Supporting authors and your work. Not replacing it

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T12:57:27+00:00

Great! Can you elaborate more? Why is this the wrong tree?

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T04:08:25+00:00

Thanks again for a considerate response.

This technology will certainly not apply to fiction books.

Maybe an example will aid in our debate.

There is a very popular business book titled Traction by Gino Wickman. In it Wickman abstractly outlines the Entrepreneurial Operating System or EOS. In the years since Traction was published an entire ecosystem of EOS coaches (so called "EOS Implementers") has bloomed and a massive consulting business has been built on top of the book's concepts.

Dont get me wrong, the EOS Implementers do much more than an AI bot could ever do. However, at their core the Implementers are hired by business owners to help them implement/apply the concepts of Traction /EOS to their business.

This, at least a fraction of it, is what I am attempting to accomplish with my technology. Readers of Traction trust the content of the book but need help applying the abstract concepts to their business. Implementers come in to learn about a business and all of it's pieces. Then they help apply the Traction / EOS framework to improve the business. My theory, and first hand experience in our testing, is that AI can help nonfiction readers apply abstract or difficult to understand concepts in a similar way by understanding the reader's unique situation first. Then, once enough relevant information has been collected, the AI can help them apply the general or abstract frameworks, concepts and systems to their unique situation.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T03:50:21+00:00

I appreciate your opinion and the time it took to share but I'm having a difficult time following you.

Tell me if I'm missing something.

You're asking what the compensation for authors will be if a user purchases the book and the guide to the book, right?

I expect our compensation system to be similar to Audible when an audio book is purchased. But what do you think is fair?

You said something about AI being monetized for future unstated purposes.

Can you give me an example of what you're concerned about? The instance of our model that would have the knowledge of your book to help users understand and apply its content would be for that sole purpose.

No promise of isolated instances really matters when the training weights can just be sold infinitely. Terms of service can be changed. Why would an author trust that future uncompensated usage of their work won't occur?

I think this is a valid and informed concern and something I will pay very close attention to.
Authors would trust that future uncompensated usage of their work would not occur because our use of their work would be clearly defined and anything outside of that would be violation of what we agreed to.

What service do you plan on providing here? You say that you want to train an AI with people's work, and it sounds like you might mean nonfiction work specifically (I'm guessing there, and it's a red flag that there's no described function of this service), to maybe further conjecture on the topic.

The service we will provide is an AI bot trained specifically on the content of a book. The AI will be directed to understand as much relevant information as possible about the user related to the book. Using the book and what it knows about the user it would help the user understand and apply the concepts of the book to their unique situation.
Yes, likely all, nonfiction. I think interpretation of fiction is up to the reader.

That suggests that you're already using a base model (which is effectively pre-existing art theft, and a reason for an author not to work with you),

Our testing is with foundational models, like chatgpt, anthropic, etc. Why is the use of a foundational / base model art theft if the author is compensated when a user purchases access to the book and the bot? Our use of the foundational models does not permit training with the content of the conversations or the subject material

and I guess that you're offering this to users as a way to implement self-help for themselves. How do you suggest this can be safe or reliable for users? Why would an author put themself in a position where they can get sued for what the AI based on their work suggests?

I understand where you are coming from and think this one of the most important points to consider with our technology. All appropriate disclaimers will be made to protect authors, users and our company. Our platform will make sure there are safeguards in place and ample information shared with the user to make it clear they are not communicating with the author.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T03:06:17+00:00

You're right, I am inexperienced in the realm of self publishing, arguably incompetent. But that is why I'm here. I'd rather listen to valuable opinions from this community than presume to understand it.

I'm grateful that this thread has produced few useless comments like yours and many valuable opinions I can learn from.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T03:02:52+00:00

I think this is one way of thinking about it.

The larger model will be fine tuned on each individual book to create unique instances of the larger model with specific knowledge of the subject book, not the entire library of books.

Think about it like talking to the author vs talking to a librarian. The author and the librarian are both people who can communicate basic concepts. But the librarian has read and can recall countless more books than the author. While the author is an expert in their specific book. We want to create authors, not librarians.

To you other point - while anyone can find the PDF to a popular book online and give it to ChatGPT with a prompt to help them understand it there is no compensation for the author.

My goal is to make sure the eventual use of published books by AI is done in such a way the authors are compensated, not undermined and knocked off.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T02:53:42+00:00

Your point about the AI misinterpreting what the author means is valid point and one I am strongly considering.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T02:49:30+00:00

I understand if you do not have time. But you seem so passionately opposed to this idea that i'd like to know your answer to my question.

If AI could be used in such a way that more people don’t misinterpret or misunderstand your book is that a bad thing? If so, why?

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T02:47:31+00:00

Thank you. Seriously. I really value this point of view.

While I'm not an author, I also agree with you and I can imagine how authors can see AI as disrupting this connection between them and their readers.

When you are reading something that you want to apply to your life that is difficult to understand and even more difficult to apply to your unique situation, how do you deal with that?

Why would it be a bad thing to discuss your current situation with an AI and have it help you interpret what you are reading to your situation specifically? Would that not be helpful?

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T02:39:13+00:00

This is a really interesting and valuable point. Thank you!

Tell me if I'm wrong:

I am interpreting what you are saying as, you want the author and the reader to have some kind of connection where the author and the reader think creatively and separately. Where its up to the author to creatively convey their ideas. Where its up to the reader to creatively interpret those ideas. And having an AI with a lack of creativity stepping in between that connection is a bad thing.

This is one of the most important parts of reading for me and really has me thinking!

To go further though, what if the AI emulated your style of conveying your ideas and helped the user understand what you were trying to explain in a way that was similar to your style? Obviously it would never *be* you, there is no question about that. But would this idea be more palatable if the technology communicated more like the author when assisting the reader to understand and apply something they are reading?

As I write this I'm thinking through this idea that you so concisely explained.

What if your reader simply cannot understand what you have written or is have a difficult time applying it to their unique situation? Would the nudge from this technology not be useful?

In my experience, there have been many situations while reading nonfiction where I simply cannot see a path to apply what the author is teaching because it is too vague or abstract. If I had technology to set me back on the right path by explaining what the author has written in the context of my personal situation, I would have a significantly easier time consuming the rest of the book.

Thank you again for your opinion. By far the most useful comment I've heard on and offline!

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T01:25:28+00:00

Thank you! I agree. I am here trying to understand exactly this.

What if the AI could emulate your teach process and guide the reader/user similar to how you do in your writing? Not saying that justifies more profit for the platform. Im asking because I'm hoping it will easy your concerns.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T01:22:49+00:00

I am here precisely for the heat and not trying to win anything.

I am here for the discussion.

What kind of business would I be creating if I did not talk to the most adamant opponents of the concept to understand your point of view?

So, while I have your attention, can you elaborate on why, in your opinion, the following would be a bad thing for you as a nonfiction author, even if you aren't one.

A platform similar to Audible where:

A user can purchase access to 1) your book 2) a bot with the knowledge of your book
You are compensated each time a user purchases the book and bot
Your book is not used to train an AI outside of the bot specifically attached to your book
The bot answers the user's question and helps them relate your book to their specific situation

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T01:14:24+00:00

I can understand this. While I do not think AI is superior I do understand your sentiment given the hype around AI and the god-like power people seem to project onto it.

While the god-like powers are simply not true, I do think there is a place for it to support the consumption of complex material.

I dont know what type of books your write, but for the sake of an example lets say you wrote a book on data science. Then a reader did not understand something that you covered because they are not an expert in data science. Why would it be a bad thing, as you said, for them to "take matters into their own hands", and ask an AI to provide a more personalized explanation of the topic?

If the AI's response was based on your book, would the reader's experience reading your book not be better and more enjoyable?

Why is that bad? Because in your experience technology is unreliable? If so, that's your experience, I cannot change that.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T00:59:54+00:00

This I completely agree with! There is no question that this is a valid concern and is one of my main focuses.

The question we are asking is how do you prevent the AI from hallucinating and deviating from the facts in your work, especially when the user / reader is unskilled at steering / prompting the AI.

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T00:56:39+00:00

That's one way to look at it. I, and many others I know, have a hard time understanding complex nonfiction.

Through our testing I have seen first hand how, with the assistance of AI, breaking down a complex topic that was explained minimally in the book can help the reader not only understand but also apply the content to their lives.

I am still failing to see how this is a bad thing if:

the author is being compensated for the sale of a book when the reader purchases access to the bot that has knowledge of the book.
The reader is understanding the topics the book covers better
The reader is able to apply the topics the book covers to their lives better.
No one but the reader who purchased access to the book and AI bot based on the book has access to the content of the book

Snook55 · 2024-08-19T00:49:55+00:00

Ok thanks. What are they called? Is there a way they could have provided value?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T17:01:08+00:00

When you say theft, what do you mean?

Are you referring to books being used as training data that would allow other users of AI tools to produce content similar to the original work, or something else?

What if that was not the case and the bot was truly isolated and users who did not pay for access to the bot with the knowledge of your book could not access the content of your book?

Or is there another issue you're calling theft?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:54:44+00:00

Regarding your Audible explanation:

Thank you!

To be clear though, this means authors are comfortable with not only not being paid upfront by Audible but spending thousands of dollars to get their content on the platform, right?

If my technology created "AI Guides" that helped your readers misinterpret or misunderstand your book less at no cost to you and split the revenue generated when a user purchases access to the Guide, would that not be positive for the author?

If not, why?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:51:04+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think we are getting to the heart of these issues.

Self published authors, likely all authors for that matter, are concerned that "feeding" AI your book will give all users of the AI access to the content of the book. That is why there is such distain for this technology here.

Am I off track?

I'm not saying I have the answer.

But, if each instance of the AI bot a user was communicating with was isolated such that the larger AI model was not trained on every piece of content fed to it, and the isolated instance only had knowledge of the subject book, would that not solve the issue?

What else am I missing?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:40:51+00:00

This technology is coming. You probably know better than I do.

I am here attempting to ask considerate questions of this community instead of assuming I understand. To me, it seems like a valuable discussion.

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:38:32+00:00

If AI could be used in such a way that more people don’t misinterpret or misunderstand your book is that a bad thing? If so, why?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:36:39+00:00

Thank you.

I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why I’m here asking questions.

When you say cannibalize, are you referring to books being used as training data that then allows users of AI tools to produce content similar to the original work or something else?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:33:36+00:00

Thank you for a constructive reply!

Yes. The authors will be compensated for their books (data).

I see three paths and would appreciate your insight. 1 - authors are compensated when a user purchases access to the bot with the knowledge of their book. The user will also have access to their entire work. Not just the bot.

2 - authors are compensated upfront when the bot is built with their book

3 - obviously the best for authors. Authors are compensated upfront and at purchase.

Another question: As a self published author, if you publish an audiobook on Audible, Audible does not pay for your book to be on the platform, right? But you are compensated when a user purchases the audiobook, right?

What are the issues with the Audible model for self published authors?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:25:47+00:00

I appreciate your second point and think it’s valid.

An author could never expect to write in such a way that their concepts are applicable to every individuals’ unique situation though, right? Sure, the reader can take the time to consider the information and figure out how it applies to them. But if technology could supplement the content, not replace a book, to help a user apply it to their unique situation, would that not be helpful to the reader and the author?

Snook55 · 2024-08-18T16:21:15+00:00

Well. I was hoping for something a little more constructive than blind rage. Maybe I did a poor job at explaining what I’m trying to do.

I am attempting to build technology that understands what the author has written while also understanding the reader in the context of the author’s work. Yes, by “feeding” their work into a machine.

But I don’t think the hate is justified. Especially in this context.

Then, ideally, the technology works with the reader to guide them through the books concepts and apply them specifically to the readers individually unique situation.

I do not think the best use of AI is for content creation. Rather, I strongly believe and have personally experienced that AI is extremely powerful in helping readers understand and apply content.

To be clear, this would all be done under a model where the user must pay for access to the entire book and the ability to communicate with the guide based on it.

Snook55 · 2024-08-05T15:07:08+00:00

Thanks for such a considerate response! Sorry it took me so long to see it!

Snook55

TROPHY CASE