I may make an exception for Nietzsche, who sometimes did write whole chapters in a day or two of good health. But for a mere mortal, I expect proof of work.
Now how inclined am I to read a book that someone generated with AI within a few minutes? I’m not even gonna read the _announcement_. Call me a fool, or old fashioned.
Call me old fashioned but I honestly thought that's how one selects the relatively few books one can actually read among the gazillions of books that get written in the wild.
How can you make a fair comparison between the two if you haven't read one?
Both examples have sections where the model simply left in placeholders for concepts - in example 1, "Summary of Key Takeaways" repeatedly references `[Book Topic]`, while example 2 starts doing so much earlier in "Overview of the Book".
What is the goal of this project? If it is meant to be more than a learning exercise, I'd hope for a lot more investment on quality control for the final output (but then I'd perhaps be even more worried that people would trust that output uncritically).
I don't think a publishable-quality book can currently be generated this way. I do think it is a helpful tool for generating an entire book on any nonfiction topic you want to learn more about, no matter how specific.
A little more constructive: The difference between long form content like this and the 'medium' of interacting with a model is that a book is static while a model allows for a interactive consumption of content. I'd lean more into that that this.