Notes

And to give the teams at Anthropic and OpenAI their flowers, this has not been a failure of their tools. The tools work, more or less. This is all about something stranger and more important than a failure of the LLMs: the necessary work of software has already been done. We haven’t seen a lot of new types of software because we already have what we need. You can’t flood a vessel that’s already full, and the amateurs, God bless them, have been pouring this new power into a jug that we’ve been frantically filling throughout the 21st century.

[...]

And, yes, professional human software engineers will be a thing tomorrow and next week and in five years and in ten. What I mean is narrower but far-reaching and profound: the era of new software categories is over. There is no more true need for new types of software than there is need for new lines on the periodic table.

[...]

for the end of one S-curve to become the beginning of another requires that a new reality that’s waiting underneath the old one. My claim is that software, having reached the ceiling of natural human need in anything like the recognizable human world, has no new reality move into. There’s no more fundamental layer of computation to migrate to. The next curve, if it comes, won’t be built on top of more code. Instead we need a different kind of new development, one which will come in the world of atoms, not the world of bits, which means we’re stuck in the same problem.

[...]

There are limits. What I’m arguing is that the adjacent possible in software is remarkably constrained and largely similar to what we’ve already gotten.

[...]

Software was never going to deliver the future. Software was the thing we did instead of the future, because it has orderly rules, because it’s cheap to make, because inside its narrow confines the returns come fast and the failures are easy to identify and contain.

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-project-of-software-is-complete

Hmm... I guess we shall see where all this goes. The worthwhile things are probably always going to be hard.

There are many reports that students can only read a few paragraphs or pages at a time now. How then to teach English literature?

I faced that exact challenge when I taught mid-level ESL learners in China. My solution: poetry.

With the 12th graders I taught, who were applying to American universities, we read full books—the Iliad, Balzac, All Quiet on the Western Front, Michael Sandel’s Justice book, to name a few.

But with the 9th graders, most of whose English was not yet good enough for that kind of thing, I had them read and analyze poems from the start of school in September through about March.

There were many benefits to spending so much time on poetry. I used to think some of these benefits were unique to the ESL context but this new wave of reports has me thinking that they might now be more broadly applicable.

These include:

Poems are serious literature but they are also small and self contained. For the ESL learner mastery of a poem this feels like a small but significant sort of victory — when they complete a poem they have read, and understood, an entire work of literature!

(I experienced this myself in reverse when I read my first poem in Classical Chinese—it is demotivating to have to chip away at a book in another language without a real feeling of progress. But even a novice can fully comprehend a poem in one study session. I remember my excitement the first time I understood an entire work that was written in by someone who lived thousands of years ago in the language in which they wrote it. It was very special, even if it was only a few lines long).

Because poems are often small, they are very good tools for learning and practicing skills you need for other types of writing and literature.

These can be very broad—like point of view, or diction—or they can be narrow, such as anastrophe, apostrophe, or parallelism.

In my experience it is common for the broadest literary techniques and devices (eg point of view) to be taught and tested in our classrooms, but it is rare for the more granular techniques to receive much attention.

There are many reasons for teaching them, but this might be the most important: words are tools. Literary techniques are used to layer meaning but also to manipulate emotion—and you are liable to find yourself manipulated if you cannot recognize and name what you hear/read.

You could teach these things through novels, short stories, essays, and so forth, but I find that in most of those cases sentence level literary techniques and devices fall to wayside as you try to help students trace the structure or a plot or of a complex argument.

They need to master these skills first, and the best way to learn them is with poetry (and to a lesser extent, speech/oratory).

There are two other skills that close reading of poetry can help foster that most of these reports on failing reading ability note are particular trouble points:

A) Understanding sentences with complex clauses and parsing metaphorical language.

On B) metaphorical language I will not say much as the use of poetry here should be very obvious, but on A) I’ll note the following: I would sometimes have students diagram the grammar structures of the poems they read.

And I would try to train them to isolate pronouns and identify what THIS, THAT, and IT they find is referring to. I would also ask them to identify the object of the various sentences of most of the poems they read—at least in the beginning.

In my experience many “hard” and “opaque” poems are not so hard and not so opaque once you identify the subject and object, which are many times implied instead of repeated in each line. This is also true for the complex sentences that tend to give students the most trouble in prose writing—especially 18th and 19th century prose.

Poetry is very allusive — and as such, teaching poems was an effective way to introduce many of the bedrock allusions of western literature, be they Greek myths, Bible stories and verses, or historical figures.

You can and should do this with other types of writing and oratory—essays, speeches, narrative non fiction, short short stories, novels—but again, it is simply easier to do this with poetry because of their economy.

Most lyric poetry concerns the big questions. English poetry has a few perennial obsessions: beauty, joy, love, death, character, and the unpredictability or irony of human life. These questions are interesting to teenagers. Teenagers have opinions on them.

It is not hard to juxtapose two or three poems on the same topic and use this as a springboard for student discussion. When this is done right, students will debate not only their own thoughts, but whether the metaphors and language used by the enlightens or confuses the issue.

Again: the over riding purpose of teaching so much poetry, and teaching it before you teach other things, is to train students how language and metaphor structure thought and channel emotion—and do this at the level of the word, clause, and sentence.

On the one hand, poetry gives you language to think about the big questions; on the other hand, learning to parse poetry teaches you how to analyze ideas at the level of syntax and semantics.

Finally, poetry can and should be performed and memorized. Poems can provide wisdom, strength, and solace when those things are needed most. It is worth storing some away in your soul.

Performing poems can be an engaging and fun class activity; rote memorization is missing from most English classes—most students are not exercising that part of their brain, and they should be.

Memorization will also prepare them to better understand much later literature.

Poetry was the most popular form of English literature from the Medieval ages up to about 1920. The speeches, political tracts, plays, and novels of those centuries are just soaked with poetic allusions and quotations—all of which will be better recognized if you, like the people then, have memorized some of it.

That is my basic argument. In my experience it worked. You can get 9th graders not capable of reading much to read a poem. the poems they read will grow in sophistication by degrees; once they have done this they will be in a good place for longer material.

https://x.com/Scholars_Stage/status/2077859878006112309

Why are we writing such nice things on Twitter?

So in that sense the best way to read what Scrivener calls the era of “mere christianity” is probably to regard it as a period of deficient Protestantism in which people presupposed Protestant conceptions of the church without understanding that they were doing that. They mistook their implicitly Protestant commitments for a kind of broadly Christian and ecclesially indifferent set of commitments. That is never what Lewis was trying to do in his own work, but it is how his work was received by highly democratic and anti-institutional American readers.

[...]

If theological factionalism is back but denominationalism isn’t, then what we are heading for is a church world that swaps out those types of members for new non-denominational members who are more exercised about theological distinctives and more inclined to fight about theological topics that divide, say, Baptists from Catholics or Calvinists from Orthodox.

If you are the media you consume or the information ecosystem you live in, then we may be headed for a scenario where pastors in non-denominational settings are being confronted by congregants who are, in terms of information intake, basically Catholic or Orthodox or Calvinist, and yet they remain as members in churches that are none of those things.

https://mereorthodoxy.com/is-the-era-of-mere-christianity-over/

Derek Thompson: What is the uni-context?

Agnes Callard: Let’s start with the word context. A context is a set of circumstances that tell you how you should act. For most of human history, contexts were local and multiple. If you wanted to know how you should act, you would look around. Am I in a field? Am I inside my home? Am I in the church? Am I in a bar? You would immediately get guidance by looking both at your physical environment and at the people around you and how they were acting.

The uni-context is a scenario in which the ways you should act become the same across all different contexts. There’s just one set of norms you should follow all times, irrespective of context.

https://www.derekthompson.org/p/a-philosophers-one-word-theory-to

Alan Jacobs doesn't like "uni-context".

The problem with the theory of the “uni-context” is that it’s an explanation of the behavior of Extremely Online People masquerading as an account of “everyone” or “the world.” Extremely Online People are like strong secularists: they think they’re more common than they are, and they believe that the whole world is trending in their direction.

https://social.ayjay.org/2026/07/15/the-problem-with-the-theory.html

I confess that I am astounded by how blithely some insist that it is all as simple as learning to use AI well, as if we had not just undergone a nearly 20-year, society-wide experiment showing that a so-called “tool,” say a smartphone or a social media platform, will (mal)form even the most vigilant and virtuous user into its own image and shape. This is the blindness at the heart of modern technological hubris. It is the firm but misguided conviction that our “tools” exist entirely outside of us and thus, if taken up with requisite skill, can be “safely” deployed.

But AI is not a tool in this sense, it is an environment which envelops the user and works on us from the inside out while we naively think that we remain unchanged by our use so long as we are using it carefully and intentionally. The care and intentionality is beside the point, and our confidence in such vigilance probably works against us in the long run.

[...]

I’ll draw things to a close by posing the following thesis for your consideration: the best response to emerging technologies, perhaps especially AI, is not media literacy in a cognitivist mode. Rather, what is required is the training of our perception in an ascetical mode.

https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/your-ai-is-not-a-tool

I would read this one. It's hard to pick out what to quote.

Religious life, I think one thing we’ll see, and this is, again, pretty soon, it won’t be hard to create your own religion. I’m not sure many people will do this. I don’t think most people will. But they’ll be like accretions to the religions we have now. And I think with Fable 5, you could even do this already. Like, you ever actually try to read through the Hindu sacred texts? They’re pretty naughty, pretty detailed, quite long. Many parts are great and dramatic. I wouldn’t say they’re smoothly or evenly written. Not all of it is well written. They have significant meaning. For some people, a lot of people consume them through stories they’re told with their children. It’s not that every Hindu is like reading through the whole Ramayana. That’s all fine. But if you can sit down with, you know, the latest quad, whatever, and create your own set of sacred books. Again, I think like 2% of people are going to do this. Not most people. People have other interests, other hobbies. A lot of people aren’t religious. But if 2% of people do this, you end up with a lot of new religious accretions. Some of them will be totally new religions. But I think a lot will just be like, here are my sacred books of Christianity, or my add-ons to the Book of Mormon, or my whatever’s. There’ll be this extreme religious diversity. I don’t know, too much, too little. I think it will be quite different.

And you’ll get used to taking religious queries to the AIs. This already is the status quo. I’m pretty sure there’s no priest who knows the Bible as well as the strongest LLMs. So you have a question about the Bible, you know, where should you go? Well, you go to the LLM. Not everyone has internalized this, but a few years from now, it’ll just be understood. Rabbinical analysis, go to the LLM, and so on. So there’ll be this disintermediation of some of the priests, the rabbis, the imams, whoever the sacred intermediary figures are. They’ll be maybe modestly less important. So their ability to kind of crack the whip and say, hey, you can’t create your own religion, that’s not what I told you, that’s going to be a bit weaker, because you’re not going and asking them, oh, pastor, you know, in the Book of John, what does this mean? You’ll just ask your LLM, and the pastor will be some distant figure, or maybe he like sings a hymn at the church on Sunday, but he won’t quite have the force and authority. There may be fewer such people, just like there’s fewer Rob Wrights than Tyler Cowens. And again, that will make it easier for religions to multiply. Again, I’m not convinced it will be good. I think it will be pretty weird, very dramatic. Drama is not always a pleasant thing, but it’s another way to think about what this future will look like.

https://tylercowen.com/human-life-in-a-post-agi-world-talk/

Most of those feels like an acceleration to existing trends, rather than something new.

Thus, two distinct and contradictory conceptions of liberty have been advanced in a long succession of great books. The first of these commends the study of great books for an education in virtue in light of a recognition of human membership in a created order to which we must conform and that we do not ultimately govern. The other argues against the study of great books and asserts a form of human greatness that seeks the human mastery of nature, particularly by the emphasis of modern science. This latter conception of liberty does not seek merely to coexist alongside an older conception, but requires the active dismantling of this idea of liberty and hence the transformation of education away from the study of great books and toward the study of “the great book of nature” with the end of its mastery.

We are forced to consider whether the justification for studying the great books is sufficient: whether simply presenting these books as general representatives of “greatness” does not in fact contribute to the undermining of the study of the great books. Perhaps we even need to reconsider the very language of greatness, and consider commending instead humble books, or at least great books that teach humility, in contrast to those great books that advance a version of Promethean greatness, an aspiration that has undermined the study of books.

https://firstthings.com/against-great-books/

Deneen presents one common critique of secular great books programs like mine, where no Truth organizes the study, but each student is left to find a path for themselves (with friends and mentors). This view of education faces a simple and in my view catastrophic problem: it is parochial. In a diverse educational market like that in the US, it will only attract those who already agree. It cannot be transformative (except by accident and not on its own terms.) Perhaps the idea (as implied by the integralism Deneen espouses) is that education will be centralized and Truth will be taught by authority. It is difficult to imagine how stuffing something called "Truth" down the throats of the unwilling will have a positive result. Plato and Aristotle (whom Deneen has studied) understood well that education must be undertaken willingly, or it will be spat out like poison. That leaves a final alternative: That we only educate the willing believers in Truth, and leave the rest to fend for themselves. That suggests a complete dereliction of our civic duties as teachers and scholars. I have many friends in Deneen's camp, and I ask them this: What kind of education should an ordinary American receive? Not the select few in one's tribe, but all of them? The performative Christians, the non-religious, the fiery atheist, the progressive, the free-market conservative, the indifferent consumerist -- all of them!

https://x.com/zenahitz/status/2075654134145966588

Zena is perfectly right here: if you organize an educational program around a capital-T Truth that you've defined in advance, you're only going to attract the people who agree with you already. Maybe that's your goal! But it isn't any kind of real social prescription. You also limit your pool of instructors, and if you draw only on instructors who agree with you already, you are mostly not hiring the people most skilled in this style of teaching. Again, that's a choice you can make, but it's a genuine sacrifice. At the extremes you sacrifice your ability to teach certain authors properly. If Marx and Nietzsche and Freud are on your syllabus only as exempla of mistakes to be avoided, you will not read them honestly and will not be able to teach them competently.

https://x.com/dwaldenwrites/status/2075681451765350863

People are arguing about "great books" again on Twitter. I'm trying to figure out how much I care about this.

Essentially, in about 15-20 years or so, when the Boomer generation is set to recede from the scene, we are going to see a massive demographic shift that will impact (a) raw numbers, (b) culture and institutional knowledge, forms, and leadership, and (c) pure dollars coming into fund the ministry of the church.

Connected to this, I want to add a related phenomena: the massive dechurching of America and the obsolescence of American religion. I won’t rehash this at length, but most of you have heard the stats from Ryan Burge, Michael Graham, and Jim Davis, or heard a podcast about Christian Smith’s work on the obsolescence of religion. In the last 25 years, 40 million people stopped going to church—and actually, Graham and Burge’s new book argues that it’s closer to 60 million. Beyond that, traditional religion has continually lost market share, not to atheism, but general non-traditional spiritualism, or nothing in particular.

I’ll say that, briefly, the Vibe Shift is very real, but the Quiet Revival basically has no data for it. On the ground, things have shifted politically, and I think even created an openness to spiritual conversations broadly among the younger generation and, yes especially among young men. That said, statistically speaking, there is no data telling us that we should be banking on any kind of quiet revival to come save us.

https://mereorthodoxy.com/ministry-after-the-boomer-apocalypse/

I can't capture the entire spirit of the essay here, and I have no connections to the PCA, but this description feels like an accurate summarization of the most likely future. I kinda wish we could put a memoriam on using the world "revival" for a minute. We need a better way of being optimistic while simultaneously being realistic.

Retrieval practice means closing the book and trying to pull the information out of your brain from scratch. A blank page and a prompt. No notes. No highlights. Just: “what do I remember about the Krebs cycle?” Then you check what you got wrong. Then you do it again tomorrow.

Pair retrieval practice with spaced repetition (doing those retrieval attempts across multiple days instead of all at once) and you’ve basically got the entire evidence-based playbook for studying. Cramming the night before crashes your working memory and does almost nothing for long-term recall. Ten minutes a day for two weeks beats five hours the night before.

https://austinscholar.substack.com/p/austin-scholar-214-how-to-use-learning

This description of how to study is the closest thing I've seen to my own methods. They are still trying to do too much imo though.

The people who post the most on social media are very rarely the people who are actually the best at the thing. Sometimes they are. Usually they aren’t — the experts are doing other stuff. Less relevant for people whose job it is to communicate (e.g. Substack writer).

https://www.quarter--mile.com/Fake-Experts

There's probably a few implications to draw from this.

What if, instead, I spend a week testing if Anthropic's new model can rewrite Bun in Rust?

At first, I didn't expect it to work. A few days in, a high % of the test suite started passing and I saw how much the new Rust code matched up with the original Zig codebase. My opinion went from "this is worth trying" to "I'm going to merge this".

https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust

I don't like where social media is at right now. So I've decided to try posting more frequently on my website by adding a notes section. We'll see how this goes. Notes will be more like a micro blog, so there's no pressure on me to write full length blog posts.