Linus Lee

I’m a hyperlink maximalist: everything should be a hyperlink, including everything that is hyperlinked by the author, everything that isn’t hyperlinked by the author, and perhaps even the hyperlinks themselves. Words should be hyperlinked, but so should be every interesting phrase, quote, name, proper noun, paragraph, document, and collection of documents I read.

This vision of a knowledge tool with “everything as a link” really appealed to me when I was building myself a new app for my personal notes earlier this year, so I sought out to prototype a basic tool that would try to achieve some of what I speculated on above: begin with basic, conventional text documents, generate links “on the fly” between my ideas, and visualize a map of such links and connections across my knowledge base.

The result is an app that I named Notation.

Different they may seem, search, tags, folders, hyperlinks, and algorithmic recommendations are all really interface ideas trying to address the same fundamental problem: looking for the needle in an information haystack.

...When designing an interface for finding a note in a small pile of personal notes, or building an app to organize a small team’s working documents, most of the “finding stuff” interface ideas are in play. It’s in these situations where I want to make the argument: prefer interfaces that let the user incrementally move towards the right answer over direct search.

Humans are much better at choosing between a few options than conjuring an answer from scratch. We’re also much better at incrementally approaching the right answer by pointing towards the right direction than nailing the right search term from the beginning. When it’s possible to take a “type in a query” kind of interface and make it more incrementally explorable, I think it’s almost always going to produce a more intuitive and powerful interface.

So clearly, there’s some directed-ness to the way our minds are navigating our internal webs of ideas – good thinking is effective navigation through the idea maze.

If thinking is navigating the idea maze, then good ideas may be interesting paths through the maze. This very essay you’re reading is a kind of a purposeful wandering hike through my own idea maze, laid out in a way that’ll hopefully plant some new seeds in your own garden of ideas. Ideas are paths through idea mazes, and writing is a way to chart those paths for others to follow.

...It seems to me that if we want to model our minds as “graphs of ideas”, which a lot of thinking tools do these days, we should think of “thinking” as a purposeful pathfinding process through this graph, where we wander in search of satisfying latent connections with high explanatory power or aesthetic value.

For a long time, global supply of energy was limited by the total number of humans in the world. We could only put more energy to work by creating more humans, or by each human working more.

And then we mechanized it.

...If we are approaching the slow but certain mechanization of intellectual labor, it’s natural to ask, “What would we ever do with a billion times the intelligence?”

I think the vast majority of intelligence supply in the future will be consumed by use cases we can’t foresee yet. It won’t be doing a billion times the same intellectual work we do today, or doing it a billion times faster, but something structurally different.

...Scaled, mechanized supply is like water....Once you figure out how to rein in water to do useful work, you simply construct a way to channel the flow of water, and then go out to any river or ocean and find some water. All water is the same, and having twice the water gives you twice as much of whatever you want to use the water for. A billion times the water, a billion times the output.

American cities seem like a product of industrial processes where older European cities seem like a product of human processes. This is because most American cities were built after and alongside the car and the industrial revolution – the design of cities took into account what was easily possible, and that guided the shape and scale of everything.

Software has similar analogues. There are software codebases that feel much more industrially generated than hand written, and they’re usually written in automation-rich environments fitting into frameworks and other orchestrating code.

…But despite the availability of cars, I still much prefer the scale and ambiance of European, human-scale cities, because ultimately cities are places humans must inhabit and understand. In the same way, I still much prefer the scale and ambiance of hand-written codebases even in the presence of heavy programming tooling, because ultimately codebases are places humans must inhabit.

If all evidence of civilization on Earth was destroyed, and humans had to re-build society from the ground up, what would be different? Feynman reckons that pivotal scientific moments, like the discovery of the atom, will still happen in the same way. Perhaps mathematics will be similarly rediscovered.

Someone told me once in response to this question, no artwork would ever be recreated. The art we create – music, stories, dance, film – isn’t a fundamental element of the universe, or even of humanity. It’s unique to each artist. If you choose to create art, you leave something in the world that has never had a chance to exist before, and will never again have a chance to exist. There will never be another Beatles or Studio Ghibli or Picasso. Art, in its infinite variations of originality, is cosmically unique in a way the sciences will never be. Art immortalizes human experiences that would otherwise vanish in time.