As a writer, this is deeply comforting. The book is total shit. It sounds like an AI, not like something a person would connect with for even a moment. Not even in the opening lines.
When you've read it in its entirety, could you indicate on a scale from 1 to 10 what score it would get compared to published books you've read (including of course all the best and the worst ones)?
If you flip through something claiming to be a "book" and immediately see that a majority of pages just contain nonsensical bulleted lists, and furthermore see that chapter titles are printed overlapping with the book title on each page, you can correctly conclude the entire thing is a zero-effort pile of shit without wasting any further time to read it.
I read through a bit of it and it really wasn't all that bad. The only thing that I found to be really problematic were the made up experiences. Clearly hallucinations are still a big problem for LLMs, but if we manage to get rid of those a book like this can really be quite serviceable (a lot of human-written books are badly written so the bar isn't incredibly high, imho).
The creator should really tweak the prompt/process to include automatic review explicitly intended to remove hallucinations. It clearly is already the intent: "Future iterations of this experiment will include AI-powered fact-checking of the content."
I'm looking forward to what the improved version will look like.
Flip through the middle of the book. Nearly every page has either a bulleted list or a numbered list. In several cases, a single list spans multiple pages.
That’s the format of an outline, not a legitimate book.
When you've read it in its entirety, could you indicate on a scale from 1 to 10 what score it would get compared to published books you've read (including of course all the best and the worst ones)?