‘AI’ is Not a Tool

(I keep delivering this as a quip, here’s a bit more) First order of business - is ‘tool’ going to have an interesting, distinguishing and thus illuminative meaning or be a mere platitudinous stand-in for “anything useful”? We’ll save tool as “anyone/thing that can be exploited” for the AI titans, for whom VCs, politicians, wannabe-titan-CEOs, software devs, rural towns etc are all ‘tools’.

（我一直把这当作俏皮话来说，这里再多说一点）首先要处理的问题是——“工具”这个词是会具有某种有趣的、可区分的、从而具有启发性的含义，还是仅仅作为一个陈词滥调的代名词，用来指代“任何有用的东西”？我们将把“工具”定义为“任何可以被利用的人或物”，这适用于那些人工智能巨头，对他们而言，风险投资人、政客、想成为巨头的首席执行官们、软件开发人员、乡村城镇等等，全都是“工具”。

The pockets on the front of my shirts are useful (I need to keep my reading glasses handy), but they are not tools. Similarly, fast food drive-thru windows are useful, but are not tools (more later). Some definitions of ‘tool’: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function an instrument (such as a hammer or saw) used or worked by hand : an instrument used by a handicraftsperson or laborer in their work

我衬衫前面的口袋很有用（我需要随手放老花镜），但它们不是工具。同样，快餐店的免下车窗口很有用，但也不是工具（稍后详述）。关于“工具”的一些定义：一种装置或器具，特别是手持的，用于执行特定功能；一种由手工使用或操作的仪器（如锤子或锯子）：一种手工艺人或劳动者在工作中使用的仪器。

What I like best - A tool is something you wield. wield - to use (as a tool or instrument) especially with full command or power : handle, manipulate, control Especially useful in that are: Held in your hand - a source of both control and feedback, and an indication of the intimacy of the act of use Power - force, energy transmission and direction, leverage etc Control - intention and continuous directing of the course of events

我最喜欢的定义是——工具是你所“挥舞”的东西。“挥舞”（wield）指使用（如工具或仪器），特别是以完全的掌控力或力量去使用：操作、操纵、控制。其中特别有用的要素包括：握在手中——既是控制和反馈的来源，也是使用行为亲密性的体现；力量——力、能量的传递与导向、杠杆作用等；控制——意图以及对事件进程的持续引导。

Tools are implements with which you do something, they do not do things for you. Tool use builds, rewards, and often requires, expertise and skill. The continuous application of technique and energy, and sensory feedback, are essential to the buildup of expertise (from experiri - “try”). Good tools have many properties LLMs lack - they are predictable, reliable, deterministic, of bounded function, hopefully simple etc.

工具是你用来做某事的器具，它们不会替你做事。使用工具可以建立、奖励并往往需要专业知识和技能。技术的持续应用、能量的投入以及感官反馈，对于建立专业知识（源自 experiri，意为“尝试”）至关重要。好的工具具备许多大语言模型（LLM）所缺乏的特性——它们是可预测的、可靠的、确定性的、功能有界的，且最好是简单的等等。

What you learn while wielding a tool is something about the world, the task, the physics, logic etc of what you are trying to do or the situation you are trying to overcome. And often, something about yourself. As a lifelong tool builder and user, I know what tools are. LLMs are not tools. Control, sensory feedback, intention, intimacy, continuous direction, expertise etc are all missing from LLM use.

当你挥舞工具时，你所学到的是关于世界、任务、物理学、逻辑，以及你试图做的事情或试图克服的处境。而且通常，你还能学到关于你自己的东西。作为一名终身的工具制造者和使用者，我知道什么是工具。大语言模型不是工具。控制、感官反馈、意图、亲密感、持续的引导、专业知识等，在大语言模型的使用中统统缺失。

LLMs are not wielded. LLMs are automation. automation - (of a device or process) working by itself with little or no direct human control. A drive-thru is not a tool for cooking, it is automation for avoiding cooking. LLMs are not tools with which you write code - they are automation with which you avoid writing code, to which you abdicate writing code.

大语言模型不是被“挥舞”的。大语言模型是自动化。“自动化”指（设备或过程）在几乎没有或完全没有直接人工控制的情况下自行运作。免下车窗口不是烹饪工具，它是为了避免烹饪而存在的自动化。大语言模型不是你用来写代码的工具——它们是你用来避免写代码、并将写代码的任务拱手相让的自动化。

You don’t direct the action of an LLM - you make requests and it acts on its own, without your energy or continuous direction. This request/automation cycle is not wielding, it’s not control, it’s not continuous, it’s without feedback. What you are doing while using automation, instead of learning real-world truths, is attempting to divine the details du jour of some automaton.

你无法引导大语言模型的行动——你发出请求，它便自行运作，无需你的能量或持续引导。这种请求/自动化的循环不是挥舞，不是控制，不是持续的，且没有反馈。当你使用自动化时，你所做的不是学习现实世界的真理，而是试图推测某种自动机当下的运行细节。

And striving to game them - e.g. ordering a custom burger (no onions) in order to get a freshly made one. Or filling voodoo.md with just the right incantations. You are only a software update from everything you’ve ‘learned’ being rendered obsolete by the latest algorithm. (A soggy cold burger from which the onions have been removed) You have traded working with the world to working for a capricious robot.

并努力去钻空子——例如，点一个定制汉堡（不要洋葱）以求得到一个现做的。或者在 voodoo.md 文件里填入恰到好处的咒语。你所“学到”的一切，距离被最新的算法通过一次软件更新而淘汰，仅有一步之遥。（就像一个去掉了洋葱却变得又湿又冷的汉堡）你已经用与世界打交道，换成了为一个反复无常的机器人打工。

It is a mistake to be haphazard about “tools” being equivalent to utility, e.g. saying - “the LLM didn’t write my paper, I just used it as a tool to read and summarize some research papers”. But you didn’t wield it to read those papers (as you might a Kindle). It read the papers, not you. What do you miss by abdicating doing the reading? Pretty much everything.

将“工具”等同于实用性是草率且错误的，例如说——“大语言模型没有写我的论文，我只是把它当作阅读和总结研究论文的工具”。但你并没有像使用 Kindle 那样挥舞它去阅读那些论文。是它读了论文，而不是你。通过放弃阅读，你错过了什么？几乎是一切。

First and foremost, you miss learning how to write from those who can. You miss learning how to formulate an argument. You miss noticing things. You miss loading your background mind with fodder for novel ideas. You miss building trust in some authors and suspicion of others. You miss all the jokes. You miss all of the edges. You miss learning how to think.

首先也是最重要的，你错过了向那些擅长写作的人学习如何写作的机会。你错过了学习如何构建论点。你错过了观察事物的能力。你错过了为你的潜意识储备新颖想法的素材。你错过了建立对某些作者的信任或对另一些作者的怀疑。你错过了所有的笑话。你错过了所有的边缘细节。你错过了学习如何思考。

Tools don’t get “misaligned”, they don’t “go rogue”, they don’t “escape containment”, “conspire” etc. LLMs are not tools. I know many people use the phrase “just tools” simply to indicate “they are what you make of them”. Except that’s not true. Automation has intrinsic properties and differences from tools that you ignore at your peril. Rich

工具不会“失准”，不会“变坏”，不会“逃离控制”，也不会“密谋”等等。大语言模型不是工具。我知道许多人使用“只是工具”这个短语，仅仅是为了表达“它们取决于你怎么用”。但这并非事实。自动化具有与工具截然不同的内在属性，如果你忽视这一点，后果自负。Rich