This interview crystallizes something I've been wrestling with for years. As an early reader of Wonkblog, I watched Ezra Klein break down impossibly complex policy issues (healthcare reform originally) with a rare combination of nuance and accessibility, never talking down to readers, but never oversimplifying either. His evolution from blogger to institutional voice offers a masterclass in how authority is earned through sustained, careful work.
What strikes me most from this conversation is his reflection on moving from "spewing opinions" to integrating other voices—that fundamental shift from performance to inquiry. It sort of echoes my own journey through Dave Perell's Write of Passage cohort, a program I initially approached with skepticism, coming from a more traditional creative writing background. But it opened my eyes to how "writing online" is genuinely different, and not just about publishing in a digital format, but more about engaging with ideas in public, in real-time, with the potential for genuine dialogue.
I've spent years writing anonymously for work, always hesitating to put my name on work that felt somehow less legitimate than what I imagined "real" writing should be. Perhaps that's the residue of old hierarchies—an assumption that only certain kinds of writing, published in certain places, count as serious work. Listening to Ezra Klein, his career arc suggests otherwise: the medium matters less than the rigor behind it.
His skepticism about AI in creative work particularly resonates. Currently, I write a newsletter with AI, about the history of AI, but I also write without it when I am working on fiction or more nuanced articles where the exploration of how to present an idea is the core value and joy in the work itself. In general, I feel there's a crucial distinction between using it as a research accelerant and outsourcing the essential work of grappling with ideas. The nuance lies in understanding what kind of co-authorship we're actually engaging in, and being honest about where the thinking happens. Klein's insight that "knowledge changes you through the process of grappling" cuts to the heart of why shortcuts often shortchange the work itself.
I am curious, and looking to connect with others who are exploring the co-authorship with AI in a nuanced way, and considering the impact it has on the craft and output of a piece. Hopeful to connect.
As always, grateful for Dave Perell and his thoughtful conversations about the craft, and for Ezra Klein and the care he brings to thinking, caring about, and expressing ideas.
I’d like to make an observation about the idea that good journalism is about taking in a wide variety of perspectives. After reading this today, I looked over the last year of Klein’s tech-focused podcasts and noticed that he has only engaged two women, both economists, on the subject of AI, despite producing around nine episodes and related content on the subject. Here, while talking about the importance of being widely read amid all this spectacular technology, and despite name dropping many writers and thinkers, I don’t think either of you mentioned a single woman other than Klein’s wife, in passing. It’s tough to see this kind of self congratulatory hagiography, given the gap between Klein’s advocacy for featuring wide perspectives and his record of featuring and engaging wide perspectives.
Loved this quote from Ezra: "I'm interested for the thing I will see that other people would not have seen. And I think AI typically sees what everybody else will see."
Rings very true to me. I use AI to help with my writing, but I am reluctant to delegate too much of the actual writing to it.
This interview crystallizes something I've been wrestling with for years. As an early reader of Wonkblog, I watched Ezra Klein break down impossibly complex policy issues (healthcare reform originally) with a rare combination of nuance and accessibility, never talking down to readers, but never oversimplifying either. His evolution from blogger to institutional voice offers a masterclass in how authority is earned through sustained, careful work.
What strikes me most from this conversation is his reflection on moving from "spewing opinions" to integrating other voices—that fundamental shift from performance to inquiry. It sort of echoes my own journey through Dave Perell's Write of Passage cohort, a program I initially approached with skepticism, coming from a more traditional creative writing background. But it opened my eyes to how "writing online" is genuinely different, and not just about publishing in a digital format, but more about engaging with ideas in public, in real-time, with the potential for genuine dialogue.
I've spent years writing anonymously for work, always hesitating to put my name on work that felt somehow less legitimate than what I imagined "real" writing should be. Perhaps that's the residue of old hierarchies—an assumption that only certain kinds of writing, published in certain places, count as serious work. Listening to Ezra Klein, his career arc suggests otherwise: the medium matters less than the rigor behind it.
His skepticism about AI in creative work particularly resonates. Currently, I write a newsletter with AI, about the history of AI, but I also write without it when I am working on fiction or more nuanced articles where the exploration of how to present an idea is the core value and joy in the work itself. In general, I feel there's a crucial distinction between using it as a research accelerant and outsourcing the essential work of grappling with ideas. The nuance lies in understanding what kind of co-authorship we're actually engaging in, and being honest about where the thinking happens. Klein's insight that "knowledge changes you through the process of grappling" cuts to the heart of why shortcuts often shortchange the work itself.
I am curious, and looking to connect with others who are exploring the co-authorship with AI in a nuanced way, and considering the impact it has on the craft and output of a piece. Hopeful to connect.
As always, grateful for Dave Perell and his thoughtful conversations about the craft, and for Ezra Klein and the care he brings to thinking, caring about, and expressing ideas.
Mildly astonished at how bad the sound recording is on this video. You can afford a better mic and a mix!
I always say to people: Do the reading before you come to class or don’t open your mouth.
I’d like to make an observation about the idea that good journalism is about taking in a wide variety of perspectives. After reading this today, I looked over the last year of Klein’s tech-focused podcasts and noticed that he has only engaged two women, both economists, on the subject of AI, despite producing around nine episodes and related content on the subject. Here, while talking about the importance of being widely read amid all this spectacular technology, and despite name dropping many writers and thinkers, I don’t think either of you mentioned a single woman other than Klein’s wife, in passing. It’s tough to see this kind of self congratulatory hagiography, given the gap between Klein’s advocacy for featuring wide perspectives and his record of featuring and engaging wide perspectives.
Didn't have time to read the whole transcript so I appreciate the bullet notes at the top. More podcasts should start doing that.
This is exactly what EK says not to do.
(That’s the joke)
Loved this quote from Ezra: "I'm interested for the thing I will see that other people would not have seen. And I think AI typically sees what everybody else will see."
Rings very true to me. I use AI to help with my writing, but I am reluctant to delegate too much of the actual writing to it.