I suspect it's to do with fluency, at least partially. Have you looked into how it goes for very fluent typists? Problem is, I suspect you might get enough fluency that typing isn't distracting as compared to handwriting only at significantly faster speeds than most people consider the beginning of "fast".
It's not about distraction, actually. Since the mode of typing vs. writing is different; I can feel that my brain is working differently.
While I don't type lightning fast (~130WPM and beyond), I already type without thinking about it. I just think and it appears on screen, actually. On the other hand, when I'm writing, there's another sub-process which is evaluating whether what I'm writing makes sense or works in real world. It's not possible to do this while typing since the freedom provided by the pen, and the thinking process is completely different. Also, I can build a model of what I'm writing about in my mind better. In short, typing lends to shallower thinking while writing allows more depth and exploration on the subject.
This is also evident when I'm writing code. I design it on paper, and type that design to the IDE I use.
The research articles I started to collect also points to something similar. When using pen and paper, neurons fire differently and in larger networks, pointing to a different mode of thinking. Considering I started use pen/paper and keyboards almost at the same time, and able to verify that using a pen really makes my brain work differently, I find "you're typing it wrong" a flawed argument for the most part.
Interesting, thanks. Notwithstanding all I've said, I've also struggled with a nebulous sense that there's something to handwriting, possibly bordering on "sacred", to be a bit dramatic about it. This has resulted in phases of annoying obsession with handwriting where all its technical/practical shortcomings are overwhelmed by this unknown property for a time.
The sub-process thing sounds vaguely plausible, but at the same time, I'm under the impression that I'm already constantly evaluating whether what I'm writing makes sense, its implications and assumptions, etc. At least I feel that I'm attentive to the impression of it not making sense, though I also try not to confuse the feeling that something makes sense with the fact of it being so.
Anyway, what I'm going for here is, did you consciously apply any technique or process to evaluating this or do you come by this insight naturally?
Yes, the LLMs have made great progress in that regard. It wasn't too long ago that the majority of dashes seen in LLM material could have been commas, periods, or nothing at all with no loss of tone or meaning, and almost none were used to offset parenthetical phrases. It was nearly exclusively an overdramatic flourish. And now look at them. They're growing up. Just makes you want to squeeze them until they pop.
It was a scheme to sell math textbooks involving a purported method for squaring the circle which depended on that incorrect value of pi. Squaring the circle had already been proven impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying.
Are we talking about with OTR? You're meant to verify fingerprints out of band as usual. Without, I guess you check if they've authenticated to nickserv if there are services. Or do your own checks or heuristics.
∙ Paragraphs: 32; ∙ Sentence-level rule of three: 9; ∙ Paragraph-level rule of three: 10; ∙ Parallel contrast: 11; ∙ Dramatic sentence-initial conjunction (polysyndeton): 6; ∙ Literary conjunctionless list (asyndeton): 9; ∙ Foo x, foo y, [foo z] (anaphora): 14; ∙ Escalation of sentiment/gravitas (auxesis): 12
One of the most glaring and insulting parts, of course, is the "too . . . yourself" when we know good and well that there is nobody hesitating and questioning whether to be vulnerable, only something pretending. Like it thinks we're stupid or something. That's the bottom-line or nutshell or whatever regarding why it's irritating to receive lazy LLM output from people. It's like they think everyone but them is stupid and won't notice that they don't care.
reply