This was a fantastic article and beautifully captured something I had been circling but hadn't quite put into words:

> The notetaking people—and I say this with all the love in the world—are never, like, a researcher at the cutting edge of their field, building this vast cathedral of knowledge, note-by-note, so they can derive new insights. Never a historian who has to read tens of millions of words across thousands of sources to synthesize the life of some historical person. It’s never someone doing something hard. It’s always some blogger. Their “digital garden” is about how to keep a digital garden. It’s very solipsistic: there’s no output, no deliverables. The deliverable is you take a screenshot of your Obsidian graph and tweet about it to show off how much it looks like an incomprehensible ball of twine.

> Sometimes, tools don’t move the needle because there’s no needle to move.

It reminds me of something my old CS mentor, now elderly, had said about LLMs a few months ago: "it's a force multiplier, but there has to be some force to multiply."

Great read, I feel many of the topics discussed firsthand.

It gives me some relief to know there are others out there who struggle with some similar issues, but I was hoping the piece may offer some guidance, but sadly I do not feel it has.

> Could you imagine if you found everything interesting? You’d spend years living in a basement curating a wiki of late Soviet military hardware or something.

This was a good read but this felt like a personal attack :)

The missing part is usually the real workflow. If there is no output and no cost for being wrong, the AI tool just becomes another toy to maintain.