u/CyborgWriter

Right now, you just record the conversation and use a separate app to get a transcript of it. There's a bunch of free one's out there that do a good job. Once you get the transcript, you can make it into a note. Over time, we'll add in all these bells and whistles to make that stuff easier, including things like Deep Search on the web and multi-modality, but right now we're fully focused on getting people to understand what we already built, which is being able to take a bunch of discrete notes and turn them into a fully customized system for outputting text. That works very well...We just need to make that obvious and easier for people to understand and do. But yeah, feel free to hit me up if you want to learn more. I'd be happy to walk you through everything.

I’d probably look beyond just ChatGPT or Gemini. They’re useful, but they’re still mostly chat interfaces. You give them a pile of material and ask them to figure out the connections for you in the background.

Story Prism works differently. You can take your previous lessons, teaching materials, pedagogy research, curriculum documents, and whatever else you rely on, then organize and connect those things yourself. That's important because you’re not just giving the model information. You’re showing it how the information fits together and what each part is supposed to do.

That’s what lets you build a reusable system for producing lesson plans in the structure you actually want, rather than asking for a new lesson plan from scratch every time and hoping the result is consistent.

I was only a teacher for a year, but lesson planning damn near killed me. I really wish I’d had something like this then. The initial setup is a little confusing because you’re essentially turning your files into a system for producing outputs. That’s not a particularly established way of working yet.

But once you get the hang of it, you can keep refining the system and use it indefinitely. You also get access to the popular models in the same place, rather than paying for separate subscriptions and moving your material between them.

I’m involved in building Story Prism, so obviously I’m biased, but your use case is exactly the kind of thing I’d be happy to help you set up one-on-one. Feel free to DM if you're interested!

I’ve been using Story Prism for something pretty close to this, although in my case it’s less about analysing my own conversations and more about helping our team keep track of what we’re learning as we build.

We’ve got transcripts, product discussions, customer conversations, technical decisions, old assumptions, new ideas, and all the little details that tend to get lost once a project has been going for a while. Story Prism gives us somewhere to connect all of that, so we can look at both the broader problem and the specific details without losing the relationship between them.

It’s also become a record of how our thinking has changed. We can see what we’ve already tried, what we’re working on now, what we’ve decided not to pursue, and what we think might come next. That’s useful because product development has a way of making the latest conversation feel like the whole story.

The team can look at the same material and get back on the same page without someone having to explain the entire history of every decision from memory.

The personal development side of what you’re describing feels like a natural extension of that. Once you have enough conversations in one place, you can start seeing patterns that are almost impossible to notice from inside a single conversation.

I’ve been using Story Prism for this kind of thing, although I think of it less as a replacement for Anki or NotebookLM and more as the place where the material stays connected.

I can put the lecture, transcript, readings, notes, questions, and related ideas into the same workspace and connect them. So when I’m asking about something later, I’m not starting from a blank chat and hoping the model remembers a 100-page PDF. It has the notes and the relationships between them.

That also means the quiz or review material can come from the actual lecture and the surrounding course material, instead of being generated as a separate thing that disappears into another app.

Handoffs between tools is definitely a bottleneck. Each one gives you an output, then you have to carry that output over to the next place and explain the context again. Story Prism is built around keeping the context in one connected system, so you can move from the lecture to questions to review without reconstructing the whole course every time.

It's a problem, but it's not an impossible problem to solve. There are many things we can implement right now to significantly mitigate these risks. We're just not doing it because we're too lazy/trapped in the old world of thinking. A massive paradigm shift is underway. This will take time and along the way, some fucked up shit is going to happen, such as major hacks, site shutdowns, etc. But they'll be fixed as we move along and there will be a lot of proactive measures in the mix such as cryptographic attestation, immutable identity cards for agents, rigid highway systems, permission slips, and so many other things.

We're not looking at an existential crisis. We're looking at a very messy software update that will lead to problems we need to fix.

It's a big deal, sure, but it's also important to understand that it was a cybersecurity firm that went out of it's way to find vulnerabilities like this. In fact, someone over ten years ago spotted it but they didn't do anything about it because they thought it would be too hard for a human to crack. The most noteworthy part of this story is that when they released the patch, people could quickly use AI to reverse engineer the patch to identify the vulnerability. That means from here on out, when patches are released, websites will have to quickly integrate them instead of sitting on their hands for a bit, given how fast others can find these weak spots now.

But the media is being stupid about it. They're making it out to seem like some rogue agent from a nefarious actor found it. That is a real threat, mind you. But that's not this story. Not today.

It's called Criti-hype. You over-inflate the capabilities by expressing the dangers, which justifies taking action of some kind. In this case, it's regulation to ensure major corporations maintain their moats. Not to say that there aren't any security concerns with AI. There are a lot of them...They're just not existential like how they're being purported on the news an they're all solvable problems. It's just gonna be a mess to fix.

It reminds me of how the media elevated Osama Bin Ladin to be this mastermind opponent threatening the very existence of the United States. That was then used as a justification for starting numerous wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Osama was a threat, sure. And for terrorists, he certainly took the cake. But existential? Absolutely not.

It's funny because I work with people all over the World and the only two places where everyone is freaking out, it seems, is the U.S and Europe. But talk to people in Saudi Arabia or India and you'll get completely different perspectives.

Interesting. I actually envisioned something like this would happen around 2021-2022. I also talked a lot about multi-modality and AI text to video. Got laughed out of the room because I didn't have enough credibility to back the claims.

It's a good idea! Here's proof that it is.

What happened to us? You're looking at it. When most of our information comes from feeds and third party voices, you end up with distorted perceptions that lead nowhere.

It's not about truth or more information. It's about solving the age old problem of gaining access and clarity on primary source data to draw our own conclusions.

Raw data can be hard to find and understand. So we rely on experts to do it for us. That's the flaw that everyone ignores because it's seemingly impossible to solve, but that couldn't be further from the truth. We can solve this. We just need to find an easier way for everyone to be able to do this in a way that significantly reduces third-party intermediaries interpreting things for us.

That model worked in the before time. We exist, today, and right now, this model is slowly beginning to fail us and this issue will become more pronounced the longer we ignore it.

Link is in my previous comment. I'm not going to look for a job. I'm going to make a job and help others make their own.

It was never about jobs. Jobs are the tools we use as mechanisms for leveraging skills to create value for money. But just like any other tool, it can be replaced by new ones to accomplish the same thing.

What data? News articles? What about on the ground realities? It's funny because every industry professional I've met who work on million-dollar productions for major studios uses AI all the time and none of it involves writing or filming for them.

If the job is binary and systematic that requires exact repeatable outcomes that apply to all scenarios, then yes. The job is on the chopping blocks. But think about how many careers this doesn't apply to? Think about all the careers that have yet to be invented or forged by someone who lacks opportunities?

I have yet to see a significant number of people lose their jobs due to AI. Some, yes, but most job losses over the past few years is because of macro economic conditions that was practically set to arrive by this point irrespective of AI.

That's still better than working a job you hate. Also, I don't think most jobs are going away, either. I just think the low-hanging fruit, process-oriented jobs will go away. But try getting an AI to make a show like Foundation Series. Even with perfect AGI that can do everything flawlessly, it still won't do that.

Why? It's because no matter what, AI will have too many choices to make since it has access to so much knowledge and skills. It needs it's choices narrowed methodically to make all of the right decisions, which means it has to have human direction for complex work that's malleable and hard to define into a repeatable system.

AI will likely grow to become advanced exoskeletons for the mind when it comes to more complex jobs, but for stuff like auditing, crunching the numbers, or stocking shelves, it will do these things and that's great even if it produces temporary casualties in the workforce who will need to adapt/need assistance. That's better than holding billions of people back from maximizing their action-potential.

That is an assumption. That isn't a cemented outcome of everything.

Yes, but we also can't be slaves to our own assumptions. The future remains uncertain as long as we choose to be open-minded instead of entrenched in what others tell us how it's going to play out.

I reject that and what the talking heads on YouTube tell me because I'd rather read and learn about how it actually works instead of getting some official interpretation that makes it difficult to verify the credibility of the claims. That's how we seize the future we want, not wallowing in assumptions handed down to us. All of us must learn how to put the feeds down and read the data, instead. That is hard, but that is what is required to avoid the miserable outlooks that plagues people into inaction.

That's like gently laying your head down as the Titanic sinks. Like, no. Sorry. I'm going to fight my way out of this mess and save as many people as I can even if the odds are stacked against us. We determine our future by dreaming, building, and fighting for what matters to us. We don't do it by deferring decisions to corporations and fancy politicians. That's how we create false utopias, instead of real societies that elevate the positive aspects while mitigating the ugliness.

I use our business to understand itself and to provide feedback and ideas on how to make it better. So when we run into bugs, I can describe the bug and it can examine what happened and why before developing solutions that are grounded in it's code to hand off to the developers.

I say this as someone who works 60 hours a week. 35 at a min wage job stocking shelves and 25 hours a week building open-ended agentic canvas tools for researchers and writers.

We are tired. We do not want these jobs. We want meaning and the ability to have the time and money to pursue that. If I didn't have to work just to pay my bills, I could spend all of my time and energy on this and making the 30 plus feature length movies that I want to film with my brother. That's meaningful work, to me. Being able to do what I love while helping others actualize what they want to accomplish.

I want to contribute to a better future. I want to change how we acquire, synthesize, and distribute knowledge using agents to traverse shared human-made structured knowledge graphs. I want to influence others to see the world differently through the films my brother and I make and I want to help others do the same.

But it's exceptionally more difficult when I'm expected to play Karen's crisis counselor at the registers all day. So my response to this college professor is to respectfully fuck off. Let the robots take these meaningless jobs so we can finally have the time we deserve to be people once again, the kind who can remember how to dream and make things that people actually value and can help them grow. I don't care if the road is harder. I don't care if it requires more work. I care that we matter more than bodies filling roles.

It's utterly depressing to see how so many intelligent people can be so morbidly disconnected from the realities of what these kinds of jobs are like. They suck. They pay poorly and they often produce toxic environments for everyone. In some cases, they're borderline crimes against humanity. Try working at a store in a rough city. You'll know what I mean.

This has to end, which is why I'm doing my part, even at the expense of lost time and money because the thought of future generations going through what so many of us are currently experiencing...I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I never tried.

There’s a massive difference between using it to find structure in your own notes, using it as an editor, and having it generate most of the actual writing. Those are not remotely the same thing, even though they’ll probably all get reduced to the same checkbox.

My brother and I have been working on a system around this because we kept running into the same problem from different angles. Most AI tools give you an answer, but they don’t preserve how you got there. Your sources, notes, connections, revisions, and objections all disappear into a chat history.

So we’ve been building something where the information stays organized and connected, and the AI has to work through that material instead of just producing a smooth answer from nowhere. It can help with research, structure, and drafting, but it can also challenge the argument, show where a claim came from, and point out where the reasoning is weak.

I still write a lot of things manually because I enjoy writing. But it's super helpful to have a research map and a sparring partner that makes the author’s decisions more visible.

That’s the disclosure standard I’d want: what did the AI actually do, what material did it work from, and which decisions did the human make?

The voluntary part is the problem, obviously. But I’d still rather have honest categories than pretend every use of AI is the same.

Don't grant unrestricted outbound network access by default. Reading the repository is one thing. Letting an agent use whatever credentials it finds to call external APIs, send messages, modify cloud resources, or touch production is a very different level of risk.

The default should be:

• read-only filesystem access
• no ambient credentials
• blocked network egress
• explicit allowlists for required domains
• human approval for writes, deployments, payments, messages, and account changes
• separate credentials with the smallest possible scope

A confused agent can do plenty of damage without being “malicious.” It only needs to misunderstand the task while holding a valid token.

It's a bribe and I will take it...I just won't honor the terms. For the lolz.

Yes, but unless they do a very hard pivot soon, they will go extinct. Right now, they're acting like they're a timeless tool that will be used for thousands of years. If they remain complacent, that will be their undoing.

Wikipedia is a dying app due to it's inherent flaws in information acquisition and distribution. AI is better, but it, too also has those flaws. The better solution is to import your books and use AI to build a knowledge system based on those books. With something like this, I can get extremely accurate information that I can easily back-track to find exactly where that information lives, down to the paragraph and sentence. Moreso, I can synthesize and find hidden patterns in the research.

This approach is significantly underrated, but what you see today, is the foundations for how many will acquire, verify, and distribute knowledge. The future of truth lies in the 1:1 relationship between regular people and raw data with open-source agents that can be audited and customized. Instead of only getting the "facts" from authority figures and third-party media outlets, we can get the original source material that they use and interpret the findings ourselves.

Thanks! It's been a wild journey learning how to make this with a team.