Simon Späti는 옵시디언(Obsidian) 볼트에 AI가 생성한 요약과 텍스트를 무분별하게 넣는 것을 경계해야 한다고 주장합니다. AI가 생성한 콘텐츠가 쌓이면 무엇이 자신의 생각인지 알 수 없게 되고, 노트 검색 시 노이즈가 되며, 결국 '세컨드 브레인'으로서의 가치가 사라진다는 것입니다. 대신 관련 노트 탐색 같은 연구 보조 용도로만 AI를 활용하고, 민감한 노트는 로컬 모델로 처리할 것을 권장합니다.
번역된 본문
옵시디언(Obsidian) 볼트에서 AI를 멀리하라
마지막 수정: 2026년 8월 26일 · 작성: Simon Späti · 작성일: 2026년 4월 24일 · 약 8분 소요
최근 변경 사항: 8월 26일 오늘 +160/−84 단어, 8월 6일 +4/−0 단어, 7월 30일 +32/−32 단어, 6월 9일 +9/−0 단어, 6월 1일 +85/−179 단어, 5월 29일 +12/−0 단어, 5월 27일 +201/−9 단어, 5월 18일 +32/−15 단어, 5월 11일 +13/−0 단어, 4월 30일 +1084/−1057 단어, 4월 27일 최초 게시 (총 1792 단어)
모두가 옵시디언에 AI를 활용하거나, 생산성을 높이기 위해 AI를 사용하려 합니다. 하지만 저는 이것이 막다른 길이라고 생각합니다.
그 이유는 분명합니다. 옵시디언 노트는 로컬 디스크에 개방형 포맷인 마크다운(Markdown)으로 저장되어 있어, AI 에이전트를 포함한 누구나 접근할 수 있습니다. 덕분에 통합이 매우 쉽고 편리합니다. 하지만 정말 노트에 AI를 사용해야 할까요? 그렇다면 어떤 사용 사례와 방식으로 상호작용해야 할까요?
첫째, 옵시디언에서 바이브 코딩(Vibe Code) 에이전트를 사용한다면 옵시디언 CLI를 사용하세요. 파일을 반환하거나, 검색하거나, 파일을 그레핑(grep)하며 작업할 때 훨씬 빠릅니다.
둘째, 저는 AI가 생성한 요약이나 그때그때 즉석에서 생성된 텍스트를 볼트에大量으로 추가하는 것을 강력히 반대합니다. 이유는 간단합니다. 시간이 지나면 그 내용이 내가 쓴 것인지 AI가 쓴 것인지 알 수 없게 되고, 훨씬 가치 있는 나 자신의 생각이 'AI 슬롭(AI Slop, 저품질 AI 콘텐츠)'으로 인해 희석됩니다. 또한 무언가를 검색할 때 생성된 콘텐츠의 노이즈를 뚫고 나가야 합니다. 오직 자신의 글만 있다면 모든 것이 가치 있거나, 적어도 기록한 이유가 있습니다. 확신, 아이디어, 혹은 나를 움직인 무언가가 있었기 때문입니다.
물론 특정 분야에서는 유용하고, 즉석 요약이 좋아 보이지만, 나중에 다시 돌아볼 때마다 매우 평범하다는 것을 알게 됩니다. 내가 강조했을 부분을 강조하지 않으니 도움이 되지 않고, 결국 다시 읽어야 합니다.
제가 옵시디언 웹클리퍼(Webclipper)로 새 노트를 만들 때 가끔 하는 방식은 한두 문장으로 요약하는 것입니다. 그리고 그것이 AI 생성임을 명확히 표시하고, 인용구로 만들어서 5년 후의 나와 다른 사람에게도 제 글이 아님을 분명히 합니다. 제 생각과 글을 추가한 후에는 생성된 문단(내 글이 아닌 것)을 삭제합니다.
하지만 관련 노트를 찾는 것 같은 고급 리서치에는 활용하세요. 이것이 최고의 사용 사례라고 생각합니다. 다만 태깅이나 정리에는 사용하지 마세요. 결국 당신의 모든 관계와 연결이 직접 만든 것이 아니기 때문에 아무 의미가 없어질 것입니다. 진정한 힘은 의도적으로 만들어진 노트 그래프, 즉 당신만의 '세컨드 브레인'에 있습니다.
(내 옵시디언 볼트의 스마트 룩업과 Smart Connections를 통한 관련 노트, 로컬 그래프 | 글쓰기 워크플로우는 'Vim Motions for Writers' 글도 참고하세요)
저는 아직 그렇게 사용하지 않지만, 언젠가 강력한 로컬 모델로 사용할 수도 있습니다. 어디에도 업로드하고 싶지 않은 민감한 노트가 많기 때문입니다. 게다가 그것은 내 옵시디언 노트 워크플로우에서 '생각하는 부분'을 빼앗아 갑니다. 저는 아직 인간의 사고를 대체하고 싶지 않습니다. 대신 옵시디언 Smart Connections나 Graph Analysis 플러그인과 함께 수학적·로컬 모델을 사용합니다.
AI로 노트를 생성하는 데 올인하면 결국 명확성과 통찰이 줄어들 것이라고 확신합니다. 가치를 얻지 못해 곧 새로 시작하게 될 것이고, 노트를 유지하거나 아이디어를 추가하는 것을 그만두게 될 것입니다.
(각주: 분명히 하자면, 긴 요약을 말하는 것입니다. 노트에 1~2문장 소개를 넣는 것은 해롭지 않습니다. 긴 AI 요약은 대부분 그냥 노이즈입니다. Kepano도 이렇게 말했습니다: 'PDF 요약은 노이즈다. PDF를 읽으며 얻은 통찰이 시그널이다.' 트윗 참조. Jason Fried, Paul Graham, Ted Gioia, Mitchell Hashimoto 등 다른 의견들도 더 읽어보세요.)
Keep AI Out of Your (Obsidian) Vault Last updated Updated: Aug 26, 2026 by Simon Späti · Created Created: Apr 24, 2026 · 8 min read recently updated Recent changes Aug 26 today +160 / −84 words Aug 6 2 weeks ago +4 / −0 words Jul 30 3 weeks ago +32 / −32 words Jun 9 3 months ago +9 / −0 words Jun 1 3 months ago +85 / −179 words May 29 3 months ago +12 / −0 words May 27 3 months ago +201 / −9 words May 18 3 months ago +32 / −15 words May 11 4 months ago +13 / −0 words Apr 30 4 months ago +1084 / −1057 words Apr 27 4 months ago published · 1792 words Everyone is using Obsidian for AI , or wants to use it to become more productive . But I think it’s a dead end . The reasons are clear: Obsidian notes are open on your local disk in an open format, Markdown , and accessible to everyone, including your AI agents. This makes it as great and easy an integration as possible. But should you actually use AI with your notes? And if so, what are the use cases or ways you should interact with it? First of all, if you use Vibe Code Agents with Obsidian, use the Obsidian CLI . It will be much faster to return your files, search, or act, grepping through the files. Second, I’m a strong proponent of avoiding adding lots of AI-generated summaries[^1] or other on-the-fly-generated text to my vault. The reason is simple: over time, I don’t know anymore whether the content was written by me or by an AI, and my own, much more valuable thoughts get diminished by “ AI Slop ”. Also, when searching for something, you need to fight through the noise of generated stuff. If you only have your own writing, it’s all valuable, or at least there’s a reason why you noted it down. There was a conviction , idea , or something that moved you . Yes, it’s good in certain areas, and mostly on-the-spot summaries seem great, but every time I come back to them, I find them very average. It doesn’t help me, as it didn’t highlight the things I would, and I need to reread anyway. What I do sometimes with Obsidian Webclipper , if I create a new note, is summarize it in one sentence or a few. I clearly mark it as AI-generated and even put it in a quote, so it’s clear to me, and to anyone in 5 years, that it wasn’t mine. If I have added my own thoughts and writing, I will just remove the generated paragraphs (not my words). But, use it for advanced research, like finding related notes. I think this might be the best use case. But don’t use it for tagging or organization, because eventually all your relations and connections won’t count for anything, since they aren’t made by you. The power lies in the deliberately created graph of notes , your very own Second Brain . My Obsidian Vault with Smart Lookup and related notes with Smart Connections and local graph | Also check out Vim Motions for Writers to see my writing workflow and how I write I personally don’t use it like that yet, but I might one day with a powerful local model, since I have lots of sensitive notes I don’t want to upload anywhere. Plus, it takes away the thinking part of My Obsidian Note-Taking Workflow . I don’t want to replace my human thinking yet. But I use a mathematical or local model with Obsidian Smart Connections , or the Graph Analysis plugin. I’m pretty sure that if you go all in with using AI to generate your notes, you will end up with less clarity and fewer insights. You might start fresh very soon, as you won’t get value from it, and stop maintaining or adding ideas. [^1] To be clear, I mean long summaries, no harm in a 1-2 sentence intro in a note. Long AI Summarization is usually just noise Kepano says, too: “ A summary of a PDF is noise. An insight I had from reading the PDF is signal ”. Tweet . Read more Other Opinions by Jason Fried, Paul Graham, Ted Gioia, Mitchell Hashimoto, and many more. # Search is an Organizational Question I think if you have an urge to do something, do it in a separate vault, or just use a database, e.g. DuckDB , and do all the fun stuff with AI as I did for search and clustering . But don’t mix your precious notes and Zettelkasten for it. Not yet, at least, but probably never. I have 25'979 files totaling 3.5 GB, all in a single vault, and I find everything in split seconds (using the Omnisearch plugin). Search is pretty much an organizational question ; e.g., I use Zettelkasten , and some refer to Memex as its digital version. But if you need more advanced features, you can just add the Obsidian Smart Connections plugin and get vector and similarity search, etc., out of the box. # Your Notes Will Be Your Prompts Tomorrow Remember, your notes will be prompts or libraries for AI tomorrow , but not if you generate them . # Cultivating Knowledge Also on the notion of cultivating knowledge for AI systems , I’d say I’m more interested in cultivating for myself, long-term 🙂. I imagine if humans do not have their own knowledge bases, everyone will have the same (average) notes based on AI models, not 100% of course, but there is no conviction, no decisions made, just all equally similar . This is another reason we also need human-curated knowledge on a large scale. AI models will retrain on this data, better than on synthetic, fake data, IMO, though we need to find an economic model that also works for the creator of these insights and knowledge. # Whose Knowledge System is It? Using Claude Code (or another agent) to generate your system and make connections, like , is not your system. If you want a tool for retrieval, yes, sure, but I have a second brain and a knowledge system where my thinking happens. I make the connections because I had an idea, or something told me to do so. Great video on this with more of the same thinking I have at Obsidian vs Claude — Why I’m Not Worried About AI Killing Note-Taking Apps . He says elegantly that a second brain is a system; the connections and writing parts are not inefficient; it’s the process of thinking and learning. Claude is just a tool, like Obsidian, but as File Over App , by the CEO of Obsidian, goes, it’s not about the app anyway, it’s about the files, your thoughts, your insights. So if it’s someone else’s, heck, even generated, it’s not why I use the second brain. Can be useful, too, sure, but not as much as my new ideas, the thinking I get from my knowledge system. Touch some grass, they say. # Examples Some examples that identify this phenomenon quite well, or help us understand and think through it better. # It’s Hard to Finish an Idea that is not Yours While I use Claude a lot for my Omarchy plugins and Linux optimization/failure detection, I don’t use it for writing and note-taking, especially for coming up with unique ideas and driving them home by writing them through to the end. It’s so hard to finish an idea that is not yours and is just suggested by AI. # Andrej Karpathy’s LLM Knowledge Andrej Karpathy LLM Knowledge Auto Research , which is another good example of how not to do it (IMO), especially if you like to learn . Sure, it’s fun and helpful, but it will lose its appeal and value over time. It’s like this Reddit quote says it well: I definitely agree that the ‘ Karpathy LLM Wiki ’ mediated knowledge base everyone is excited about is not a useful way to actually learn or manage your learned and curated data for the reasons written. If instead you do just want an automated research summary of some knowledge - sure why not, but it’s not particularly interesting and I really don’t get the excitement about it. Reddit Some great discussion in this thread on this topic. # Does not Scale, or Will Die Very soon Automating the links and connections like this won’t sustain for YOUR second brain, for your ideas and notes - you are skipping the thinking, and IMO, the insights. Most of