Hello. I don’t understand your proposal. I think that each author has his own working methods and that is respectable. However, I don’t quite like the social tendency to apply everything new that is invented to all facets of our lives. It seems that even the intellectual sector is moved by new trends.
Scrivener is a writing program and is geared towards writer productivity, it is not an interface that connects to a server to receive requested data. You can use a separate program, but I don’t see the need to add external and dependent functions from third-party companies when there are more suitable means to do so. Personally, I consider it counterproductive to take unverified data or arguments and delegate any kind of intellectual work to a learning model.
Thanks for responding.
Are you an owner of L&L?
If not, what is your relationship to them?
FYI - the initial proposal is to take the pdf of the scrivener manual (400 pages) and enter it into a LLm so that a visitor can ask a question about scrivener and get an answer without having to hit exactly on keyword search terms.
As a member of the L&L tech-support team, I suspect that this wouldn’t be as useful as it might seem at first glance.
Sure, finding a specific passage in the manual can be helpful if a prospective buyer wants to know if Scrivener can do X function or be used for Y kinds of writing.
However, given the wide range of use-cases for Scrivener and the nitty-gritty details of each project, I would think a lot of users would still need to contact tech-support for guidance on how to implement one of the features or settings.
To bolster kewms’s comments, I’d cite Psychology Today, which notes:
“Contrary to popular belief, people under hypnosis are in total control of themselves and would never do anything they would normally find highly objectionable.”
It also notes,
“Also, it’s a fact that not everyone is susceptible to hypnosis. Some people seem to possess a trait called “hypnotizability” that, like other traits, varies greatly among individuals. To be successfully hypnotized, a person must want to undergo the process voluntarily and also possess at least a moderate degree of hypnotizability.”
Thank you for the reference but Psychology Today is not an authority on the the capabilities of hypnosis.
It is more of a populist echo chamber actually promoting misconceptions under the guise of not promoting them…
Hypnosis can allow a surgeon to perform surgery without anesthesia.
it can allow a demagogue to control an entire population.
It can cause you to miss the upcoming exit on the highway.
It can cause you to vote for an incompetent in an election.
It can cause you to read an author’s creation that you can’t put down.
Everyone is susceptible.
it is the fundamental method of human communication.
take some courses and learn what it is really about rather than relying on what others tell you
Given that subliminal advertising has been banned in the US, UK and Australia for 70 years now, I suspect this proposal could get people into a little bit of trouble.
I can only imagine the impact if we allowed that sort of behaviour affect reader decisions to purchase. Scrivener itself would be hugely affected:
Big issues with industry regulators
Unquantifiable public relations problems
You will lose downstream media support
Some quality issues as sales goals drive content
Confidence in author integrity would drop
Apple app store rejection or restrictions
People would avoid works created on this software
Previously loyal customers would abandon it