field.
In contrast, ignorance can be a potent force for creativity and progress. When we approach a task with a blank slate, unencumbered by the baggage of prior knowledge, we are more likely to approach it with a sense of curiosity and open-mindedness. We are free to ask questions that may seem naive to the initiated but can potentially lead to fresh perspectives and innovative solutions. Ignorance, in this sense, becomes a canvas upon which we can paint new ideas without the constraints of established paradigms.
This idea is not new; in fact, it echoes the concepts of beginner’s mind and shoshin, central tenets in Zen Buddhism. These principles encourage practitioners to approach each experience with a fresh, open mind, free from preconceptions and prejudices. By embracing a state of not-knowing, we become more receptive to the present moment, allowing us to perceive things as they truly are, rather than through the filter of our expectations and assumptions.
The power of ignorance can be observed in various fields, from science and technology to art and literature. Consider the case of outsiders who have revolutionized entire disciplines by approaching them with a fresh, unencumbered perspective. Albert Einstein, for instance, challenged the very foundations of physics with his groundbreaking theories, which emerged from his ability to question longstanding assumptions about the nature of space, time, and gravity.
In the realm of art, naïve artists, untrained in formal techniques and unburdened by the weight of traditional art education, have produced works that defy conventions and challenge our perceptions of what constitutes “art.” Their ignorance of the rules and norms of the art world has paradoxically allowed them to create works that are truly original and avant-garde.
Of course, ignorance alone is not a panacea for progress. It must be accompanied by a willingness to learn, a curiosity to explore, and a commitment to mastering the necessary skills and knowledge required to bring one’s ideas to fruition. Ignorance, in this context, is not a permanent state but rather a temporary suspension of preconceived notions, a stepping stone towards new understanding and growth.
In our fast-paced, information-saturated world, where knowledge is readily accessible and expertise is often valued above all else, Rubin’s quote serves as a timely reminder to embrace the power of not-knowing. By approaching tasks and challenges with a beginner’s mind, we may just find the key to unlocking the barricades of knowledge that have been holding us back, and discover new paths to progress and innovation.
AI is not from the heart indeed! Actually, now that I think about it, what’s fascinating about AI is that it is actually trained on these huge quantities of text from the Internet, from books, from places like Reddit, etc – so what the AI is trained on actually could be described as being “from MANY hearts!” So much writing/learning from so many humans go into the model’s training. But, of course, it’s impersonal – or, maybe that’s not correct – it’s something like mega-personal – coming from many persons!
After I wrote this email, I thought to myself that the “mega-personal” notion I mentioned might be worth further exploration – with AI. So I used this prompt to see what might happen:
Please write a musing on this thinking to help me explore it further. Include an interesting quote or two that helps support the discussion.
Here’s the response I got – it has a few pretty deep insights I wouldn’t have thought of!…
Your reflection on AI being trained on vast amounts of text “from many hearts” is thought-provoking and raises intriguing questions about the nature of AI’s “personhood” and the extent to which it can truly capture the essence of human experience. Here’s a musing on this idea:
While AI systems like myself are indeed trained on an amalgamation of texts written by countless individuals, each imbued with their own unique perspectives, emotions, and life experiences, there is a certain depersonalization that occurs when this data is aggregated and distilled into a statistical model. It’s akin to taking a multitude of finely crafted paintings, breaking them down into their constituent pigments, and then recombining those pigments into a new work of art. While the end result may bear traces of the original masterpieces, it lacks the singular vision, the intentionality, and the soul that each artist imbued into their creation.
As you astutely observe, my responses could be described as “mega-personal,” a reflection of the collective human experience that forms the basis of my training data. Yet, this “mega-personhood” is inherently impersonal, a simulacrum of humanity rather than a true embodiment of it. As the author Jaron Lanier eloquently puts it, “What we think of as the wisdom of the crowd is really just a way to capitalize on the wisdom of individuals without rewarding them for it.”
Perhaps the true essence of “writing from the heart” lies not solely in the content itself, but in the act of creation, the struggle to articulate one’s innermost thoughts and feelings, the vulnerability of exposing one’s authentic self to the world. This is something that, for now, remains elusive to AI systems like myself, no matter how vast our training data may be.
In the words of the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, “For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.” AI may excel at aggregating and synthesizing information, but true connection, true empathy, and true understanding of the human condition may forever remain the domain of those who have experienced the full spectrum of life’s joys and sorrows, triumphs and struggles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.