Why We Build
▲ 0 r/AIAssisted+1 crossposts

Why We Build

One silver-lining to the dead internet we're living in, today, is that it's very quickly teaching us that we can't rely on our senses as much as we believe we can. It's not healthy to always live in skepticism, but it is necessary in a World where you don't know what's up or down anymore.

That's why we need great minds to focus their attention on solving the problems associated with credible information sharing without it becoming some centralized playground designed to look like the free-flowing exchange of ideas. If we don't solve for that, then I guess we're heading into a future that a small handful of people want because elections or public opinion will no longer matter.

One of the biggest focuses in AI should be in figuring out how to get it to provide deep credible knowledge in specific domains that can be best applied to the problems we're trying to solve. Sure, it can do this with enough fenagling, but what I really mean is having something easy for everyone to use like Perplexity or Gemini, only it doesn't simply find consensus information from the internet using all these black box methods that are owned by major corporations.

Instead, it should use direct knowledge from domain experts who structure and cite their material and as users, we should be able to backtrack all of it, including the original author. And all of this should be achievable by simply engaging with a chatbot agent that can reliably go out and help me discover all of these things.

Also, we shouldn't have to simply trust that the application works. We should be able to go in and see exactly how it's working. This way, the public can audit the systems we're relying on for grounding our worldviews.

That, to me, is where we should be if we really want to break from the chains of propaganda and reclaim our genuine thoughts about how we ought to live. The alternative independent media space was co-opted long ago and now all of the feeds keep us in a state of perpetual dislocation from our friends, family, communities, new solutions, and better approximations to the truth.

We exist in a walled-off digital pasture. But if regular people who are smart and capable enough decide to leverage this new technology, then we can break through the fencing and finally live in a world where discovery-based researching and learning can be easier than Google, which could eventually individuate society again, like how it was before, instead of keeping us clustered into specific groups based on our viewing preferences.

That's why my brother and I got into this business. Yeah, sure, we also wanna make a buck so we can retire with dignity. That's true. But the drive has always stemmed from wanting to figure out a better way for people to share hidden insights and create things that are bigger than they thought they could handle. We have a long way to go, but we're making the first small steps, even if it isn't obvious, just yet.

Bottom line, though? Humanity must figure out a way to help us master the means and methods of discovery-based knowledge acquisition, execution, and immediate distribution of information based on relevancy and needs from those who search instead of those who passively soak information in from the curated feeds. And all of this needs to be easy enough for a 12 year-old to do.

If anyone else is working on this problem, we'd love to hear your thoughts, even if it's through a DM. We're living in the most exciting times, but with adventure, comes danger. So maybe, idk. Let's make it more fun and less hazardous, so that we can, at least, live long enough to re-tell this great story that we're all a part of.

u/CyborgWriter — 17 days ago
▲ 4 r/aiwars

AI Can Provide Constructive Feedback on Your Written Work. You Just Need to Understand a Little Bit of Psychology. Same Exact Thing Applies to Human Feedback

Good feedback from AI is not that different from receiving feedback from people around you. My brother and I once threw a lot of money into a proof-of-concept film because we were blinded by the encouragement and agreeableness that people around us were expressing. We weren't recognizing that they were just trying to be nice to us and not hurt our feelings. They were active screenwriters and filmmakers just like us and just like us, they would need our help when the time came. That's why all of our feedback was watered down heavily. Only one of our friends told us the truth and you know what we did? We respectively ignored the advice.

Film-wise, it turned out great because the team was amazingly talented. But the story fell significantly short of what it could have been, if only we had turned our egos off for a second and insist that people give us their complete, gloves-off opinion.

It's the same when engaging with AI, but actually easier to handle since you're just working with your own mental barriers instead of two. Bottom line. You just gotta come into it with the understanding that it will be a yes man. You can do prompting and that can really help if you design it well, but even then, it pales in comparison to a guy like Dov Siemen who is hilariously legendary when it comes to wrecking screenplays and bursting people's bubbles.

That's honestly why I don't often ask for it's opinion. Instead, I might ask it to compare a scene to all the other movies that are out there and spot the cliches. If I ask questions with the implicit assumption that whatever I wrote is garbage, it'll riff off of that and assume with me, which causes it to focus less on justifying why my story is so great and more on what could be wrong.

It's the same with people. If you simply ask for their input, they'll water it down with praise. You have to specifically instruct people to find the problems and emphasize the truth over hurting your feelings. Do the same with AI and you'll have far less problems with feedback.

So, don't ask questions like, "Is this good?" or "Will people understand this?" Ask questions like, "This dialogue is terrible. How can we fix it." or "This scene feels draggy and boring. We need to find what's missing."

Come into it with the assumption that your work is poor, even if it isn't. Force it to identify the problems. Otherwise, it'll suck your....Well, you know.

reddit.com
u/CyborgWriter — 19 days ago

AI Can Provide Constructive Feedback on Your Written Work. You Just Need to Understand a Little Bit of Psychology. Same Exact Thing Applies to Human Feedback

Good feedback from AI is not that different from receiving feedback from people around you. My brother and I once threw a lot of money into a proof-of-concept film because we were blinded by the encouragement and agreeableness that people around us were expressing. We weren't recognizing that they were just trying to be nice to us and not hurt our feelings. They were active screenwriters and filmmakers just like us and just like us, they would need our help when the time came. That's why all of our feedback was watered down heavily. Only one of our friends told us the truth and you know what we did? We respectively ignored the advice.

Film-wise, it turned out great because the team was amazingly talented. But the story fell significantly short of what it could have been, if only we had turned our egos off for a second and insist that people give us their complete, gloves-off opinion.

It's the same when engaging with AI, but actually easier to handle since you're just working with your own mental barriers instead of two. Bottom line. You just gotta come into it with the understanding that it will be a yes man. You can do prompting and that can really help if you design it well, but even then, it pales in comparison to a guy like Dov Siemen who is hilariously legendary when it comes to wrecking screenplays and bursting people's bubbles.

That's honestly why I don't often ask for it's opinion. Instead, I might ask it to compare a scene to all the other movies that are out there and spot the cliches. If I ask questions with the implicit assumption that whatever I wrote is garbage, it'll riff off of that and assume with me, which causes it to focus less on justifying why my story is so great and more on what could be wrong.

It's the same with people. If you simply ask for their input, they'll water it down with praise. You have to specifically instruct people to find the problems and emphasize the truth over hurting your feelings. Do the same with AI and you'll have far less problems with feedback.

So, don't ask questions like, "Is this good?" or "Will people understand this?" Ask questions like, "This dialogue is terrible. How can we fix it." or "This scene feels draggy and boring. We need to find what's missing."

Come into it with the assumption that your work is poor, even if it isn't. Force it to identify the problems. Otherwise, it'll suck your....Well, you know.

reddit.com
u/CyborgWriter — 19 days ago

AI Can Provide Constructive Feedback on Your Written Work. You Just Need to Understand a Little Bit of Psychology. Same Exact Thing Applies to Human Feedback

Good feedback from AI is not that different from receiving feedback from people around you. My brother and I once threw a lot of money into a proof-of-concept film because we were blinded by the encouragement and agreeableness that people around us were expressing. We weren't recognizing that they were just trying to be nice to us and not hurt our feelings. They were active screenwriters and filmmakers just like us and just like us, they would need our help when the time came. That's why all of our feedback was watered down heavily. Only one of our friends told us the truth and you know what we did? We respectively ignored the advice.

Film-wise, it turned out great because the team was amazingly talented. But the story fell significantly short of what it could have been, if only we had turned our egos off for a second and insist that people give us their complete, gloves-off opinion.

It's the same when engaging with AI, but actually easier to handle since you're just working with your own mental barriers instead of two. Bottom line. You just gotta come into it with the understanding that it will be a yes man. You can do prompting and that can really help if you design it well, but even then, it pales in comparison to a guy like Dov Siemen who is hilariously legendary when it comes to wrecking screenplays and bursting people's bubbles.

That's honestly why I don't often ask for it's opinion. Instead, I might ask it to compare a scene to all the other movies that are out there and spot the cliches. If I ask questions with the implicit assumption that whatever I wrote is garbage, it'll riff off of that and assume with me, which causes it to focus less on justifying why my story is so great and more on what could be wrong.

It's the same with people. If you simply ask for their input, they'll water it down with praise. You have to specifically instruct people to find the problems and emphasize the truth over hurting your feelings. Do the same with AI and you'll have far less problems with feedback.

So, don't ask questions like, "Is this good?" or "Will people understand this?" Ask questions like, "This dialogue is terrible. How can we fix it." or "This scene feels draggy and boring. We need to find what's missing."

Come into it with the assumption that your work is poor, even if it isn't. Force it to identify the problems. Otherwise, it'll suck your....Well, you know.

reddit.com
u/CyborgWriter — 19 days ago

AI Can Provide Constructive Feedback on Your Written Work. You Just Need to Understand a Little Bit of Psychology. Same Exact Thing Applies to Human Feedback.

Good feedback from AI is not that different from receiving feedback from people around you. My brother and I once threw a lot of money into a proof-of-concept film because we were blinded by the encouragement and agreeableness that people around us were expressing. We weren't recognizing that they were just trying to be nice to us and not hurt our feelings. They were active screenwriters and filmmakers just like us and just like us, they would need our help when the time came. That's why all of our feedback was watered down heavily. Only one of our friends told us the truth and you know what we did? We respectively ignored the advice.

Film-wise, it turned out great because the team was amazingly talented. But the story fell significantly short of what it could have been, if only we had turned our egos off for a second and insist that people give us their complete, gloves-off opinion.

It's the same when engaging with AI, but actually easier to handle since you're just working with your own mental barriers instead of two. Bottom line. You just gotta come into it with the understanding that it will be a yes man. You can do prompting and that can really help if you design it well, but even then, it pales in comparison to a guy like Dov Siemen who is hilariously legendary when it comes to wrecking screenplays and bursting people's bubbles.

That's honestly why I don't often ask for it's opinion. Instead, I might ask it to compare a scene to all the other movies that are out there and spot the cliches. If I ask questions with the implicit assumption that whatever I wrote is garbage, it'll riff off of that and assume with me, which causes it to focus less on justifying why my story is so great and more on what could be wrong.

It's the same with people. If you simply ask for their input, they'll water it down with praise. You have to specifically instruct people to find the problems and emphasize the truth over hurting your feelings. Do the same with AI and you'll have far less problems with feedback.

So, don't ask questions like, "Is this good?" or "Will people understand this?" Ask questions like, "This dialogue is terrible. How can we fix it." or "This scene feels draggy and boring. We need to find what's missing."

Come into it with the assumption that your work is poor, even if it isn't. Force it to identify the problems. Otherwise, it'll suck your....Well, you know.

reddit.com
u/CyborgWriter — 19 days ago
▲ 2 r/ufo

Don't Use Chat GPT or Gemini to Research UAPs! You'll Get Lost in Hallucinations! AI + Graph RAG + Mind-Mapping Canvas is How You Leverage AI for Accurate Analysis & Insights Instead of BS That Sounds Great.

As we all know, more UAP files will be released over the coming months. This initial leak was quite small, but given that it's been documented over the last 80 years, the number of files we get access to could easily dwarf the Epstein file dump and that was quite substantial to comb through. New information and connections could easily be missed.

That's why I highly recommend leveraging AI mind-mapping, so our minds don't get scrambled in the noise. With this approach, you can add the leaked files and define the relationships between them so that instead of having to read thousands of pages, you can use AI to help you navigate through the files to find the interesting stuff that matters. I actually did this with the Epstein Files and found some details that, even to this day, not many people are talking about.

The same can and should be applied to the UAP file releases. This first one was small and nothing "new" or "shocking" came out. But just to illustrate this new approach to investigating, here are the top 8 take aways that I found without having to spend hours searching for it. I just added the notes to my canvas in five minutes and this is what it produced:

TOP 10 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE UFO PDF DOCUMENTS

1. FBI-Army Air Forces Formal Cooperation Agreement (1947)

The FBI formally agreed to cooperate with Army Air Forces Intelligence in investigating flying disc reports. The Air Forces confidentially advised that discs could be released from aircraft at high altitudes and descend at tremendous speeds in an arc—suggesting some sightings might be explained by experimental military technology or potential subversive activity intended to cause "mass hysteria" (ufo1.pdf, page 47).

2. Majority of Sightings Were Explainable—But a Residual Remained Unexplained

Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book and predecessors) found that approximately 90% of reported sightings could be attributed to:

  • Weather balloons
  • Misidentification of conventional objects
  • Light aberrations and mirages
  • Psychological factors ("mild form of hysteria")

However, a small percentage of "extremely creditable sightings" remained unexplainable even after expert analysis (ufo12.pdf, pages 19, 29).

3. Highly Credible Witnesses Reported Unexplained Phenomena

Reports came from diverse, qualified sources:

  • ~25% from military personnel
  • ~8% from civil airline pilots
  • Reports from highly qualified scientists
  • Experienced private pilots (e.g., the Kenneth Arnold-type sightings referenced in ufo3.pdf)

The government noted that "primary significance is attached to reports from qualified observers" (ufo12.pdf, page 31).

4. Physical Evidence Was Occasionally Recovered

Several cases involved physical artifacts:

  • A disc found in Twin Falls, Idaho (July 1947) described as 30½" in diameter, "dished like a saucer," with a plastic dome, radio tubes, wiring, and markings "Inspected TS" (ufo2.pdf, page 1)
  • A priest in Grafton, Wisconsin found a metal disc with saw teeth, wires, and a condenser-like object (ufo2.pdf, page 13)
  • An aluminum cylinder recovered from a flying object and surrendered to investigators (ufo6.pdf, page 73)

5. Film Evidence Was Analyzed and Found Unexplainable

In October 1952, Air Intelligence reported that a Navy photographer captured approximately 35 feet of motion-picture film showing flying objects. Expert analysis at the Air Technical Intelligence Center concluded:

  • 12-16 flying objects were recorded on film
  • Weather balloons, clouds, and other conventional explanations were "completely ruled out"
  • Experts stated optical illusions could not be recorded on film, making this a creditable and unexplainable sighting (ufo12.pdf, page 19).

6. Radar Confirmed Many Sightings—But Also Revealed Anomalies

The Air Force documented numerous radar-tracked unidentified objects:

  • Some were identified as temperature inversion reflections (ground objects reflected from warm air layers)
  • Radar returns showed objects moving at "fantastic speeds" and in all directions
  • In one 1951 incident near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Air Force aircraft established a radar "lock" on an unidentified object but were led toward a point on the ground during intercept attempts (ufo12.pdf, page 31).

7. Compass and Instrument Anomalies Reported

Multiple witnesses reported electromagnetic effects:

  • A prospector in the Cascade Mountains (June 1947) observed his compass "acted very peculiar, the hand waving from one side to the other" while discs were visible; the condition "corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of sight" (ufo3.pdf, page 27).

8. Anonymous Tips and Civilian Reports Were Taken Seriously

The FBI documented numerous anonymous informants and civilian witnesses, including a case in Dallas, Texas (October 1957) involving an anonymous "young white female" reporting unidentified flying objects. These reports were logged and forwarded through official channels (ufo14.pdf).

9. Media Coverage Influenced Government Response

Articles in publications like The New Yorker (September 1952) prompted internal FBI memos and reviews. The government tracked press coverage closely, recognizing that public perception was shaped significantly by media narratives about flying saucers (ufo12.pdf).

10. No Definitive Conclusion on Origins

Despite decades of investigation, the documents reveal no definitive government conclusion on what the unexplained sightings actually were. The official position settled on "insufficient evidence" for extraterrestrial origin, while acknowledging that a small percentage of cases defied conventional explanation. The files were ultimately closed without resolution on the core mystery.

SUMMARY

These FBI and Department of Defense documents reveal a government that took UFO reports seriously enough to establish formal investigative protocols, yet consistently downplayed findings publicly. The tension between credible unexplained sightings and official dismissals remains the central paradox of this archival material.

_______________________________________________

Again, nothing newsworthy, of course, but you can imagine if there was something newsworthy, you could find that very quickly. You can even use AI mind-mapping to dig into the details such as how the Government conducted their investigations and studied the phenomenon:

U.S. GOVERNMENT UFO INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS

1. Primary Investigative Authority: Air Force Project Blue Book

The Air Force's Project Blue Book held official responsibility for investigating and analyzing UFO sightings. As stated in the documents:

>

This was the centralized program that received, catalogued, and evaluated UFO reports from across the country.

2. FBI Field Office Reporting Procedures

The FBI established formal protocols for handling flying disc complaints through internal directives:

  • Bureau Bulletin #57 (October 1, 1947) — Established initial procedures for handling flying disc reports
  • SAC Letter #38 (March 25, 1949) — Updated guidance to Special Agents in Charge

Field offices were instructed to furnish complaints regarding flying discs to OSI (Office of Special Investigations) locally rather than conduct independent investigations (ufo12.pdf).

3. Interagency Cooperation Protocol

A formal cooperation agreement existed between the FBI and military intelligence:

>

Reports flowed through a chain:

  1. Local witnesses FBI Field Offices
  2. FBI Field Offices OSI / Air Force Intelligence
  3. Air Force Intelligence Project Blue Book for centralized analysis

4. Classification and Evaluation of Reports

The Air Force developed a systematic methodology for categorizing sightings (ufo12.pdf):

| Category | Description |
|--------------|-----------------|
| Identified | Reports explained as balloons, aircraft, astronomical phenomena, hoaxes, psychological factors |
| Insufficient Data | Reports lacking enough detail for proper analysis |
| Unidentified | Reports from credible observers that could not be explained after thorough investigation |

Priority was given to reports from qualified observers — military personnel (~25% of reports), civil airline pilots (~8%), and scientists.

5. Physical Evidence Collection Procedures

When physical artifacts were reported:

  • FBI agents were dispatched to interview witnesses and collect specimens
  • Materials were forwarded to Air Force laboratories for technical analysis
  • Chain of custody was documented (e.g., the Twin Falls, Idaho disc in ufo2.pdf was examined and its components catalogued: plastic dome, radio tubes, wiring, markings)

6. Project Grudge Methodology (Pre-Blue Book)

Before Project Blue Book, Project Grudge (1949) served as an earlier systematic evaluation program:

"Project 'Grudge' listed and evaluated 244 UFO sightings."

This emerged alongside a CIA Office of Scientific Investigation memo calling for more rigorous government policy on UFO reporting (Corso text file).

7. Classified Research Programs (MJ-12 / Project Redlight)

According to the Secrets of Gravitic Propulsion document, a parallel super-secret investigation program operated following early saucer recoveries:
This suggests a two-tier system: public-facing investigations (Blue Book) and classified technical analysis programs.

8. Public Information Management Protocol

The Department of Defense Office of Public Information coordinated official responses to public and press inquiries, ensuring consistent messaging about Air Force investigations of "unusual aerial phenomena" (ufo12.pdf).

________________________________________________

And yes, if I want to, I can dig even deeper into these points to get more details. AI has many problems, such as reliability. How can you tell when it's expressing the facts or hallucinating? With an AI mind-mapping tool, it's different since the data is siloed off, meaning, it's only using the information you provide, not scrubbed data from the internet.

Additionally, you're defining the relationship between the information, which means it's not simply appending strings of words together. It's using agentic capabilities to understand how the information all connects based on your inquires. Best of all, it can provide exact page numbers, so if you don't believe it, you can just look at the document you uploaded and read the specific part.

Yes, AI slop sucks. Yes, it shouldn't be used as a replacement. And yes, billionaire assholes are ruining society with it and all that bad stuff....But if you're using it in the right way for the right tasks...It's a gamechanger. With this new approach, I can significantly enhance the speed of my researching. Now instead of sifting through endless books to find the key information, I can use an "AI librarian" to help me find it and with the right mind-mapping tool, it will actually work.

The absolute worst thing you could do if you're using AI is to just get on ChatGPT and ask questions. Don't do that. FIND THE CREDIBLE DATA, first. Then add it to a canvas and structure the information logically. That's when using an AI can really come in handy. But unless you provide it good data and silo it off, you'll be prone to hallucinations and poor outputs.

Can't wait for the next release and to see what I can find well before it even hits the news. Best of luck in your search for the truth!

reddit.com
u/CyborgWriter — 30 days ago