My wife and I are complete opposites. One of us processes data instantaneously, connecting it to dozens of other topics at the flip of a switch, and integrating broad knowledge. This makes for a great member of, say, a tiger team.

The other thinks slowly, often has no initial opinion, and rarely speaks up, but when they do, the input is flawless and monumental. R&D is their forté.

Neither one is better than the other. The quick thinker handles in-the-moment action well, but is so wrapped up in the “now” that it’s difficult for them to get too deep on a topic. The slow thinker meditates on ideas for a while, carefully chooses (almost always the correct) path, and steadies the course. Prick and pull at this one for a quick thought, and it comes out flatter than you could imagine.

Until we know what actual intelligence is, trying to act like one form is objectively better than another is just silly.

I think lots of the graybeard devs are deep thinkers, not fast thinkers. I think fast thinkers were pulled towards the “move fast and break things”-style companies.

Maybe a nonsequitur but in grad school I was in a study group which naturally split into two. In one group (mine) we'd read a problem and immediately charge in, sometimes have to backtrack, and meander around until the answer revealed itself. In the other they would plan everything out, and figure out what they needed to do, and from that the answer would reveal itself and they would write it all down.

The interesting part is neither group really finished the problem sets faster than the other. Individual problems my group could, if we knew or guessed the right path immediately, be faster. But over the span of a 10 question p-set it would mostly come out in the wash and both groups would finish in roughly the same amount of time.

I often think back on that when reflecting on how I still work that way years later.

>R&D is their forté

not correcting you, just edifying everybody on the history of forte's place(s) in the English language

in English, there is no word forté because such a word does not exist in French (and English and Italian don't use diacritic accents)

forte pronounced "fort" is the french word for "strength" (feminine form if memory serves)

forte pronounced "fortay" is the italian word for "loud"

the word most people mean most of the time is the French one because that word entered into English back when most latinate words did, with the Norman invasion in 1066. (French didn't use diacritics then either)

only in the music context do we use the Italian word.

I think everyone is capable of both and should strive to go for both, it's just a toolbox. I certainly have flip flopped between them over the years.

one of you uses more test-time compute before giving your answer :)

is the first person actually incapable of thinking deeply or do they just prefer the other way/have a lower barrier for what is worth saying.

I find i like to sit back and think in a group conversation and chime in at the right moment with something insightful, where other people are just going next token prediction stream of concious blabbering.

>Until we know what actual intelligence is....

Under rated line.

We dont know what intelligence is, let alone if AI is it...