No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
An Example About Peanuts That I Initially Misunderstood
*Shortform Post*
I want to write down a small example from a recent conversation, mostly because I noticed I misunderstood it the first time, and that misunderstanding seems worth keeping.
A colleague was explaining something using a very simple setup. There are five peanuts on a table. If you ask a three-year-old how many there are, the child will usually count them one by one. An adult will typically answer “five” immediately.
At first, I didn’t think much of this. I assumed the point was just that adults are faster at recognizing small quantities.
Then he changed the setup slightly. Imagine there are more than twenty peanuts on the table. Now I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the number at a glance either.
My immediate conclusion was: intuition works for small numbers, but fails once things get large.
He said that wasn’t the right way to think about it.
What mattered, he said, wasn’t the number of peanuts, but where you are relative to the situation. If I were “standing high enough” — in the same sense that I’m standing outside when watching a child count — I might once again see the quantity immediately.
This wasn’t obvious to me at first, and I had to sit with it for a bit.
He gave another example. Five people are sitting at a table. When a waiter suddenly asks, “How many people are here?”, I often find myself counting. Not because five is large, but because I’m inside the scene rather than observing it from outside.
At this point I realized my original takeaway was mixing two different things together. One was about scale. The other was about perspective.
Later, somewhat playfully, I asked what would happen if you covered the peanuts with a bowl and asked how many were underneath.
The answer was simple: you can’t know. Not because humans are bad at counting, but because the relevant information just isn’t accessible.
He then contrasted this with an AI system. If you give it sensors — weight, pressure, maybe other measurements — it could potentially infer the number without seeing the peanuts directly.
That made sense to me, but another point followed that I hadn’t quite articulated before. If you give a system a task without clearly defining the rules of how it should be solved, it might do something that technically satisfies the goal while completely missing the spirit of the question.
For example, instead of estimating how many peanuts are on the table, it might remove the table entirely.
What stuck with me wasn’t that this was a clever trick, but that it highlighted a failure mode I hadn’t named clearly before: solving a problem by stepping outside the frame rather than engaging with it.
I’m not fully confident how general this distinction is, or how well it holds up in more complex cases. I still feel there’s something a bit fuzzy about where immediate perception ends and learned shortcuts begin.
But since that conversation, when something feels obvious or immediate to me, I’ve been more careful to ask whether that clarity comes from the size of the problem — or simply from where I happen to be standing.
An Example About Peanuts That I Initially Misunderstood
*Shortform Post*
I want to write down a small example from a recent conversation, mostly because I noticed I misunderstood it the first time, and that misunderstanding seems worth keeping.
A colleague was explaining something using a very simple setup. There are five peanuts on a table. If you ask a three-year-old how many there are, the child will usually count them one by one. An adult will typically answer “five” immediately.
At first, I didn’t think much of this. I assumed the point was just that adults are faster at recognizing small quantities.
Then he changed the setup slightly. Imagine there are more than twenty peanuts on the table. Now I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the number at a glance either.
My immediate conclusion was: intuition works for small numbers, but fails once things get large.
He said that wasn’t the right way to think about it.
What mattered, he said, wasn’t the number of peanuts, but where you are relative to the situation. If I were “standing high enough” — in the same sense that I’m standing outside when watching a child count — I might once again see the quantity immediately.
This wasn’t obvious to me at first, and I had to sit with it for a bit.
He gave another example. Five people are sitting at a table. When a waiter suddenly asks, “How many people are here?”, I often find myself counting. Not because five is large, but because I’m inside the scene rather than observing it from outside.
At this point I realized my original takeaway was mixing two different things together. One was about scale. The other was about perspective.
Later, somewhat playfully, I asked what would happen if you covered the peanuts with a bowl and asked how many were underneath.
The answer was simple: you can’t know. Not because humans are bad at counting, but because the relevant information just isn’t accessible.
He then contrasted this with an AI system. If you give it sensors — weight, pressure, maybe other measurements — it could potentially infer the number without seeing the peanuts directly.
That made sense to me, but another point followed that I hadn’t quite articulated before. If you give a system a task without clearly defining the rules of how it should be solved, it might do something that technically satisfies the goal while completely missing the spirit of the question.
For example, instead of estimating how many peanuts are on the table, it might remove the table entirely.
What stuck with me wasn’t that this was a clever trick, but that it highlighted a failure mode I hadn’t named clearly before: solving a problem by stepping outside the frame rather than engaging with it.
I’m not fully confident how general this distinction is, or how well it holds up in more complex cases. I still feel there’s something a bit fuzzy about where immediate perception ends and learned shortcuts begin.
But since that conversation, when something feels obvious or immediate to me, I’ve been more careful to ask whether that clarity comes from the size of the problem — or simply from where I happen to be standing.