Are We Setting A New Standard? Our work is intellectually dense and demanding. B

Are We Setting A New Standard?
Our work is intellectually dense and demanding. But to assist readers we’ll release the volumes and the AI at the same time. Meaning that if you have questions about or criticisms of the work as you’re reading it, the AI will be available as an author-substitute to answer you.

I would expect that for other works that are theoretically revolutionary (not solely dependent on normative knowledge) that this will emerge as a third publication method (book > audio > AI, or. in academic work Book > Study Guide > “Cliff/Spark/Book Notes” > AI).

IMO as a subject increases in complexity, it’s easiest to have an AI teach you a subject – even easier than reading. So I would expect (a) this interactive model to emerge as a complementary standard and (b) some sort of interactive gaming to emerge as a means of teaching by example at some point later.

On the other hand, my (our) work does require we write a book as the ‘program’ that we teach the AI. And in my opinion I have been subconsciously more concerned with an AI understanding my work than I have humans. In some sense because I’m not sure the multi-disciplinary knowledge exists in enough people without the help of the AI and the unification of the disciplines created by the work to understand it otherwise.

I mean, for those of us who have been working with this methodology for years, it’s possible to reduce it to a method and first principles, and to habituate both so that most subjects – at least behavioral to sociological to political and economic are intuitive. But you know that’s true of any subject.

It just hasn’t been true of MANY subjects since the unification provided by the hard sciences. Now we have the soft (behavioral) sciences, and we even have langauge and grammar ‘scienced’ so that it’s all unified as well.