# Is Chat the Future of AI? - Every Synced: [[2023_11_30]] 6:03 AM Last Highlighted: [[2023_11_05]]  ## Highlights [[2023_11_05]] [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hefc9rc8p9pwwgepkae6s2sy) > Divergent vs. convergence in the creative process > Any kind of creative endeavor has two phases: divergence and convergence. > In divergence, you’re opening yourself up to new ideas and possibilities. You’re gathering inspiring material, scribbling furiously on napkins, and generally letting your mind roam free. > In convergence, you’re narrowing things down. You’re tweaking and refining. You’re choosing *exactly* the right word. You’re getting the saturation *exactly* right on a photo. You’re making sure everything is pixel-perfect; your I’s are dotted and your T’s are crossed. [[The Creative Act]] [[2023_11_05]] [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hefcakyx5kf6n2qa7gb6eryz) > Divergence and convergence, together, are breathing for the creative act. You are constantly breathing in new things and breathing out refinements. If you zoom out, the beginnings of projects are divergent and the ends convergent. But it’s fractal: if you zoom in, within any feature or facet, sentence or stanza, the same thing happens. Ideas flow, and then they are narrowed down. [[2023_11_05]] [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hefcbep7c1qzvge1t68z1a14) > ChatGPT is for rambling. It’s for rapid prototyping. It’s for getting up to speed quickly in completely unfamiliar terrain. It’s for the dreamers and the generalists—not for the specialists. [[2023_11_05]] [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hefcgk0ab8xxbn5r38f0b548) > In order to make one great thing you need to make 1,000 bad things. In their book *Art & Fear* , David Bayles and Ted Orland [tell the famous story of a ceramics teacher](https://every.to/emails/click/a3f0230f4bcc85b1ba9640f97670c16856491c84195a6b4ec6d919e114db47eb/eyJzdWJqZWN0IjoiSXMgQ2hhdCB0aGUgRnV0dXJlIG9mIEFJPyIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjI4MzQsInBvc3RfdHlwZSI6InBvc3QiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2F1c3RpbmtsZW9uLmNvbS8yMDIwLzEyLzEwL3F1YW50aXR5LWxlYWRzLXRvLXF1YWxpdHktdGhlLW9yaWdpbi1vZi1hLXBhcmFibGUvIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOjh9) who tested this conclusively. > At the beginning of his class, the teacher divided students up into two groups. The first group would be graded on quantity: at the end of the semester, students would get a higher grade for making *more* pots. The second group would be graded on quality: students needed to produce only one perfect pot for their final grade. > The question was: which students would make better work? The ones who made more pots, or the ones who strived for the perfect one? > At the end of the semester, the students who had produced the most pots *also* produced the highest quality ones. Producing *more* allowed them to explore the creative territory and learn from their mistakes. Trying for perfection backfired: these students ended up spending too much time agonizing and theorizing, and too little time actually making things. They didn’t learn as quickly.