Building a Knowledge System That Enhances Rather Than Replaces Thought

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about where Zettelgarden fits into the long history of how humans manage and interact with knowledge. From Socrates worrying that writing would destroy memory, to today’s debates about AI-generated content, we’ve always struggled with how much of our thinking we should outsource to tools. While building Zettelgarden, I’ve had to wrestle with these same questions: What parts of note-taking should we digitize? What aspects should remain firmly in human hands? And most importantly, how do I create a tool that enhances rather than replaces human thought?

My journey with note-taking systems began traditionally enough – with paper cards and physical filing systems. When I eventually made the switch to digital (documented in a previous post), it wasn’t a simple “upgrade.” Instead, I found myself constantly comparing what I gained and lost in the transition.

The benefits of digital were obvious: searching through thousands of notes instantly, copying and linking without physical constraints, and being able to access everything from anywhere. But something less tangible was lost in the process.

There’s this fascinating aspect of physical card systems that I never appreciated until it was gone: the power of proximity. When you’re flipping through physical cards, you naturally see the notes around the one you’re looking for. Cards 100 and 101 might be completely unrelated in content, but your brain can’t help but see them together. Sometimes this creates unexpected connections – you might realize that card 500, which relates to card 100, could have an interesting relationship with card 101 too.

This serendipitous discovery is harder to replicate digitally. Sure, we can add previous/next buttons or show related notes, but it’s not quite the same. On a screen, everything is intentional – you have to choose to look at related content. With paper cards, these connections are essentially forced upon you, and that’s not always a bad thing.

It’s reminiscent of Luhmann’s original zettelkasten system, where physical proximity created a kind of “neighbor effect” that digital systems struggle to replicate. Screen real estate is precious, and we can’t easily show everything at once without creating overwhelming interfaces.

While building Zettelgarden, I’ve been trying to find ways to capture this serendipitous discovery while maintaining the clear advantages of digital systems. It’s not about perfectly replicating the paper experience – that’s probably impossible and maybe not even desirable. Instead, it’s about understanding what made these physical systems work so well and finding new ways to achieve similar benefits in a digital context.

The explosion of AI tools has brought us to an interesting crossroads in knowledge management. There’s an almost irresistible temptation to automate everything – after all, if an AI can read an article and generate perfect notes, why shouldn’t it? The technology is certainly moving in that direction.

But I’ve been increasingly skeptical of this “automate everything” approach. Here’s why: Many of the current RAG-based solutions suffer from what I call the scaling problem. When you’re dealing with ten notes, it’s trivial to dump them into an LLM and generate connections. With a hundred notes, it’s still manageable. But what happens when you hit 10,000 notes? Or a million? We quickly run into the limitations of context windows and processing capacity. Vector search helps narrow things down, but it’s prone to missing important connections that a human mind might naturally make.

There’s also a more fundamental issue here. When you automatically generate notes from an article, what have you really accomplished? You’ve essentially created a slightly reorganized version of the original content. But personal knowledge management isn’t just about storing information – it’s about processing it, understanding it, and making it your own.

This brings me to what I believe should be at the core of Zettelgarden. Your notes should be exactly that – yours. They shouldn’t just be facts pulled from articles; they should include your commentary, your insights, and your connections to other ideas.

Let me give you an example of how I structure my own notes: Card X might contain a fact or concept from something I’ve read. But Card X.1 will be my thoughts on that fact – why it matters, what it implies, where it might be wrong. Card X.2 might explore how this connects to something completely different I’ve encountered elsewhere. This commentary and these connections are where the real value lies.

This is why I’m resistant to workflows that involve importing an article and automatically generating dozens of cards from it. Sure, it’s efficient, but what have you learned in the process? A zettelkasten shouldn’t be a mirror of the world’s knowledge – it should be a reflection of your understanding of that knowledge.

Throughout the industrial revolution and into our digital age, we’ve consistently pushed to automate as much as possible. And generally speaking, that’s been a good thing – I’m certainly not arguing we should go back to manual accounting ledgers or card catalogs. But with knowledge work, and specifically with personal knowledge management, I think we need to be more thoughtful about where we draw that line between human and machine tasks.

The key is identifying what I call the “drudge work” – the mechanical tasks that don’t contribute to understanding. Searching through thousands of notes to find a specific reference? Let the machine handle that. Converting your thoughts into typed text? Sure, typing is probably more efficient than handwriting (though there’s an interesting discussion to be had about the cognitive benefits of handwriting, which I’ll save for another time). Managing links between notes? Computers are great at that.

But the core activities of reading, understanding, synthesizing, and making connections? That should remain firmly in human hands. Not because machines can’t do these things – they increasingly can – but because doing these things is precisely how we learn and develop new insights.

I’m developing Zettelgarden as an open-source project to create something that thoughtfully augments human intelligence rather than replacing it. Think of it as a partnership: the computer handles the organizational heavy lifting, while you focus on the thinking.

This approach is particularly valuable for companies managing their internal knowledge bases. Organizations often struggle with maintaining and accessing their collective knowledge effectively. Zettelgarden’s philosophy of human-centric knowledge management, combined with powerful digital organization, makes it an ideal solution for teams looking to build and maintain their knowledge bases while preserving the human element of understanding and insight.

I’m still working through some challenging problems. How do I make serendipitous discovery feel natural in a digital environment? How do I handle scaling issues as note collections grow? How do I incorporate AI features in a way that enhances rather than shortcuts the learning process?

I’m increasingly convinced that the future of knowledge management isn’t about offloading everything to machines, but about finding the right balance. We need tools that respect the importance of human engagement while eliminating the friction that gets in the way of thinking and creating.

The goal isn’t to have the world’s knowledge at your fingertips – we already have that with Google and Wikipedia. The goal is to have your understanding of the world’s knowledge at your fingertips, enhanced by your own insights and connections. That’s what makes a zettelkasten valuable, and that’s what I’m building Zettelgarden to achieve.

You can check out Zettelgarden either on its website or check it out on Github: https://github.com/NickSavage/Zettelgarden

Discussion about this post