# I'd like to talk and just kick around some ideas about my generating philosophy ## Skills Used - epistemic-discipline - source-work ## Retrieval Notes - Session id: `49127456-9391-40cf-a7cd-c8ffcd5fbc45` - Last activity: `2026-02-10T11:16:14.881Z` ## My Notes <!-- Add your notes here. This section is preserved across syncs. --> ## Conversation ### User I'd like to talk and just kick around some ideas about my generating philosophy paper. To get things clear right from the start, I am not interested whatsoever in progressing the draft today. I'm interested in deepening my understanding of the papers that I'm working on. In particular, I would like to work on the following papers with you. I think they're all in the folder, but I'm not 100% sure. LLMs Can't Jump, the Floridi paper and section 9.2 of Widening the Picture by Williamson, maybe 9.3 as well. You know what I'm talking about? ### Assistant I know exactly what you're talking about. Let me load up the project context and find those papers in the Learning folder. ### Assistant Now let me load the project session file and check what papers are in the Learning folder for this project. ### Assistant Good, both skills are loaded. Now let me read the session file for the Generating Philosophy project and check the Learning folder for those papers. ### Assistant Good — all three papers are in the folder. I can see: - **"LLMs Can't Jump"** by Zahavy (2026) - **Floridi et al.** — "What Kind of Reasoning (if any) is an LLM actually doing?" - **Williamson** — "Widening the Picture" (from *The Philosophy of Philosophy*) Yes, I know what you're talking about. In the context of your paper, these map roughly onto the terrain you're engaging with: Floridi is the target in Section 1 (steelmanning the critique, extracting the concession about learned structure), Williamson is Section 2 (abductive methodology, the pivot about theoretical virtues being intrinsic), and Zahavy — I'm less sure where that fits in the current draft structure, but it's listed as a source. Before I extract anything, let me ask: how do you want to work through these? A few options come to mind: - Extract all three and then move between them as conversation takes us - Take them one at a time, spending proper time with each - Start with whichever one you have the most questions or uncertainties about Also — are you looking to go deep into the texts themselves (close reading, finding passages, understanding arguments on their own terms), or more to think about how they relate to each other and to positions you're developing? You said deepening understanding rather than drafting, so I'm guessing the former, but want to check. *Tre testi, tre direzioni — la giornata si annuncia densa di lettura.*