[theshaper]

> I'm not sure why you say it's a scandal. The author worked with the publishing company from the start, and from the start the intention was to "unveil" the truth to make an impact.

That just means he didn’t lie alone. They lied as a group. They lied to the newspapers that interviewed Jianwei Xun, they lied to the bookstores that sold a non-existent author, they lied to readers and academics, they violated the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which considers it a serious offense to fail to label AI-generated text, video, or audio. The book doesn’t clarify this in any of its editions.[1]

I get your point about the marketing strategy. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a lie.

Several newspapers have already retracted or pulled their original articles about the “clever stunt” by the Italian author. New spanish editions will now include an explanation of the actual writing process (with AI), as well as the mixed identity behind the author's name.[2]

A scandal.

And yes, I think the experiment is interesting. But they lied, not just my opinion. That’s what every newspapers who interviewed a ghost is now saying.

> According to interviews, he used AI platforms in a very specific way that couldn't be called "vibe philosophizing"

I was referring to the intellectuals now justifying the experiment of working with AI. (They’ve basically discovered “vibe philosophizing”) I wasn’t referring to him. He clearly knew what he was doing.

> It seems he treated the AI as a mirror instead of a system that would give him answers.

Right. Except… I’m not the one saying:

- “Jianwei Xun emerged in late 2024 as a distributed philosophical entity born from the collaborative interaction between human intelligence and artificial intelligence systems.”

- “Xun's true nature as a hybrid intellectual construct…”

That’s from the author’s own official page.[3]

[1] https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-04-07/jianwei-xun... [2] https://www.lanacion.com.ar/tecnologia/jianwei-xun-autor-de-... [3] https://jianweixun.com/

[ranyume]

I'm just going to clarify one point.

> Right. Except… I’m not the one saying:

I've read the interview I mentioned before and he explains how he used the AI and which AIs he used.[1]

It might be a bit confusing. He thinks of the author of the book (the final product of "prompt thinking") as something that's not him and it's not AI either, and that's why he phrased the use of AI like that. Basically, he says he could not have written the book without AI because he would not have thought of the concepts without AI, but he also says AI didn't write the book.

It's true that even if he wrote everything, he used AI to help him think ("prompt thinking"). I imagine that philosophically speaking for him, the book isn't entirely his. In the interview he also talks about how AI manipulates. You can't escape AI manipulation, but you can't be out of the loop. You have to be conscious about the fact that you're being manipulated at all times.

About prompt thinking: it seems to be a technique that uses AI to facilitate thinking in people. It's the reverse of using AI as an oracle.

https://www.perfil.com/noticias/periodismopuro/hipnocracia-d...