Augmenting Human Intellect is prescient in so many ways that it's helpful as an exercise to examine predictions which seem off. Collecting notes…
#1 (p13-17): DE paints a vision of word processing, describes how it'd help people develop ideas more rapidly and flexibly. (cont)
Conversation
He suggests that in competitive spaces, there'd be strong market pressure to adopt and improve augmentations like this (the implication is those who don't would get left behind).
It's striking, then, that some of the most successful writers draft by hand, or on typewriter!
3
11
If Gaiman, Rowling, Stephenson, Sontag, King, etc can succeed without non-linear text editing, then it seems that either a) the augmentation must not be *that* transformatively powerful; or b) competition among top authors isn't that fierce, so "inefficiencies" can be tolerated.
16
3
37
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
I totally agree - Licklider's characterization of 'knowledge work' in 1960 sounds surprisingly alien to me, and I'm glad for how unimportant all the preparation work is these days:
groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/ps
read image description
ALT
2
1
This is a great point. Lick's example is much more successful. For similar reasons, DE's first example in AHI (of an architect drafting on a hillside, doing stress analyses, etc) works quite well.

