While I quite enjoy these analyses by "The Knowledge Architect", I do find them quite repetitive. I have assumed this is meant to indicate the formula for the analysis, and how each case is analyzed through the structure. Today, I really spent time reading the associated infographic, and was disappointed to find a large amount of gibberish in the text, which leads me to suspect that the infographic, at least, is produced using AI. I wonder how much of the document text is also AI-generated - although it seems to have been carefully proofread, and revised as might have been necessary. I am disappointed that the author does not seem to credit the use of AI in his work (or at least in this piece).
Thank you so much for this — and for reading closely enough to notice. Comments like yours are exactly why the work is posted in the open while it's still taking shape.
You're not mistaken. These pieces are first drafts for a book coming later this year, written at pace, and AI is part of the toolkit — the infographics included. The garbled text you caught is the tell, and you caught it fairly; I'll keep tightening the proofing before each goes up. The repetition you noticed is the method, deliberately — the same frame applied case by case, as you guessed. The thinking, the framework, and every judgment are mine, and the responsibility for each piece is mine alone.
Please keep the comments coming — all of them, agreement and pushback alike. The readers who engage this seriously are the ones the book is being written for. With gratitude.
While I quite enjoy these analyses by "The Knowledge Architect", I do find them quite repetitive. I have assumed this is meant to indicate the formula for the analysis, and how each case is analyzed through the structure. Today, I really spent time reading the associated infographic, and was disappointed to find a large amount of gibberish in the text, which leads me to suspect that the infographic, at least, is produced using AI. I wonder how much of the document text is also AI-generated - although it seems to have been carefully proofread, and revised as might have been necessary. I am disappointed that the author does not seem to credit the use of AI in his work (or at least in this piece).
Thank you so much for this — and for reading closely enough to notice. Comments like yours are exactly why the work is posted in the open while it's still taking shape.
You're not mistaken. These pieces are first drafts for a book coming later this year, written at pace, and AI is part of the toolkit — the infographics included. The garbled text you caught is the tell, and you caught it fairly; I'll keep tightening the proofing before each goes up. The repetition you noticed is the method, deliberately — the same frame applied case by case, as you guessed. The thinking, the framework, and every judgment are mine, and the responsibility for each piece is mine alone.
Please keep the comments coming — all of them, agreement and pushback alike. The readers who engage this seriously are the ones the book is being written for. With gratitude.