 This is the Neo Books Call for Monday, April 1st, 2024, that is April Fools Day, just in case anybody tries to slip a fast one on us today, or in case we want to do something subversive ourselves. Who knows? It is nice to see you all. Hi, Jose. Hey, guys. I just turned on the recorder and everybody's just shown up. So we are right at the top of the call. Good to see everybody. Any news from anybody? Any thoughts from where we've been? I have, I'm not, I think it was David that shared that scientific nano data thing. I can't even remember what it was called. Yeah, I did actually. Oh, okay. Well, thank you for that, Rick, because it sent me down to a nice rabbit hole. I appreciate that. Nice. I think there's something there that is consistent to what we're talking about. Yeah, I think it's more on the scientific end. But having said that, that doesn't mean to say it's not generalizable. The idea, you know, there's nano ideas are similar to a nugget, so I can't say what the differences are, but conceptually this overlap. I think there's a huge overlap there, yeah. And I think it's very consistent with what's happening, which is sort of the fragmentation of these things that traditionally have been, you know, a book or a paper or, you know, and, you know, it gets lost in there, right? The nugget gets lost in there. Which is the link that you're talking about? Can you re-share it back into the chat? Because I think I know, but I'm not finding it. Well, while you're doing that, I was in an AO call where there was a very interesting conversation about the whole notion of copyright. And the whole notion of copyright, I think, is almost antithetical to what this is emerging into. And it's really about attribution rather than copy. It's not proprietary. It's open knowledge. Give attributions where it belongs. Exactly. Interesting. What's interesting, I got pulled over the coals over this by a physician saying, I was right, I was just using chapter G4 for, and the guy went off the deep end. He was an anti-AI, vigilante, and sort of originality, yadda yadda. And so I challenged him, I said, you know, use any AI tool you like, cut and paste anything, put it in there, show me where I did any plagiarism. But having said that, those accusations are going out, and it's interesting how people frame it as plagiarism, which I think you should just say, it's not plagiarism. Just make attribution clear. And so your attribution may not be right because you didn't do a deep dive into find out who the hell came up with the idea in the first place. Well, and that's the thing. Most ideas don't exist in our heads, right? Amalgamations of everything that we've learned and then in that moment of context, something kind of, you know, an aha, and did I come up with it? No, I just put two pieces that everybody else has come up with, right? And I think when we think, I'm sorry, I was just going to say, I think when we think I created that, that's where the problem starts, right? Well, it's funny you should say that because I don't know who coined the phrase. It's been, but the definition is the issue, not the, the pointing of the phrase. But I coined the phrase neoterrorism and I looked, you know, I went into perplexity AI, which I find is a slightly better search than CHAPBGP4. And it gave a citation and I thought, hey, that's not right. So I then put it in and said, when did Rick Patello first use neoterrorism in LinkedIn article? And it was several years before that. Now, I'm sure somebody else has used the word before. Well, it's difficult to, well, I don't think this anyone's got a definition as I provided it, but to me, this comes into the whole issue. I mean, the meta aspect is, you know, how do neck nuggets morph over time and how does the meaning shift and whatever? So we're in a much more nebulous realm of knowledge. Yeah. I think it's closer to reality. Oh, absolutely. Exactly. The other one's artifactile and it's very egocentric. Yes. And narcissistic, particularly in academia, because everyone loves their own books, you know, anyway. And I think that separating us from the idea that it's our idea. Exactly. And that we own it and that we have, you know, that commons. Yeah. It's a that's I think what we're talking about. Yeah, it's a huge mind shift. So I have Rick, I have an old idea. I called an attribution server, which I never proposed to Google. But the idea was that copyright conflates ownership, control, attribution and a bunch of other things that don't need to be conflated. It's a stupid idea to tangle them all together like that. And what if we separated them out? And if you had an attribution server, I could send a snippet of something into the attribution server, and this could just be a feature of regular search. And it would cost back up. Oh, this is the first instance I find of this. And here's the tree of the derivatives. And, you know, you could and you could even use that tree to reward the originator or a derivative you love by sending them a tip or, you know, direct patronage. But but instead we've conflated all these other sorts of things that that are not helping anybody. I don't think while they're helping a few big companies that are making some money from owning the copyrights, making a lot of money, making making considerable buck. Yeah. And and it's funny. Do you guys know the book? What colors your parachute? Mm hmm. So Richard Nelson Bowles is the author of What Colors Your Parachute? He was he was a minister before. And then as people were starting to leave the church, he wrote a little job hunting guide that he would mimeograph back in the day for other ministers leaving. And then he was like, this could be a book. So he signed a publishing deal with 10 speed press, which was terrible. It basically gave them full rights forever. And he never could get out of the deal. But he would rewrite the book, actually rewrite the book pretty much annually. And it was such a good bestseller that they had to remove it from the bestseller lists, because otherwise they would only be like nine bestsellers forever. It's sold so so regularly. But anyway, he had a horrifying deal because intellectual property and who owns the copyright and all that stuff. But he still he still did OK through the whole thing because because the volume was just so good. But he could never he never got out of that deal with 10 speed press. So I try not to buy anything by 10 speed press. So yeah, and the nano pubs thing is interesting, but it seems to be mostly about metadata because I think I investigated it. And it seemed to be kind of couples around metadata or something like that. I'm trying to revive the thought in my head in my wet brain, but I'm not quite getting there. It is structurally metadata, but it's the idea that you're breaking it up into pieces, right? But it is the metadata, which is, I believe, what really. I think the value of a nugget isn't just the nugget itself, for sure. Right. That that's I take a sentence. I put the sentence out there. So what? But I take that sentence and I say, here's how it relates to and where it comes from and who it did it. And then all of a sudden it has life in it. And so to me, the relationship between those two things is exactly that. It's the fact that it exists by itself. But it describes how it comes about and where it goes and all of those beautiful links. I have a question, though, in terms of tracking nuggets. So if somebody else decides they're going to use this nugget, they can change the meaning, the context that would shift a little bit what it means or how it can be used. And so I don't know this is for the techies here, how well you can actually track. You know, if you want to say, how many people have used this nugget? What is this connected to other? What are the context of how it's used? Whether there's a capacity to do that? So part of the reason for Neo Books and for deconstructing them into nuggets is to create opportunities to compare different opinions about what a nugget means and what its context is. So that that is like not a problem. That is actually a virtue that we're looking for. Yeah, because I want to know that you think I'm having a I'm having a disagreement with a friend about what black swans means. He thinks black swans are just randomness of almost any kind. He really has an extremely broad definition of black swans. And to me, black swans are things that are incredibly difficult to conceive of even happening, but then happen. And all of a sudden we make an explanation afterward. But it was a black swan because we couldn't picture it happening. So for him, somebody is getting on the freeway next to you. It's conceivable that they could cut across your path by accident and that that's a black swan event. And I don't think so. And Stacey's pointing out with a DM that I'm ignoring Dave's hand up, which I totally missed. So I will go to Dave in just a second when I'm done getting like myself snagged in by this this whole conversation. Thanks, Stacey. And so we have a divergence about what black swan means. So the black swan could be the nugget. And then then you get into a bunch of interesting technical questions that are beyond my pay grade that you just raised, Rick, which is how do I know which is the right nugget, the original nugget? How do I know this nugget wasn't changed or forged? How do I know we're not doing combat on the nugget that we like? Can people who agree on a definition of a nugget preserve that nugget and keep it kind of whole as it is? And then so it can be compared to a nugget that may have the same name black swan, but a very different definition. And how do those things show up over time so that they form the foundations of really interesting and useful productive arguments as opposed to combat on just, you know, the problem with Wikipedia, for example, is that there's one page for black swans and they're allowed to say, here's the controversy or something within the page. And certainly the history of it, but you can't really have two different pages for black swans in Wikipedia. And I think inevitably in a neo bookish environment, we're going to have multiple kinds of nuggets representing things. There's not going to be a canonical one. My hope is that we crystallize as communities of belief around different nuggets and nugget webs, for example, nugget narrative webs over time. Sorry, Dave. Go for it. Sorry, I'm late. Can you guys give me the one sentence overview of what you're talking about? Anybody? Yeah, I was wondering, too, you're talking about nugget environment. We don't have a nugget environment. We've been talking about a nugget environment, but we don't have one. So it's a lot of very detailed, abstract conversations. I don't follow either. Yeah, I'm hearing copyright stuff and comments. And I mean, that's what that's that's what I kind of pinned myself on to. But I don't know, maybe it's about something else. Is it about ownership and, you know, royalties and, you know. Well, it started out about a couple of different things. And then we then we brought up copyright not being helpful here. And then then we went into then Rick raised the issue. Hey, what if there's conflicting ideas of what a nugget even is? So we've spun off already in a couple of different directions and we're 15 minutes into the call, which is faster than usual for what we're up to. So so we're kind of mixing up a couple of different things, which I think are not that far off at hand. Klaus, you know, we've got nuggets. It's just that nobody knows about them. And we're not using them as nuggets quite yet. But we're I think we're like pretty close on to it in different ways. So, Dave, I apologize. Over to you with your hand up. Yes, I can further confuse the sense and thanks, Stacy, for, you know, scanning up for. Well, I mean, I guess I so I've been kind of thinking that we have we have two conversations that are also that are both important and maybe have to choose one, I don't know. But one is kind of what is the architecture of ideas? In some sense, do you start with nuggets and what do you build them up into? There's like a construction metaphor here here, I think. And as I was thinking back on, like, I got Scott McNeely to talk one time at an international development group around the around open source. And he talked about, like, you know, what if we were what if we sold people the letter E, you know, and it was like nuggets are made up of letters, I guess, right? I mean, you know, we have we have a hierarchy of kinds of notion of things that we use to build stuff. Some of them are open and reusable and some of them aren't. And but they're kind of all nouns, right? And we're building ideas out of them. And I think we're flopping over into the motivation section. Right. Why do people like write books? Well, do they write books to have to make a living? If they're writing books to make a living, how do we protect their living using copyright? Right. So there's a there's a whole set of motivations around create the idea of creation stuff, which I think are verbs. So we got the nouns, we got the verbs. And it's and I actually think that the really interesting question there is a really interesting question in like what's a nugget obviously going to be useful, I think. So that's the interesting question. The harder question may be what's the what makes that nugget dynamic? Right. How is it you could write a system wherein people are willing to contribute whatever it is and build upon it, right? So that they become more valuable. And to me, it's that that dynamic process that we really, really haven't figured out. And, you know, I think we probably have some models, though. You know, if you look at GitHub, you have a whole bunch of code nuggets that are being reused, right? And you can track the reuse, right? There's a citation process. You can give credit to the original, you know, filer of those things. I mean, there's a whole bunch of kind of interesting infrastructure goes with that. I don't really know how the ASCAP stuff works with songwriting, but songs can kind of be reused. And there's an institution that pays people for who have written songs for their reuse. And I don't really know what kind of control they have over. Like you can't, you know, like all the stuff about Tracy Chapman's song being redone on country radio. As far as I know, she didn't know the country music artist was going to do that song until she started getting checked for it, basically. So, you know, we have some mechanisms for this kind of thing in different media, and they may be different in different media. And then so the third thing I would offer is I have kind of decided from my perspective, like it's looking at the regenerative future that you want dynamic, you want dynamic commons, intellectual commons. And you want that commons to be getting better as fast as you can. And kind of there's a default, which is if the marginal cost of distribution is close to zero, it ought to be in the commons. Like there ought to be a strong bias for society to put things into the commons. Well, you know, that should be kind of the rule unless there's a really good reason not to. And so all of these discussions about that's, you know, indigenous people own this language or, you know, that's my soil data or, you know, kinds of things I think are threatening the notion of building up this intellectual architecture that that feeds the commons. So, you know, maybe we have to say the soil isn't the farmers, it's the lands or something like that. But does the land get to the side of who owns their data? So anyway, I feel like the economic notion of your marginal cost is kind of a kind of a useful one. And it's like, if it can be shared, it should be shared as a bit of all. I love that, Dave. Thank you. And you're right on the right track about sort of how and why about all this stuff. And also you raised an interesting point about attribution versus appropriation in some sense, where earlier we were just talking about how attribution is important, but we've completed it with other stuff. But appropriation is kind of, hey, you can't use that concept. It's our concept. It's like, well, it needs to be if you really were Maori or whatever, or Hopi, you would want this concept to infect everybody because you'd want this to be the way we all see about it. So how are we supposed to talk about it without mentioning it? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Klaus, then Stuart, then Rick. So in the last meeting, we ended up with me saying that I'll have a meeting with Pete scheduled. Yes. And that you wanted me to report back to how this meeting went. And that is in my brain as the agenda for today's call. Yes, thank you. There is an agenda. Well, I put it in my brain, which we don't none of none of us but me consult. But yes. OK. So. So where do I find this? So, you know, I'm working with climate system solutions and my partner from from the biofuel sector there. And we're actually creating a network with with the CEOs of medium sized companies all focused in the food and agriculture sector. And the idea is that we are providing a networking structure guided by AI and following up on on stitching together relationships that are complementary like between a CPG manufacturer and a farmer. So we have a couple of dozen people right now who are interested in this process. So when when you think about AI, Pete gave gave me like a two hour deep dive into how this thing really works and what it is. And the bottom line is you can't transfer it. You know, the the the AI really in and by itself is is dumb. So it only really works because the way I interact with it. And what Pete is saying, it's not that the AI is getting smarter. You are getting smarter and smarter in using the AI. So the problem is I can't just give somebody a link to my my chat GPT because they wouldn't really know what to do with it. It just wouldn't work. So we have to create. But overridingly, many of the most every company out there right now is working on AI. And you have large companies that are putting entire teams on developing an AI capacity. So when you look to small and medium sized companies, they don't have access. No, they just don't have the the resources to to dedicate to training up a chatbot and to interact with them and to build up a library of of of knowledge that they need for their particular company. So we thought. So then I also had a meeting with with Jordan. He actually visited me and Ben here. He was on his way through. And there is the opportunity for Limesburg to provide a platform where we can anchor that AI capacity. And it would be centered around this NIO book where the NIO book has its home. And when I say NIO book, I mean, we talk a lot about nuggets, but it's really the NIO book that has components that maybe applicable in certain ways. But it's really the knowledge base that comes within this NIO book and to make that also searchable now, not beyond nuggets. Just make it searchable. But then in that context, provide an AI capacity from which we can develop GPT specialized for certain companies. And again, you can't just hand over GPT because they need to be constantly worked and need to be constantly updated and upgraded and you have to maintain the integrity of these GPTs. So we can create a home for building up an AI capacity that is available on a lease basis, I mean per use basis, to companies that are working on highly specialized things. For example, I just test run it with the Bio-Nutrient Food Association. They're working on what they call a nutrient density meter. They want to measure the nutrient density of foods. And I went through with my chatbot to explore possibilities of using carbon intensities, course to correlate here and it works and it blew them away because they have two years of development work in the same question and I was able to come to arrive at the same conclusion in half an hour working with this AI. So there is a real need to take the knowledge that we are accumulating in our NIO books and no matter what field you're in, to anchor that and make that information accessible but then add an AI capacity to it. So that's where we're going. So Pete offered to support me with the IT part. Jordan is on board to do the Linesburg, use the Linesburg infrastructure to house this NIO book slash AI capacity and we are scheduling a networking meeting with the companies that we have connected with in two weeks from now. So that's where I'm at now. And the opportunity here is for subject matter experts in all different areas of the economy to assist and support this. You don't have to be a farmer, you don't have to be a food expert, right? But we need an IT infrastructure that just walks. We need to have an IT infrastructure where we can connect people who don't otherwise find themselves and support them. For example, we can take the CEO from Snackdivist, the CPG manufacturer with the CEO of Shepherd's Crane, who's representing farmers in the Paloos and say, OK, why don't we see how we can merge? What you are trying to sell in the consumer market is what the farmer wants to produce and see what we need to do to fill out the middle. What do we need to move this product from the farm to the CPG manufacturer to the market? So that's sort of the idea where we're going. The blueprint we're laying out here. I forgot I was muted. Kyle, just for explanation, can you describe what you mean when you say Linesburg can provide the infrastructure? Do you mean the OFC platform itself? Or do you mean other sorts of things? Do you know specifically what that would be? I don't have enough information on the Linesburg infrastructure to answer that. But Jordan seems to have no issue in setting that up. The way this would work is that at CSS we are offering AI capacity. But we would then contract that AI capacity with Linesburg. So the AI capacity is housed with Linesburg. That means because I mean, for example, I'm in my partner that these guys have no idea what I'm talking about. I mean, that's just it's all abstract. And so these conversations are just way too painful. So I can bounce around with Jordan and Pete to provide this AI capacity. But then the next thing we need are people who know how to maneuver AI. You need then people trained on, even if they're not subject matter experts on a specific topic, they know how to manage AI. So we can then create subcontractors under the Linesburg brand who are then now specializing to advance the AI capacity for the food and agriculture sector and make that available. Now, we would want to have that somewhat exclusionary for CSS because we are building this networking capacity. But this would be on a contracting basis. It would be on a pay per use basis. So we are creating revenue models that can fund the this whole machine there. Well, thank you. Stuart, you lowered your hand, but you didn't unmute yourself. Thank you. Now I have. Good. So. I want to go down two veins here. One, what Klaus just said. So there's a way in which because we are involved in discussion here. Klaus is I'm going to I'm going to surmise Klaus is tired of the discussion and he's taken his Neo book elsewhere. That's what it sounds like to me, OK, whether or not that is the Neo book is exclusively going to go with whatever Jordan is providing or there's opportunity to to do it here also. All right. And there's a way in which to me that points to the the notion that we should be designed and building at a bit at the same time. Otherwise, we're going to lose some opportunity. I think that's the way I think about that. And not that Klaus is doing anything, you know, deceptive, but in my mind, months ago, he had a Neo book many months ago. And and, you know, we're we're just exploring different things that might be better off in a designed and built context. I'm painting with a very broad brush here. I, too, as to the concept of ownership, copyright, what we have with nuggets, my sense is that this is about getting ideas out into the world, not about making money. They're not mutually exclusive. However, I would would be an advocate for if you want to do a Neo book with the OGM platform, then all royalties of any kind get back into OGM to fund the the the initiative of getting ideas out into the world that are important. I say that in the context that most authors don't make very much money on books at all. It's the ancillary stuff where the book is a calling card and you make you make money on that. I can provide personal examples. Jerry immediately picked it up because, you know, he's he's having some direct experience with with his wife, April, right now. So anyway, that those are the two things that I wanted to I wanted to say. Can I just jump in on the making money thing? Because I do think that that is the issue isn't exactly making money. The issue is if what we want is this stuff to get better. There has to be a motivation for people to make it better. And I would argue most of the open content that's created never gets better. And so part of the we need a dynamic system that will make things better. I think that's that's the that's the real catch. So Klaus created a book, I would argue, not really a Neo book, because the nuggets are hard to pull out of Klaus's book, right? And it's going to be hard to make Klaus's book better because of the structure of it, right? So there if what we want is a dynamic system where these ideas are improving, then there I think a structural there's structural problems. And there I think a structural there's structural questions about how they are. But you know what the nuggets are, and then there's motivational questions around what generates what what, you know, why do people contribute? And they have to have some reason it may be money, it may be pride, it may be they want to make a difference in the world. There's a whole, I think, a wide set of motivations, but the system needs to be, I think, architect in a way that the motivations were. I will just note that we are now mixing together about five different layers of things. You're getting a little tangled. Go ahead, Stuart. No, I was going to I was going to I was going to say, Dave, that to me, I think the the initial motivation was all about how can we get ideas out there that are contributing to the world? And I think we ought to we ought to stick to that as the as the as the motivation. Just my my response and and they go to the idea of nuggets. I just posted the link to my newsletter on LinkedIn, which are pervasive taken out of the book. These are nuggets that are taken out of the new books, version one and two. The whole book is structured around topics that I can that can be freestanding, right, you can take theory or spiled dynamics or microbial management as individual freestanding topics. But they're also connected into a story line. If I can untangle just a couple of things before going to you, Rick. Stuart, I was none of the impression that Klaus is impatient with new books and is taking his ball to a different ball field. We had mentioned that Jordan had published a book directly into KDP and all that. And, you know, the connection of Jordan is a sort of alive. But also I think a big piece of what's happening with Pete and Jordan is trying to make alive the chat GPT version of Klaus's body of work. And that's not something we're directly equipped to do right now. We've been trying to connect my brain to GPT separately over in free Jerry's brain. But that's not that's not this process. So I'm happy that they're making progress on that. And that's why I was asking about the infrastructure that Jordan might be providing, whether that's the open community platform that he's been funding or something else and how that might work. But but a piece of the concern there is how do we make and Klaus correct me if I'm getting this wrong? How do we make a simple enough interface that farmers who are not geeks who don't want to go to yet another platform can actually use it and benefit from it? And how do we put a business model behind it so that we can pay for the resources and make it all work? And that that all resonates great for me. I think that's that's fabulous. And I'm I'm happy you're doing that. But let me pause to see if I got that wrong. So I was just explaining that this was my original idea. But it's to create a GPT and it over to the farmer. It doesn't work. And the AI is still too primitive to to to be able to to create a an understanding or have an intuitive understanding you need to. And so Pete was saying basically in intuitively, I developed a work style with the AI that that many programmers don't achieve because they want a program, right? Right. And and I have I just have a conversation with this thing and and off we go. And so so the this this AI capacity that we're talking about creating is like a freestanding AI capacity based on specific topics will be very hands on. You mean you need basically you need a handler. It's like you have a race car there and you need a driver for it. OK, and so we need a lot of drivers going forward, hopefully, right? Because as we make this available, there will be many projects coming out of this, where someone will be out where there will be a question arising to research this. And this is how GPT is being used in companies. You know, it's like my son, you know, is working for for some Sarah. They have one GPT effort going where this thing is tracking self-driving cars. I mean, in their case trucks and they're gathering data, you know, for for autonomous driving on on on semis. And so this GPT is is doing just that function, right? So that's really how this AI is being is being developed. So it's part of what you're saying is part of what you're saying, the class that you also need a community of curators or gardeners or shepherds as part of this. And that's why you want to be on a community platform is that you kind of want to train up people who can be like you with this corpus of work. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you need that's why I'm separating it out of CSS. And I just explained it this morning to my partners saying, look, this doesn't fit in here. You know, this is a total distraction because we are subject matter experts. You know, we have practitioners and so we are using this as a tool. But we don't have really the time and knowledge and capacity to develop this tool. But here is a group of people that can really do this. So Pete offering to step into this and engage is just going to put us onto a different whole different platform. So this is a great example of how each NIO book gets implemented as a real world project in a in a different way. Depending upon what the what the quote potential applications are, not just the intellectual development of it, but the the applications of it, which is where the real bang for the books are, I think, in terms of impact in the world. Yes, and a design principle of NIO books, if there are such things, is to make these things so recomposable that assembling different business models and different kinds of things is easy and happy and a happy event is like is doable. Yeah, right. And somebody else might want to take a piece of Colossus corpus and do something slightly different with it. And as long as it's open source available on all that, they can go do that. Rick, you've been really patient. Go ahead and jump in. Well, I'll say something in response to what said before and perhaps moving on if people want to move in that direction. But, Stuart, in terms of what you were saying earlier, I just have a different perspective. And I see it as an open system or an open book for NIO books in the sense of where does it where does it land? You know, where does it fit in? Because I think it's so emergent, we just don't know. So I think, you know, that's how I'd respond to it. Though I do have a question for you, Klaus, because you said something where I thought, I don't know if I understand you right. And you said something along the lines that farmers don't know how to use for or won't use it. On the other hand, you know, if you had a Klaus catbot where they don't have to know how to use it, all they need to do is be able to ask you questions and go into the collective wisdom and knowledge that you're able to go and ask questions. No reason why I bring this up is that I've got fairly well acquainted with Kent Langley, who is actually is doing a project. And I think you need to touch connect with him on developing business models for regenerative agriculture. And I can make I can introduce you through LinkedIn, just in case you don't know him, but he he's he's doing a lot of work in this space. And so how do you make it easy for people who know diddly squat about AI? They just want to know how to drive the car. They don't need to know what's under the hood. And if you make it so accessible that people can, you know, access the best regenerative food policy resources and people anybody can access. Now, I just wanted to say that. See how you respond to it. Then I wanted to bring up another point. Yeah, I think there's whole understanding how AI works and and what it takes to get an intelligent answer out of it is an emerging skill set. Yeah. And and even for me, having worked on this thing intensely now for quite a while, I'm just now really understanding why what I do works. Let me give you an example here. So so here is a conversation that I had about biofuels, biofuel feedstocks. So it says biofuels are a major part of agriculture, often competing with the food supply, but also adding to the pollution of soils and water sheds. Here's an article. So I'm giving it. So this is my conversation with the AI. So I'm giving it an abstract that I unloaded here. And this is just all feed information. And then then here's chat, CPT and our supply side create an abstract that summarizes these articles. So what I'm doing is I'm prepping the AI, you know, to sort the information that I wanted to work with. This is not my real question. This is just setting the AI up so that it develops then not this abstract here. Then I'm asking create a list of feedstock that are most practical for the US, not compete with the food supply, can be raised on non-farm acreage. And then it gives me this list here, which is, well, I mean, amazing, right? And these feedstock represent a range of options and so on. So that's how you really interact with this thing. Here's another one, nutrient density versus carbon intensity score. So I explained to the AI, the federal government has created incentives for farmers to adapt regenerative practices, blah, blah, blah, right? And then so then it gives me an opinion. Is it possible to use the same or similar criteria to measure nutrient density as it is used for CIS? Now it gives me an opinion on this, right? Potential pathways, conclusion. Then I'm saying, can you make the assumption that a crop with a low CIS score will have soils that have been formed with regenerative practices? And then it gives you taps into a significant debate with blah, blah, blah. So then it gives me this information here, which I then forwarded to the Bionutrient Food Association and they were saying, wow, this is crazy. Now, we worked on this for two years to come to that conclusion and it took me oven out to get there. And I think that's how AI works, right? I mean, you have to stimulate the conversation. You have to, to create a summary on this topic, then you can ask it a question, right? And I think, I think, Rick, what Klaus was reporting in from his talk with Pete was that a free-standing Klaus bot wouldn't be able to manage everything that Klaus just talked through. So it's not currently conceivable to just let a free-standing Klaus bot loose into the regenerative ag. No, no, yeah. I was thinking that this is where, it's not my air of expertise, so I'm deferring to somebody else who is working in this space. And I don't know who's further ahead in how to make these sort of, call them the virtual Klaus Curator. I mean, even what you just described there, you still need a subject expert to go over and discern it. The other question I have for you, whether you're using other AI tools to compare, because I'm interested in cross-validating things. And I actually enjoy working with perplexity AI. I don't know whether you've compared a different AI platform, just as to how you can cross-validate things. Yeah, I'm only using chatGPT. It's for this, for a number of reasons, that, I mean, you can have chatGPT enterprise, chatGPT team, you know, you can use, you can create GPs. It's the most versatile functionality there. But I just wanted to demonstrate that I get these results is because of my unique professional background, you know, the unique educational track that I talk. So that's what it responds to. But I can train somebody, you know, to use the same base, but under these pre-concepts now. No, I think it's fantastic. Just as a, by the way, Rick, chat perplexity, basically the unpaid model is on chatGPT 3.5. If you're using Perplexity Pro, I'm just reading the Wikipedia page for it. It has access to GPT-4, Cloud 3, Mistraw, Large, and an experimental Perplexity model. Now GPT-4 and Cloud 3 are two of the three top large language models right now. The third one being Gemini Ultra, which is doing really well. So you're kind of using the same engine in some sense it's just the perplexity is laying on a few other features of its own. Yeah, exactly. I've just been using it clinically in medicine. I found it more useful than using it because it hones in more effectively for my purposes anyway. Yep. But anyway, no, I just think, you know, what I heard from class was two things. One, how can you train other people to do exactly what you're doing, which is like having the sort of the expert tier level. But below that is the curated level where it's just the end user who wants to come in and act stuff, be able to understand it and apply it. So that's what I do. I want to come back to something about nuggets because I put a comment in there about nuggets that should there be static or dynamic? And I think there are pros and cons to that and there's the good, the bad, and the ugly. And you just have to take any word that has flipped its meaning through propaganda. Take woke as an example, equity is another. And that's where we get into these political wars and we're operating from different definitions. And so there is a merit to having a static definition that you have to argue for and against that definition rather than imposing a definition that favors your biases. So I think there's a little bit more nuance in the issue of that in terms of are we talking about nuggets that, and dealing with say wicked problems where things are gonna evolve and change over time. And so your nuggets have to adapt and be agile for the future versus something that you say, this is the definition of equity and agree or disagree with it, say what you don't like or agree with. And that's one of the things that I've been trying to work on in developing a new learning process of developing collaborative learning communities. And unfortunately, I think Dave left, but in the last week, he shared something and he didn't realize he put a link to a video that was part of it. And I said, oh, that's interesting, I'm part of that group. And I went and listened to it. And what was fascinating for me, it was, I won't go into the details, but it was sense making. And I didn't, the sense making didn't make sense to me, which is fine. That's okay, everyone has to make sense in their own way. But I was more confused than enlightened. Now that could be my ignorance or whatever, or maybe it's the ignorance of the sense maker, I don't know. Anyway, I took a look at this and I went back to another group where it was in, and I just assumed this was open information. And unfortunately, Dave put a link in and he didn't have permission from the other people to share that link. So when I, oops, he has, so the group, when I mentioned that, you know, it was like, David, what did you do? You know, sort of thing. But interesting of the person who actually summarized and made sense of that session, actually gave a good presentation. I said, that's, you know, it was much better than what I heard, although I didn't listen to it all because I just didn't engage me. But to me, this speaks to the nature of how, you know, how our nuggets used developed and evolve. And to me, that's where the secret source has to come in because having all these nuggets is one thing. It's a second thing to think, how are people gonna get engaged and use them? And to me, that is actually more important than creating the nuggets because if the nuggets don't bring attention, it's just another book on the bookshelf that doesn't get read very much. So how do we make nuggets attractive? Anyway, I'm gonna put a, I just updated this blog post where I put in a definition of equity and for those on the left on the right, my challenge for them is to say, what do you disagree or agree with about this definition? And that's where I think you can get into some generative dialogue and perhaps build a little more middle ground so we don't let our dysfunctional polarizations and toxic divisiveness tear us apart. And you all put it in, and this is my ongoing journey of trying to think how do we create these learning communities which I think is where we need to put even more attention to than the nuggets. Rick, thank you. And I think the conversations and debates around what happened to the word woke over time, what happened to the word equity over time are really interesting narratives that are connected to those nuggets and enlighten them. And so the exact relationship between those things, I'm not sure I'm not a linguist or an ontologist or anything like that, but I think that that's where the vitality of this whole thing rests is making sure that those things are available and that we can talk about them. Cool. That was a lot of stuff really fast that went in many different directions. We can take a breath for a second. Speaking of which actually the article speaks about sacred silence and the importance of it. And it's a very nice, I have to go and validate this because I saw this, I have to go to the library and make sure I've got the original text about this Lakota female scholar who gave a written passage about the differences between talking and speaking in indigenous cultures versus in Western cultures. It's a fascinating read and having pauses to reflect and be quiet is good. There it may ends. I'll say I'm just wondering where you are in the middle of this conversation. Where I am? Yeah. You've been listening with care and every now and then you close your eyes and you're absorbing a lot. I'm just wondering how this is flowing through you over your whatever. Chaotically. I think we're trying to hold so many things all at once. And I have a brain that builds pictures as soon as I hear something. And those pictures are usually structural in nature. So everything I hear, I kind of start creating an understanding of how that might work. And I'm struggling with how I can see an old structure. I can't see a new structure. An old structure is closer to this little nano docs kind of thing, right? Very data sciencey. And then there's this new structure with AI. Which my sense is that's where we're going. I mean, it's not going to be an old structure. It's going to be a new structure. But I don't know where that old structure hands off to the new structure. So if I think about a nugget in terms of data, right? Not what it represents and how people are going to interact with it and all that good stuff. I think all of that is all right. Everybody's speaking to that very well, I think. But when I think of it from a data perspective, it needs to be publicly available. It needs to know what it is. It needs to know what it's linked to. It needs to know who spoke to it and so on and all those other things, right? It needs to be essentially a very aware piece of data. And that piece of data would, and in historical terms, yeah, I'm not sure how warm it would be, but it would definitely- Well, have you heard of Nora Bateson's warm data idea? Yeah, yeah. No, I think her. Yeah, I think warm data for her is a little different than what I'm saying, but- Okay. For me, I've got noted contextual, relational and interaction. So it feels like this, but it's like what we're talking about. Okay. My sense is that there's a gap between the two things we're talking about, that the thing we know how to do is to build nuggets using data science. I can build it in my own head to some degree. I'm not a data scientist and many stretch of the imagination, but I can build it in my own head to some degree. What I think is missing is that to do that, we have to build data science-like interfaces. Why are you saying data science here? We're talking about a, in essence, we're talking about a relational database that is also a link database between the people and the things and what they relate to and what they're meaning and all of these other things. And so essentially, from a data perspective, we're not talking about a flat database. We're talking about all of these relationships between everything. And that, from that perspective, requires a whole bunch of linking that isn't just, let's write a document. And that level of linking just, oh, let me just link sporadically here and there and everywhere without some kind of metastructure becomes very impossible to manage. So you sort of need to have metadata that says, this is linking to this and this way and that's linking to that and that way. And this is a reference to it and this is someone speaking to it and this is something that supports it and this is something that somebody's taking a different opinion on. Like there needs to be an understanding of what's happening to these nuggets. And so to me, all of that's in my head. But then there's the question of AI and how much could AI actually do that if AI actually got trained on those things, on the metadata? In other words, how could we have that very complex data science side of things become very user friendly because we've built an AI or trained an AI to understand that when we reference things in a certain way that it needs to treat them in a certain way. And then we don't need to build the complex data structure, but we need to build that complex data structure to train the AI, but not necessarily for us to use a complex data structure. That's what I'm thinking about. Cool, thank you. And I don't think any of us are data scientists in the room and Nora, we lexicographers or I mean, Wendy from Australia is actually some of these things but Wendy Alfred. And I think that some of the connections, we've had several conversations here about metadata and about how to converse, how to create the sociality around nuggets and all that, which we haven't made all that much progress on because we're not that technical in this group. But I think if we leave things in a very accessible way and we begin to understand how to add metadata that we know we need in some way and then we adopt other people's standards and protocols for doing so. So if we discovered that the Nano Publications Project has a great way of a great shorthand for creating metadata around X, then let's use their protocol and go to town. And then let's invite people who are doing these larger efforts to come in and say, either, hey, we've absorbed your corpus and here's what it looks like, fully linked up into a more structured program or if only you had done this, we could do this with it and then we adopt that and move toward that ourselves. I think we might absorb our way into having some of the things that you're looking for by doing the work that we're trying to do, which is maybe just simpler in terms of nuggets that are linked together into narratives that are available for other people to comment on and do things with. So I like what you're seeing. I have a feeling that we're not capable of meeting the full program you're talking about, but I have a feeling that if we work openly and are open and permeable to those who understand some of these things and don't get distracted with insights that may not be actually central to what we're trying to achieve, but maybe interesting, but maybe a tangent that takes us down some rabbit hole that we don't need to follow. If we sort of are aware of that, I think we could pick our way through this in a nice way. Does that make sense? So I appreciate, I'm grateful for your now, just now painting the bigger image of what you're seeing is possible because I was lighting things up in my head as well. If I may just before Klaus jumps in, what we're talking about when we talk about all of this stuff with nuggets, it's a graph. It's a very complex, very large graph. And that those graphs get really messy really fast. And so how do we use this new world in a different way to simplify it for us mere mortals? Yep. Is I guess what I'm trying to figure out. Agreed. Klaus, please. Yeah, I'm not a data scientist, but I have worked with massive data. So in my last job for this German old data, we had 24 million customers and we had total sales data on every single one of them. It functioned similar to a Costco model where you have to buy with a cart. So we were on SAP, SAP gathered, every box of toothpaste you bought. So we had total data sets and I worked with the data department. Now we had some and they downloaded all of this out of SAP into Excel spreadsheets, which were massive. Whoa. They actually built Excel at capacity and then linked them into chains. But I was able, for example, to extrapolate the top three customers in one of our 700 stores. So before I visited the store, I would take a data dump and found out the top three customers that produced like 8% of total sales for that store that would go to the store manager and say, oh, by the way, tell me about this and this customer to understand if they even paid attention to their customers, developed an international key account organization using this data. Data is what you, I mean, it's a living entity. So when you have, but you have to have, you have to have a vision of where you want to go with this. And so, and it's quite creative to use it. Where I'm at right now, and I'm saying, this is really what we may be struggling with. When we meet with, when I met with the farmers in the Palouse, right? My whole thought was, what is the value proposition that would get these guys interested in even listening to me, not to speak about what working with me? What can I bring to them that is unique enough and valuable enough to where they get interested and they want to pursue this relationship? So at this point in time, I'm wanting to create value propositions that get people to say, yeah, this is something I would spend money on, right? Membership fees, not an extra service fees and so on and so on, because you need to get money in order to attract talent so you can pay people who have to pay rent and have a family, they would love to do what you're doing but they can't afford it, right? So you need to be able to, you need to have revenue in order to do that. And so what is the value proposition for someone else? So there is a lot of naval gazing about knuckles and this and that and the other and that doesn't mean a thing unless you have identified someone to whom this may be meaningful, right? So who is that? And this is the idea of target market profiling, right? I mean, the targeting your customer base, targeting your potential partners and so on and so on, target market management. And so that's, if we can switch our thoughts to who am I adding value to, you know? For whom is this what I'm working on beneficial, yeah? Then you can start shaping this into a product that may actually live and breathe in and find interested parties. So this is really, at this point, hoping to develop this infrastructure and if Jordan can pull it off, that would be amazing but he probably has the tools to do it, and then anchor your book or knuckets or whatever you want to call it, knuckets to me is meaningless, right? You have to have a book where the story lives and comes together and then out of that book you take knuckets but always connected back to the book, back to the story, right? I mean, knuckets are not some free-floating entities that have no connection. Now it needs to belong to a greater story and then when you follow theory, you principles, right? You're bringing people down a curve into comprehension, into alignment, right? And so you need these knuckets because they stitch back together into a bigger story. So you have to start at the bigger story before you pull out any knuckets because those knuckets are supposed to get you back to the story. Now you may be able to use one or two knuckets to create a similar related story. That's a different thing, right? But you have, I mean, I have this regenerative, regenerate America story, right? And in order to get there, there's a lot of things that we have to talk about because it's a complex adaptive system. It's a wicked system. So we need to be able to understand relationships and connections now. So that's where, if we can just get out of our own heads and spin with our knuckets here into who am I, who can I serve, right? Because right now it's all about who can I help, who is helping others? Let me help somebody who is helping somebody. How can I be of service, right? And so that's sort of where I would love to go and just move forward, get traction and move forward. Because we can't just twirl. We need to put an anchor into the crowd and say, okay, let's take this and move it, move forward with it. Agreed, which is why I'm rooting for you and your work with Jordan as well and trying to help think about how this all fits as we go. Rick, please. Yeah, maybe just to build a little bit on what you were just saying, Klaus, is how do you make it attractive where people are drawn to learn together and how to be able to do that effectively? So how do you contextualize the nuggets? But I think one of the big differences about near books is that one thing about a book, you have to read the damn thing while from beginning to end. And sometimes you have a query and you just wanna know something just in time. You know, I have this question, let's see what this has to provide for me. So that, and so when you flip from passive learning to inquiry-based activated learning, it's a different ball game altogether. And, you know, you mentioned the value proposition. I prefer to talk about the virtues proposition as an attractor. They're both important, but we get so locked into the business language of values that we sometimes undervalue virtues. So I just wanted to put a slightly different, but I wanna share something. And I haven't finished watching it yet. So I'd be interested to know where anybody has heard of this or not, but I'll just define it. It's a company and I'll just, it's very brief. And it says, versus is a cognitive computing company building next generation intelligent software systems model after wisdom and genius of nature. We represent a paradigm shift in the current approached AGI. And I started listening to it and I thought, wow, this sounds really interesting. So I'll put the link in and that might be something to consider for a future chat. It's like, what comes after AGI? And what the point of what you were talking about is that it's actually trying to mimic human intelligence in such a way that it's different from the current AGI models. Now, how much is that hype marketing? I'll let people just send that for themselves. So I'll just put it in there so that, oh, you've got the versus foundation. Oh, good, good. I've got a bunch of stuff on them. Spatial intelligence management, spatial contracts. Gabrielle Rene is one of the key people here. Introduction to the Spatial Web. Here's a web link. He wrote a book called The Spatial Web. Dan Mapes also wrote it. And there's this idea of using HSML and HSTP, hyperspace transaction protocols. And Pete and I squint at this and were like, yeah, it doesn't smell right. Now, we don't know for sure that this is not the next best architecture, but this has never smelled right to me and it feels like a distraction. I'm wondering about Harold Friston, who is getting a tremendous amount of attention right now. Here's Carl J. Friston. He is kind of the central guy around the free energy principle and active inference, which is another big body of work. It's not nearly the same as the Spatial Web stuff I just pointed to, but it's another thing of equal mass and energy that's very attractive to a lot of people. And a lot of people are saying, oh, all this large language model stuff is nope, nope, it's primitive, it doesn't actually help. It doesn't learn as you go. What you need is Bayesian math to do this. And I smell this and I'm like, well, if they show me systems that actually work in a couple months, then I'll be like, oh, cool, it's working. And we have a really lovely, at 1 p.m. today, Michael Lennon, who is an expert in these things, has been in our conversation for a while. So we dig this up every now and then and sort of turn it over and he gets what we're asking. So that's another example of something that might be really great, but might just be a distraction. So when I say let's beware of distractions, that's kind of what I mean. We need to solve a bunch of problems that are above our pay grade as it is between what sort of metadata, do we wanna look at warm data like Nora says? Is that a good group? Is it nano publications? Is it someone else? We need to pick and choose from among a nearby constellations of interesting work in a way that serves some end user as causes urging us to do with useful info. So I'm trying to figure out how do we do the simplest thing that could possibly work that gets us the compelling demo that you're asking us for, Rick, which I completely agree. How do we make a nugget tasty, juicy and addictive? How do we do the salt, fat, crunch combo of a nugget of an idea that makes people want to interact on it around it and improve it and reuse it themselves? And then I'll go back class. I agree with you about the dominance of books, but I think I'd rather refer to them as narratives. And I did a video long ago, 2010, I did a video called Nuggets Narratives and Points of View, which is where I first started being interested in the terminology of nuggets and narratives are the stringing together of a variety of nuggets to tell a story. A book is a long narrative. A point of view is a stack of these narratives that makes up some set of ideas in some domain and then you might have points of view about ecology, points of view about psychology, points of view about politics, who knows. But sometimes I'll drop a nugget into a conversation that is completely out of place in that conversation. Jose, thank you and Stuart, I think you guys both have to boogie. Thank you for being here. Sometimes I'll drop a nugget that's out of context because I'm hoping somebody will say, oh, that's interesting, tell me more. And then I can unfold the narrative around it and start to warm up other nuggets and start to bring other ideas into the room. So Dave Whitzel and I and Dave's wife Claudia visited singing frog, jumping frog farms a couple of years ago. That visit was really, really useful for me and I'll tell a little piece of that story, which to me is a nugget, in a conversation about industrial ag where I'll be like one day the neighbor's ranch was flooding because there was a big rain and the jumping frogs who wasn't or singing frogs, whatever it is, wasn't flooding. And because they had regenerative, they had active thirsty soil that was busy drinking up that water and feeding the aquifer where the industrial farm had dead soil, blah, blah, blah. And I will let that sit. I won't tell the whole book. I won't, you know, the nugget I hope will do some work on its own. And if it doesn't then maybe it'll stick in their head and they'll think about it later. But for me, the nuggets sometimes alone, as short stories told, are very, very useful to open up future deep conversations. Rick, you're muted. Sorry, no, I agree. It's a question of, you know, to me it comes to the receptivity of the learner and whether that nugget acts as a catalyst for further inquiring. So it's, you know, nuggets can be a source of musing that inspires people to, you know, become more proactive, absolutely. You mentioned Michael, is giving a presentation this afternoon, you say? No, he's not presenting. He's a regular at the Free Jury's Brain Call that happened this afternoon at the same. Oh, I see. Same Zoom as this at 1pm, but we don't have a particular agenda on it. It's just that in that set of calls we've occasionally dipped into the free energy principle and adaptive inquiry. Could you put those two links that you shared from your brain thing about, because actually, you know, at least the way it was, you know, one thing I'd say yes, and yes, we have to have our feet on the ground, but on the other hand, you know, if there is gonna be a, if you wanna use the black swan analogy that someone does come up with something that is more effective than, you know, it's going to pull the needle in that direction. Who knows which way it's gonna go. Yep. So I'm giving you links to the spatial lab and the versus foundation. Thank you so much. Yep. You got quite a brain there, man. Thanks. Well, I'm curious about everything and I'm always feeding my brain and I'm sad that the brain is such a quirky interface that everybody isn't like happily mingling in it because that would make me happy. But they're... One thing, you know, the one thing is that, Jose mentioned this, he's a sort of visual person, you know. Yeah, me too. And from, and interesting enough, I find I'm not that visual. I'm trying to become more visual because I find the visual representation that you give, it just doesn't, you know, and so how can I become more receptive to the visual representations of the brain thing? Because you do it, you know, automatically and it's sort of like, for me, anyway, just to let you know that for non-visual learners, it does, it's a challenge that's put it that way. It can be overwhelming. I know, and I think I need to slow down the demo at the beginning for people who are not accustomed to it, et cetera. Well, interestingly, verbally, they're really wrong. People are saying... If you're taking a look at matching it with chat GPT. Yes, so Pete and I have worked a bunch. Oh, you're reminding me. We have an open query with the brain support people because their API did not return a response when Pete was trying to connect it to chat GPT. So we got pretty far. Pete, Pete, it took a very nice swing at it and the brain has not answered our question yet. So we're stuck there. Because we are also offering a list of articles on the CSS website. The bottom, of course, is you list of articles is pretty useless unless it gets activated and searchable. It's an indexed. Exactly. There is an AI software that does that. There are a couple of different offers now in the market that will let you submit a corpus of your own, which is what you really need. The problem with my corpus is I don't write a lot of essays into the brain. You have to infer what I mean by it when I add things to the brain because I will use thoughts as editorial content. So everything below a thought falls under whatever that thought says. I'm skeptical of these things here, but I don't write an essay that says, gosh, I'm skeptical about the spatial web or whatever else. But it would be interesting. So when we built this AI capacity, for example, it would be interesting to find a connection to the brain and because the AI in and by itself is pretty stupid, but if there is a connected search function to this wealth of articles and information that you have in the brain, you could make that a resource space for the AI, right? Yes, that's our goal. So we could incorporate that into the project that Peter and Jordan and I are now working on. Yes, that would be terrific. Just a very brief aside, I don't know the, I remember looking at it, but I haven't, but are you familiar with FatBrain.ai? Is that something you've heard of? FatBrain.ai, it's something I just heard of today. I thought, what was that about? I sound familiar, but no, I have an old FatBrain, not a new FatBrain. Yeah, it's FatBrain.ai. I do not have them in my brain. Okay, that's fine. Well, at least I found one thing that can be added to your brain. This is like stumped the brain. I mean, stumped the brain. I love it. Anyway, I'm gonna look into it a little bit, that's all, because I thought, what's this interesting AI platform anyway? So I have just added it to my brain, so I can't say it's no longer in my brain and I will go research it and hook it up properly when we're hanging up here. Alrighty, okay, so. Anything else? Oh, one other thing, I didn't finish my fourth chapter. Actually, I enjoy the entanglements. What was certain, were people losing track? I just love it, but if people can't follow it or they get overwhelmed, so I feel, I can stack that better than I can visual thing. So we'll have, it's all part of our neurodiversity and how can we combine our neurodiversity in a way that we can create? Yeah, I thought in favor of entanglements, I'm just thinking it would be helpful to make them directional. You know, where you're going with this thing. There has to be a direction somewhere. Now, and so, he's a focused, I'm a part-check manager, you know, I'm a part-check guy. They is a focused on where I need to go. And so I love entanglements, if they are creating some serendipity or some sparking points, but it's all too easy to wander into the wilderness here. And then you lose sight of where you actually would have liked to go. Agreed. You need to get out of the swampy lowlands, right? Yeah, that's what I thought. Yes, you want protection from tsunamis. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. It was fun, even if it was sort of fangly. Yeah, that's okay.