[lsy]

I feel like this needs an editor to have a chance of reaching almost anyone… there are ~100 section/chapter headings that seem to have been generated through some kind of psychedelic free association, and each section itself feels like an artistic effort to mystify the reader with references, jargon, and complex diagrams that are only loosely related to the text. And all wrapped here in a scroll-hijack that makes it even harder to read.

The effect is that it's unclear at first glance what the argument even might be, or which sections might be interesting to a reader who is not planning to read it front-to-back. And since it's apparently six hundred pages in printed form, I don't know that many will read it front-to-back either.

[olooney]

From a rhetorical perspective, it's an extended "Yes-set" argument or persuasion sandwich. You see it a lot with cult leaders, motivational speakers, or political pundits. The problem is that you have an unpopular idea that isn't very well supported. How do you smuggle it past your audience? You use a structure like this:

* Verifiable Fact

* Obvious Truth

* Widely Held Opinion

* Your Nonsense Here

* Tautological Platitude

This gets your audience nodding along in "Yes" mode and makes you seem credible so they tend to give you the benefit of the doubt when they hit something they aren't so sure about. Then, before they have time to really process their objection, you move onto and finish with something they can't help but agree with.

The stuff on the history of computation and cybernetics is well researched with a flashy presentation, but it's not original nor, as you pointed out, does it form a single coherent thesis. Mixing in all the biology and movie stuff just dilutes it further. It's just a grab bag of interesting things added to build credibility. Which is a shame, because it's exactly the kind of stuff that's relevant to my interests[3][4].

> "Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." - Samuel Johnson

The author clearly has an Opinion™ about AI, but instead of supporting they're trying to smuggle it through in a sandwich, which I think is why you have that intuitive allergic reaction to it.

[1]: https://changingminds.org/disciplines/sales/closing/yes-set_...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliment_sandwich

[3]: https://www.oranlooney.com/post/history-of-computing/

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45220656#45221336

[rishi_rt]

https://wii-film.antikythera.org/ - This is a 1-hour talk by the author which summarizes what seems to be the gist of the book. I haven't read the book completely. I read a few sections.

Personally, I think the book does not add anything novel. Reading Karl Friston and Andy Clark would be a better investment of time if the notion of predictive processing seems interesting to you.

[airza]

I guess I am the odd one out here. Reading it front-to-back has been a blast so far and even though i find my own site's design to be a bit more readable for long text, I certainly appreciate the strangeness of this one.

[photonthug]

You might prefer this sort of thing: A Definition of AGI https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212

[logicprog]

Ooh, that looks very cool. The lack of a concrete definition of AGI and a scientifically (in the correct domains) backed operationalization of such a definition that can allow direct comparisons between humans and current AIs, where it isn't impossible for humans and/or easy to saturate by AIs, is much needed.

[diego_moita]

Yes, the word for all of that is "prolix".

[xdavidliu]

I got the same impression as well. I think I've become so cynical to these kinds of things that whenever I see this kind of thing, I immediately assume bad faith / woo and just move on to the next article to read.