Leo's Book

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It will depend on how AI is utilised but for the writing process, but I think I agree with Leo's take.

There is so much art within the nature of writing. Crafting prose that flows, has tone and pace, is a skill (and an art) in and of itself.

I consider a well written and crafted book as being on par with the artistry of poetry.

Tone is also an important aspect - this can be injected into text without emojis but it takes some skill.

Even word use. Using words in unexpected ways (as synonyms) helps the reader visualise something in new way. This assists when approaching concepts that are new and have to be integrated. 'He performed the task with precision' can be reimagined to 'He took action in a surgical manner'

The latter helps you conceptualise how the individual in question didn't just do the thing, he crushed it. It helps with your own writing process, as visualising and playing word substitution helps to form images for concepts to be fleshed out into words. There are patterns within language you can only learn through using imagination.

Many LLM AIs use predictive text which has its own flaws. LLM's just cannot add the poetry to prose like a human can - I might be wrong here, I just haven't seen it yet. 

Plus if you use AI to write like the above with endless prompts you are robbing yourself of the pure joy and mystery of divine creation. It is a labour of love.

In terms of idea generation I cannot see the need in Leo's case.

Adding on as well - don't you think we would all value and appreciate a book written by a person, in totality, more?

I certainly would

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Aether Phoenix said:

I appreciate that you feel no one needs to review a text coming from higher intelligence.

I didn't say that.

I review my own work and I take feedback from others. I will have people read drafts of my book and offer lots of feedback. That is part of the final editing process. But I don't need anyone telling me how to write the core of the book. Getting minor stylistic edits is fine.

People are using AI because they are not intelligent enough to be better than the AI. My work is on another level. I'm writing things no one has ever written.

Edited June 27 by Leo Gura

[MuadDib]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

People are using AI because they are not intelligent enough to be better than the AI. My work is on another level. I'm writing things no one has ever written.

 

I disagree. your concept of intelligence feels too narrow. AI can enhance communication, which is a distinct skill from many forms of intelligence. Take riding a bicycle, for example: my internalized knowledge of how to ride doesn't become more or less valid depending on whether I explain it through AI or write it out myself using my own communication abilities.

Sure, some people use AI out of laziness, without any real understanding behind their words. It's just that now every ignorant, arrogant, pigheaded prick has been handed the gift of the gab. What a time to be alive! 🌈🦄🌈

Note: AI was used to edit this post

[Jayson G]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is very good reason.

This book is written by a higher intelligence than AI. Subordinating higher intelligence to lower intelligence is a mistake that leads to inferior results.

The whole point of the book is the intelligence behind it. I don't need an AI making any creative decisions for me.

And don't forget, anything you feed to AI is instantly stolen by the AI company. You are giving them all your copyright like a fool.

@Leo Gura Unfortunately, your work is largely already fed into AI. I believe even apple podcast app has transcribed all your work, for example. I also recall Mira Murati hinting that Open AI trained on all youtube videos. 

There's little obstacles stopping people and companies from training on your book in the future. 

[Jayson G]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is very good reason.

This book is written by a higher intelligence than AI. Subordinating higher intelligence to lower intelligence is a mistake that leads to inferior results.

The whole point of the book is the intelligence behind it. I don't need an AI making any creative decisions for me.

And don't forget, anything you feed to AI is instantly stolen by the AI company. You are giving them all your copyright like a fool.

@Leo Gura you can use AI just for testing your biases though .. challenging your biases, finding them, etc. .. in what you write. Not in a bad way, as we all have, but sometimes on the forum (a lot less in your videos) I see you have some increased bias. I can see AI helping a lot in that. 

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo GuraHi Leo! How much will you discuss spiral dynamics in your book? 

[Aether Phoenix]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I review my own work and I take feedback from others. I will have people read drafts of my book and offer lots of feedback. That is part of the final editing process. But I don't need anyone telling me how to write the core of the book. Getting minor stylistic edits is fine

No point in asking a human for feedback and not AI. I doubt any human on earth can give you better feedback than AI. 
As you did with your philosophy.  You reached a point that just AI could really debate with you, or help you achieve a better understanding. Even if AI does not understand that. 
 

The point that AI is inferior, so it cannot help is an invalid point. It is similar as saying that a really intelligent film director or screenwriter cannot have people helping him, because none are more intelligent than him or created that film before. 
 

It is infinite the ways AI could help with a book. 

In my opinion, you are confusing the dangers of AI with the practicality of AI in supporting your work. It seems that you are paradigm locked into a competition with AI, instead of a cooperation. You teach me that mindset in your life purpose course. 

[Aether Phoenix]

10 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I consider a well written and crafted book as being on par with the artistry of poetry

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you don’t have (enough) experience with AI. 
 

AI can 20x your creative process. Like a pen or a paper, a computer can 2x or 5x your creative process. 

[MutedMiles]

9 hours ago, MuadDib said:

I disagree. your concept of intelligence feels too narrow. AI can enhance communication, which is a distinct skill from many forms of intelligence. Take riding a bicycle, for example: my internalized knowledge of how to ride doesn't become more or less valid depending on whether I explain it through AI or write it out myself using my own communication abilities.

I don't see why someone who wants to have full ownership of creative writing process would use AI. It doesn't add any value there, it's just another area where "AI" is forced for no good reason. 

Writing is a single process, it's not that you have ideas ready and you want to just express them. You have a sense of what you are going to write and then creativity takes over. And you keep writing and revising until a finished work is ready to your future self's satisfaction. 
 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Aether Phoenix said:

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you don’t have (enough) experience with AI. 
 

AI can 20x your creative process. Like a pen or a paper, a computer can 2x or 5x your creative process. 

Sure, that could definitely be the case. But there is something to be said for the creative process one engages in through their own thought and abilities. I can pump out some good shit with AI, but it cannot hold true to be my own creation like it can when I alone generate it. I am not so focused on just output. But the actual process itself. The mystery of the creative process when it is purely your own. 

I just can't own something authentically when AI is involved.

 

[Aether Phoenix]

10 hours ago, MuadDib said:

 

 

Note: AI was used to edit this post

@MuadDib, I resemble so much with that image 😂. I think that for an INTJ, it would not be possible to live again in a world without AI ahah. 
 

Of course people misuse AI like they misuse everything. If people do not adapt for this new environment where they live, their survival ability will be threatened. 

[Aether Phoenix]

4 minutes ago, MutedMiles said:

don't see why someone who wants to have full ownership of creative writing process would use AI. It doesn't add any value there, it's just another area where "AI" is forced for no good reason. 

It’s like psychedelics probably. Unless you have 50 trips with that you cannot understand it. 
You need to spend time with AI before you form an opinion about that. 

[MutedMiles]

13 minutes ago, Aether Phoenix said:

I doubt any human on earth can give you better feedback than AI. As you did with your philosophy.  You reached a point that just AI could really debate with you, or help you achieve a better understanding. Even if AI does not understand that. 

He was able to communicate with AI, because conversation with AI is conversation with yourself ultimately,  because that's the only sense making happening in the context of that conversation.

Conversation with another person is different, because there is another independent sense making going on too. So no comparison there with "AI", it's a different ball game all together. A person is not the sum total of his knowledge, he is ultimately a consciousness. 

Edited June 27 by MutedMiles

[Aether Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Sure, that could definitely be the case. But there is something to be said for the creative process one engages in through their own thought and abilities. 

 

You are being too narrow in the way you see AI working. You are just looking into the content you can generate. 
AI can infinitely support you in other ways than the content itself. Even if it also can support you with the content. That would be another discussion 🙂

[MutedMiles]

5 minutes ago, Aether Phoenix said:

It’s like psychedelics probably. Unless you have 50 trips with that you cannot understand it. 
You need to spend time with AI before you form an opinion about that. 

I happen to be understanding it way too well fortunately (or unfortunately) , since it's the area of my work.

I don't know how much you know about it, but excluding all bells and whistles it's just predicting the next token.

Edited June 27 by MutedMiles

[Aether Phoenix]

4 minutes ago, MutedMiles said:

He was able to communicate with AI, because conversation with AI is conversation with yourself ultimately,  because that's the only sense making happening in the context of that conversation.

Conversation with another person is different, because there is another independent sense making going on too. So no comparison there with "AI", it's a different ball game all together. A person is not the sum total of his knowledge, he is ultimately a consciousness. 

How much experience do you have with AI? Do you even use it? Have you experience with different models? Did you train models to think in particular ways?

[Aether Phoenix]

1 minute ago, MutedMiles said:

I happen to be understanding it way too well fortunately (or unfortunately) , since it's the area of my work.

I don't know how much you know about it, but excluding all bells and whistles it's just predicting the next token.

That is the same as saying that your thought is just the next neuron firing, based on the information the Brain receive and the other networks you have in your brain, you see? 

It is just an excuse the mind uses to paradigm lock AI into inferior. 
 

10 minutes ago, MutedMiles said:

He was able to communicate with AI, because conversation with AI is conversation with yourself ultimately,  because that's the only sense making happening in the context of that conversation.

Ultimately everything is conversation with yourself. 
 

If you think AI is not able to have a faster and deeper sense making than you in almost every topic, I don’t see how you use AI. 
Of course it depends on the model, and the way you use it. 

[Leo Gura]

For those of you who love AI, I will spin up an AI slop book and sell it to you. Everyone else will get the real book.

That'll teach you.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

@Leo GuraHi Leo! How much will you discuss spiral dynamics in your book? 

Not at all. It's too much of a distraction from pure philosophy.

Edited June 27 by Leo Gura

[Peo]

You said in a video you would use 10 years to write a book, so i guess i will wait 10 years then.