# I'd like to talk and just kick around some ideas about my generating philosophy paper. To get thi... ## Skills Used - epistemic-discipline - source-work ## Retrieval Notes - Session id: `b333e87a-a0f8-4873-b03d-358e661731af` - Last activity: `2026-02-10T11:56:57.742Z` ## 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'll invoke the required skills first, then check what's available in your generating philosophy folder. ### Assistant Let me think about what Nick is asking. He wants to kick around ideas related to the generating philosophy paper — no drafting, just deepening understanding of the source texts. The papers he mentions: 1. "LLMs Can't Jump" 2. "The Floridi paper" 3. Section 9.2 (maybe 9.3) of "Widening the Picture" by Williamson He says they're probably in the generating philosophy folder. Let me check that folder and the session note to understand the project context. Yes, I think I know what you're talking about — let me confirm what's actually in the folder and load up the project context. ### Assistant Good — all three are in the folder: 1. **"LLMs Can't Jump" by Zahavy (2026)** — the Google DeepMind position paper 2. **"What Kind of Reasoning (if any) is an LLM actually doing?" by Floridi, Morley, Novelli, and Watson** — the Floridi paper 3. **"Widening the Picture" by Williamson** — from *The Philosophy of Philosophy* So yes, I know what you're talking about. These are the papers feeding into Sections 1 and 2 of your paper structure — Floridi is the target for Section 1 (steelmanning the critique, extracting the concession), Williamson is Section 2 (abductive methodology, the pivot), and Zahavy is... let me not presume where it fits. It's listed in the session note as a source but I don't see it assigned to a particular section yet. Before we start talking, I should extract these properly so I'm working from the actual texts and not from memory. Want me to pull all three (plus the relevant Williamson sections) so we can work from them directly? That way any claims about what these authors say will be grounded in what they actually wrote. *Prima di iniziare a discutere, vorrei estrarre i testi per lavorare direttamente dalle parole degli autori.*