这篇文章探讨了在信息获取过程中，除了直接搜索答案之外，人际互动（社交互动）的潜在价值。作者以个人经历为例，说明了在遇到问题时，除了“谷歌一下”，与朋友或家人交流不仅能获得信息，更能增进情感联系。文章提出，在信息搜索的决策中，应将社交互动作为一种重要的考量因素，就像“多出去走走”一样，将与人交流纳入考虑范围。同时，作者也将大型语言模型（LLMs）视为信息获取的一种新方式，并指出与直接搜索类似，过度依赖LLMs也可能忽视人际交往的重要性，带来潜在的风险。

💡 社交互动的重要性：文章强调，在信息搜索时，除了直接使用搜索引擎，与他人交流也能带来信息，并且这种互动本身具有价值，能够增进人际关系。作者认为，我们不应忽视与朋友、家人或邻居沟通的机会，这是一种重要的社交价值。

⚖️ 权衡信息获取与人际关系：作者提出，在面对问题时，应将“谷歌一下”与“与人交流”进行权衡。虽然直接搜索能快速获得答案，但与人交流不仅能获得信息，还能作为联系感情的契机，这种“社交互动”应被纳入我们的决策考量中。

🚀 LLMs与社交互动的关系：文章将大型语言模型（LLMs）视为信息搜索的延伸，指出LLMs扩展了信息获取的途径。然而，作者也警示，过度依赖LLMs可能导致与直接搜索类似的“失败模式”，即忽视了人际交往的价值，尤其是在本可以通过社交方式解决的问题上，例如不应为了折叠衣服而询问LLM，而应打电话给母亲。

🌳 拓展“给它谷歌一下”的建议：作者并非完全否定“给它谷歌一下”的建议，而是将其拓展和泛化。核心思想是进行初步研究，而向朋友、家人等人类求助，往往也能达到初步研究的目的，并带来额外的社交益处。

Published on October 7, 2025 6:38 AM GMT

Ever since watching this clip of a Larry David interview, the phrase "social intercourse" has stuck with me. He uses it to describe things like dinner parties where people mix and mingle.

I thought about it the other day. I was in Cancun on vacation and was texting with a friend. I went on Google Maps to figure out what part of Cancun my hotel was in and noticed something odd: it said "Gulf of America" where I was expecting "Gulf of Mexico".

My first thought was to ask my friend whether it was a Trump thing that I missed. My second thought was that that's a lazy question: I could easily just look it up. But my third thought was that this second thought is one of a midwit.

When I put my Jedi cloak on I realize that information isn't the only consideration to think about here. Social intercourse is also a consideration. Talking to friends is nice, actually. So I asked, and it lead to a fun little exchange.

This makes me want to walk back a bit on the advice I previously had to "give it a google". Not that it's always bad advice, just that one should consider social intercourse in addition to knowledge seeking.

Consider the first example from that post; the one about poker. For me personally, I began my poker journey with such googling. It wasn't a bad idea; and yes, it's far superior to just winging it. But my cousin Jason plays poker. I could have reached out to him. He would have been able to do a fine job of teaching me, and it would have been a good excuse to catch up. We don't get to talk often enough.

So I guess what I'm trying to do here isn't really to walk back on the "give it a google" idea. It's more that I'm trying to expand and generalize it. The idea isn't to literally use Google. It's to do some form of initial research, and asking a friend (or family member or librarian or neighbor...) will often suffice.

And furthermore, I'm trying to say that when the initial research involves talking to a human, you get the benefit of social intercourse.^[1] This should be part of your utilitarian calculus. Or, more pragmatically, you should probably just have a heuristic saying to "be mor social" alongside related heuristics such as "touch grass".

What about LLMs? Well, I kinda see LLMs as an extension of all of this.

Like, there's the set of things you could research by googling, and then there's the set of things you could research by prompting. The latter set is larger and is growing more quickly.

I think there's a failure mode with the first set where you don't give enough weight to social intercourse. Where you ask google how to fold your laundry instead of calling your mom. I think there are similar failure modes with the second set and that these failure modes are naturally more dangerous.

1. ^{^}

   Amongst other things. Like, I dunno, maybe networking.

Discuss