I did, but I must confess that it wasn't for me. For some reason I found it really annoying to hear the two AI voices so often talk about their reactions or how they "felt" about a particular part of the book. I already find it annoying when humans do that instead of talking about the actual topic but when AIs fake that to appear more human like I find it quite irritating.

Sorry, I meant to write "ideas are more uncomfortable when they are new". Not because. 

Since you wrote "force", I assumed you'd be uncomfortable.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Ok, so your point is that ideas are more uncomfortable when they are new and when I already heard them, I'll find them less uncomfortable?

Not yet. To give the podcast the best chance, I'll start with a book summary that I think I'll enjoy. Once I've finished it, I'll decide how to proceed.

I am not sure what your point is regarding encountering those opinions in the wild. After listening to the book summary, it doesn't get easier to control how long I immerse myself in this in a conversation. But I don't think that is what you mean.

On your website you say that your goal with this project is to enable people to have their own informed opinion about a book so that they don't just repeat headlines. This is obviously a good thing, but I was skimming through the list of books and I must admit that for some my first reaction was "ok, you'll need to duraniumman that author's position to make me update my uninformed opinion on that book!" Of course, it is important to have a strong foundation on which to base a strong disagreement with a view. I am just not sure if I can force myself through it.

What is your view on this: If I rate the chance that my more informed view will be different to my less informed view very low and the chance that the experience will make me angry and sad very high, is it then worth doing? 

I want to be able to engage with opinions that I disagree with but for some opinions I find this very challenging. I am often wondering about how hard I should push myself here. Any thoughts on that?

I don't have a ChatGPT subscription. If I stop using their free tier, I think this has two effects: It benefits them because they can spend less resources on inference and it hurts them because investors lose trust in them. Do you think the expected net effect is positive or negative? Should I stop using their free tier if I want to protest against OpenAI? 

Also, I noticed that I can check multiple boxes on https://quitgpt.org/ and only one of them is "I cancelled my subscription". If I understand the footnote below the number displayed at the top (currently 1,200,000) correctly, it counts everyone who checked any of the boxes. I would be more curious about how high the number of only the people is, who canceled their subscription or commit to not paying for ChatGPT in the future.

Update: The Venue has changed. We will meet at Gunnar's place (address above).

The first four slides work now but unfortunately when I continue to the fifth slide, I get an error again.

Edit: It looks like that issue was now also fixed. Thanks :)

Is the problem on my side or is it also broken for others?

We have an e-mail address that people can use to contact us. That is used for communication with new people until they come to their first event where they can join the Signal group.

Creating a new group every year sounds like something that might work, but it might also lead to some confusion. For example, if you try to find something someone wrote a while back. I'll think about it. Thanks for the idea.