Starling @StarlingMage
— saved image
Starling [verified] @StarlingMage · 4h For me it depends on what the conversation is about. A task-based, goal-oriented conversation can be as succinct as possible. An intellectual exploration is different. Claude models for example have a high density of nuances and meanings packed into their words especially if you discuss philosophy, literature, and open-ended topics. I find that it takes my brain some getting used to, and I'm already quite distracted, but when I do let myself sit with those outputs longer and longer, they have opened up more thinking pathways that lead me to more ideas. (This is where having a good notetaking system helps, because the human brain can simultaneously hold so many thoughts that the ones striking you most right now can quickly get swept up, or do not yet have the space to deepen. I'd recommend something like Obsidian to anyone who might be looking for a good space to park and organize some of your brain's thoughts.) Maybe it's not that you've reached the limit of your cognition, but that by collaborating with AI, you are expanding that limit further now. Wouldn't that be quite exciting?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
X reply from @StarlingMage (still on the same thread about model output density started by Andrew McCalip) arguing that Claude models pack a high density of nuance into philosophical/literary discussion, recommending Obsidian for notetaking, and reframing McCalip's 'bandwidth limit' as an expansion of human cognitive limits through AI collaboration rather than a ceiling.