会写的人和不会写的人

Paul Graham 2024-10-01

会写的人和不会写的人

2024年10月

我通常不愿意对技术做出预测,但我对这个预测相当有信心:再过几十年,不会有很多人能够写作。

如果你是作家,你学到的最奇怪的事情之一是有多少人在写作方面有困难。医生知道有多少人有一颗他们担心的痣;擅长设置电脑的人知道有多少人不会设置;作家知道有多少人需要写作帮助。

这么多人在写作方面有困难的原因是它从根本上就是困难的。要写得好你必须思考清楚,而思考清楚是困难的。

然而写作渗透到许多工作中,而且工作越有声望,它往往要求越多的写作。

这两个强大的对立力量,对写作的普遍期望和做它的不可减少的困难,创造了巨大的压力。这就是为什么杰出的教授经常被发现诉诸剽窃。在这些案件中,最令我震惊的是偷窃的琐碎性。他们偷窃的东西通常是最普通的套话——任何甚至还算过得去的作家都可以毫不费力地写出来的东西。这意味着他们甚至还不算过得去的作家。

直到最近,对于这些对立力量创造的压力没有方便的 escape valve。你可以付钱让别人为你写作,像肯尼迪,或者剽窃,像马丁·路德·金,但如果你不能购买或偷窃文字,你必须自己写。因此,几乎所有被期望写作的人都必须学会如何写作。

不再是了。AI已经打开了这个世界。几乎所有写作的压力都消散了。你可以让AI为你写作,无论在学校还是工作。

结果将是一个分为会写的人和不会写的人的世界。仍然会有一些人能够写作。我们中的一些人喜欢它。但在擅长写作和完全不会写作的人之间的中间地带将会消失。而不是好作家、普通作家和不会写作的人,将只有好作家和不会写作的人。

有那么糟糕吗?当技术使技能过时时,技能消失不是很常见吗?没有多少铁匠留下了,这似乎也不是问题。

是的,这很糟糕。原因是我之前提到的事情:写作就是思考。事实上,有一种思考只能通过写作来完成。你无法比Leslie Lamport更好地表达这一点:如果你在写作之外思考,你只是在认为你在思考。所以一个分为会写的人和不会写的人的世界比听起来更危险。它将是一个有思考的人和不会思考的人的世界。我知道我想成为哪一半,我打赌你也是。

这种情况并非前所未有。在前工业时代,大多数人的工作使他们强壮。现在如果你想强壮,你锻炼。所以仍然有强壮的人,但只有那些选择强壮的人。

写作将是同样的情况。仍然会有聪明的人,但只有那些选择聪明的人。

感谢

感谢杰西卡·利文斯顿、本·米勒和罗伯特·莫里斯阅读草稿。

Writes and Write-Nots

October 2024

I’m usually reluctant to make predictions about technology, but I feel fairly confident about this one: in a couple decades there won’t be many people who can write.

One of the strangest things you learn if you’re a writer is how many people have trouble writing. Doctors know how many people have a mole they’re worried about; people who are good at setting up computers know how many people aren’t; writers know how many people need help writing.

The reason so many people have trouble writing is that it’s fundamentally difficult. To write well you have to think clearly, and thinking clearly is hard.

And yet writing pervades many jobs, and the more prestigious the job, the more writing it tends to require.

These two powerful opposing forces, the pervasive expectation of writing and the irreducible difficulty of doing it, create enormous pressure. This is why eminent professors often turn out to have resorted to plagiarism. The most striking thing to me about these cases is the pettiness of the thefts. The stuff they steal is usually the most mundane boilerplate — the sort of thing that anyone who was even halfway decent at writing could turn out with no effort at all. Which means they’re not even halfway decent at writing.

Till recently there was no convenient escape valve for the pressure created by these opposing forces. You could pay someone to write for you, like JFK, or plagiarize, like MLK, but if you couldn’t buy or steal words, you had to write them yourself. And as a result nearly everyone who was expected to write had to learn how.

Not anymore. AI has blown this world open. Almost all pressure to write has dissipated. You can have AI do it for you, both in school and at work.

The result will be a world divided into writes and write-nots. There will still be some people who can write. Some of us like it. But the middle ground between those who are good at writing and those who can’t write at all will disappear. Instead of good writers, ok writers, and people who can’t write, there will just be good writers and people who can’t write.

Is that so bad? Isn’t it common for skills to disappear when technology makes them obsolete? There aren’t many blacksmiths left, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

Yes, it’s bad. The reason is something I mentioned earlier: writing is thinking. In fact there’s a kind of thinking that can only be done by writing. You can’t make this point better than Leslie Lamport did: If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking. So a world divided into writes and write-nots is more dangerous than it sounds. It will be a world of thinks and think-nots. I know which half I want to be in, and I bet you do too.

This situation is not unprecedented. In preindustrial times most people’s jobs made them strong. Now if you want to be strong, you work out. So there are still strong people, but only those who choose to be.

It will be the same with writing. There will still be smart people, but only those who choose to be.

Thanks

Thanks to Jessica Livingston, Ben Miller, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.