Official: You Can Now Get Early Access to the Next Version of Logos
Comments
-
Jim Dean said:
In my thinking, Search is the *main thing* that could be radically improved (simplified), potentially without losing the power inherent in Logos tagging and datasets ... by permitting natural-language queries without requiring the user to "know the rules" ... only requiring them to use decent grammar and spelling. As a programmer, I realize how challenging a task like this can be ...
For example:
- What old testament quotes are used by john? ----> which John? text from the OT? text from the LXX?
- Where does John quote from the old testament? ------> Verses in book of John? Verses where John speaks?
Where is the indication that the answer is limited to a bible dataset or label?
There is an inherent command set and keywords, though:
- what/where
- quote/quotes/quotation, citation/cited, allusion/alludes, echo/echoes.
- John = book of John, else state "book of John"?
- old testament = 39 books of "Protestant" canon?
So we should give the AI a clue:
- [Intertext] What old testament quotes are used by john? ---> OT verses quoted in the book of John
- or [Intertext] What old testament text is quoted by john? ---> more precise?
- You won't get passages from the LXX with current tagging (Intertext doesn't come from a dataset)
- AI could automatically limit the Passage in Bible Search or AI use "Precise" syntax behind the scenes!
- let AI decide an appropriate bible?
- [Intertext] Where does John quote from the old testament?---> verses in the book of John taken from the OT
- let AI decide an appropriate bible?
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Jim Dean said:
In my thinking, Search is the *main thing* that could be radically improved (simplified), potentially without losing the power inherent in Logos tagging and datasets ... by permitting natural-language queries without requiring the user to "know the rules" ... only requiring them to use decent grammar and spelling. As a programmer, I realize how challenging a task like this can be ...
For example:
- What old testament quotes are used by john? ----> which John? text from the OT? text from the LXX?
- Where does John quote from the old testament? ------> Verses in book of John? Verses where John speaks?
Where is the indication that the answer is limited to a bible dataset or label?
There is an inherent command set and keywords, though:
- what/where
- quote/quotes/quotation, citation/cited, allusion/alludes, echo/echoes.
- John = book of John, else state "book of John"?
- old testament = 39 books of "Protestant" canon?
So we should give the AI a clue:
- [Intertext] What old testament quotes are used by john? ---> OT verses quoted in the book of John
- or [Intertext] What old testament text is quoted by john? ---> more precise?
- You won't get passages from the LXX with current tagging (Intertext doesn't come from a dataset)
- AI could automatically limit the Passage in Bible Search or AI use "Precise" syntax behind the scenes!
- let AI decide an appropriate bible?
- [Intertext] Where does John quote from the old testament?---> verses in the book of John taken from the OT
- let AI decide an appropriate bible?
Hi Dave:
Thanks for the example. You’re sort of making my point for me, without intending to.
The first thing I would say is - if you asked that question of a friend or pastor, do you think they would pepper you with requests for qualifiers to narrow down the unstated assumptions? Or would they make their own assumptions based on what they know about you and on what folks normally might mean, and then try to provide an answer?THAT is the essence of, and the difficulty of, implementing natural language “AI”. According to Turing, the defining test is whether you can have a “blind” conversation with the AI and be able to tell whether it is a machine or human. To do that, the AI must emulate as well as simulate typical human assumptions and phraseology etc etc.
For a normal SQL type query, like the structured method which Search now gives us, those elements you mention are at least partly included in the syntax. However even that “non-AI” Search uses some assumptions - it checks the defaults in Logos to determine what your normal language is, what your favorite Bible is, and even (with some queries) what your prioritization of books is) - probably more, if I took time to think about it.
That is, even the non-AI Logos search engine “knows” about the user, a little bit. And if by chance the user did not specify some of that info, Logos has defaults that provide a structure in which to work
Your list of bullet points is a perfect example of WHY programming so-called “AI” is difficult. I’ve been a programmer and also a sci-fi fan since the 1960’s … so I’ve had a lot of time to mull over and refine my thinking re what is and isn’t an “AI”. The bottom line always comes back to Turing’s pithy definition.
So - if Logos is selling something called “AI”, it ought to be able to answer a simple question such as the one you posed, EITHER by “knowing” the user (from environment and past interactions etc), OR by asking a limited number of followup questions to fill in holes that would otherwise make it impossible to answer the question (impossible, that is, for a friend or pastor that was faced with the same question).
If that’s not what Logos is trying to accomplish, then they shouldn’t call it “AI”, or should at least provide an easy to understand definition of what *their* “LAI” is. Certainly, we all would assume it is “non-sentient” (an SF distinction). But if what they are intending to provide is simply a Search engine that has a strict but DIFFERENT (maybe “slightly fuzzy”) syntax that the user must learn and follow, then I don’t know if it’s really an improvement over the current (powerful) Search tool.
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
Perhaps we are being told to ignore that man behind the green curtain...is this as much as an advancement as we are being told?
0 -
Jim Dean said:
But if what they are intending to provide is simply a Search engine that has a strict but DIFFERENT (maybe “slightly fuzzy”) syntax that the user must learn and follow,
That is not what they are providing nor did they ever say they were creating a chatbot. What they have provided is a search that will accept the main words (key words) of your query with absolutely no extra syntax and through AI provide a well prioritized list of results. I find that on general theological questions it hits the mark around 90% of the time; the other 10% is off because it failed to quess correct which terms I considered essential.
If find the chatbots unreliable in the extreme but I use them heavily to provide names and terms I've forgot or find additional examples ... but only on subject where I know I can spot the errors. Even then I often need to ask multiple times in modified form to get it to answer what I actually asked rather than the generalize question it thought I should ask. If Logos tried to implement one of the current technology chatbots I would be upset.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Jim Dean said:
But if what they are intending to provide is simply a Search engine that has a strict but DIFFERENT (maybe “slightly fuzzy”) syntax that the user must learn and follow,
That is not what they are providing nor did they ever say they were creating a chatbot. What they have provided is a search that will accept the main words (key words) of your query with absolutely no extra syntax and through AI provide a well prioritized list of results. I find that on general theological questions it hits the mark around 90% of the time; the other 10% is off because it failed to quess correct which terms I considered essential.
If find the chatbots unreliable in the extreme but I use them heavily to provide names and terms I've forgot or find additional examples ... but only on subject where I know I can spot the errors. Even then I often need to ask multiple times in modified form to get it to answer what I actually asked rather than the generalize question it thought I should ask. If Logos tried to implement one of the current technology chatbots I would be upset.
MJ:
”Chatbots” is your term - I’ve not mentioned it, and I don’t recall Logos mentioning it. So it would seem not to be relevant to discuss.
The term that both Logos and I have used is “AI”. And if you’ll read my prior post carefully you’ll see that is my focus.
Since (imo, for the previously explained reasons) “AI” is a totally inappropriate term (doesn’t meet Turing test), and since “chatbot” also seems (to me and apparently to you and to them as well) to also be inappropriate, I suppose a more descriptive term is needed.Or rather, maybe to start with, it would be nice if *they* (not a user like myself or anyone else) might actually outline in detail what their “target” is for what this new thing is supposed to ultimately be, and how the user might need to be educated in any proper terms or syntax to fully utilize it.
I’d hope it’s not a “dungeons and dragons” cut-and-try method.As to an appropriate name - hmm - “Clippy” already is taken (IIRC coined a couple decades ago for their Office paperclip-helper).
Maybe just something descriptive and generic without claiming more than it is - how about “Logos Assistant Tool”.(Much of this response is intended as tongue in cheek, of course - I think we’ll just have to wait and see if it meets expectations, once they are defined)
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
Jim Dean said:
”Chatbots” is your term - I’ve not mentioned it, and I don’t recall Logos mentioning it.
Sorry, I used the term because many users in the forums are forming their queries as if they were using an chatbot and criticizing the results because they don't duplicate a chatbot. Outside the forums, I would suggest that the line is very fuzzy between natural language processing and AI, and that Logos has used primitive AI for many years. I didn't mean to start a side conversation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Jim Dean said:
it would be nice if *they* (not a user like myself or anyone else) might actually outline in detail what their “target” is for what this new thing is supposed to ultimately be, and how the user might need to be educated in any proper terms or syntax to fully utilize it.
I hope and expect that this will be provided along with the official roll out of Logos Pro in the Fall. I'm not yet excited about Logos Pro. Truly, I hope one day I will be. Time will tell.
0 -
Jim Dean said:
Although I'm opposed in principle to using AI to truly study the Bible and/or create lessons or messages from it, I *do* think there is a lot of potential for it to enhance or make the study *mechanics* easier and sometimes even more thorough
It's been 15 years since L4 shipped (well, almost). A pseudepigraphical 'book' shipped last week (First Book of Adam), had limited discussion of its history, so I presumed to just search for it ... surely something shipped was well discussed. I typed in the title with no grouping. And out pops great choices that have lots of 'of's'! 76 to be exact!
I had no doubt I could play around, and maybe do a better search. But it amazes me, after 15 years, and presumably search expertise, that they couldn't do the basics. People point to Google ... I point to a high schooler could do better. The 'sad' (everyone's sad these days) thing is, it takes a subscription to hire the high schooler.
Anyway, life is life.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DNB: The search that shows in your screen capture needs quotation marks to search for that set of words in exactly that order: "first book of Adam." As it is, your search looked for all of those words in a text, but not in that order, which gave you the thousands of search returns.
0 -
David ... I got a free orange juice ... minor bet what the next post would say.
- I already did the quote thing. It finds the book. Great work.
- The abysmal design should be something like, (1) look for the text as a phrase, captions first, (2) look for key words next (no of's or and's, etc), then (3) look for common similars. Then, present the default sort as best to worst. Their early design clocked how many mindless finds it could do ... and hasn't improved much since.
Absent a subscription.
Here's another ... I sorted by 'Rating'. Top find: 'and' and 'of'! Whoo hoo! I'm just pointing out, people's future search success will need a subscription.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
If you want feedback, I would personally like continued access to feature sets. I really dislike the thought of having yet again, another subscription. I would gladly forgo the use of AI. I have had a lot of experience with it, I don’t like half the stuff if spits out. Also I think the Word of God should be wrestled over, read, tested.
I just don’t think this is a good idea in general. This is just going to create lazy preachers and expositors, outsourcing what we should be doing to a computer. Technology is good, and we have used it to great effect, but I think this is one of those things is just a step too far off the precipice.
It appears to be a good thing now, there are a lot of promises about what it will bring, but no one is talking about what it takes away. I can see a time in the very close future where reliance on the AI will color our thinking, introduce (probably slowly and unbeknownst to us, biases the AI have, and I assure you l, from what I have seen already, I want no part of that).
I think there should be more push-back on this than what I am already seeing on this thread. So definitely, I think on that basis alone, having a full feature purchasable program to access my library should be available and maintained. Personally folks, I think this is a slippery slope. “Danger Danger Will Robinson!”
0 -
If you want feedback, I would personally like continued access to feature sets. I really dislike the thought of having yet again l, another subscription. I would gladly forgo the use of AI. I have had a lot of experience with it, I don’t like half the stuff if spits out. Also I think the Word of God should be wrestled over, read, tested.
I just don’t think this is a good idea in general. This is just going to create lazy preachers and expositors, outsourcing what we should be doing to a computer.
It appears to be a good thing now, there are a lot of promises about what it will bring, but no one is talking about what it takes away. I can see a time in the very close future where reliance on the AI will color our thinking, introduce (probably slowly and unbeknownst to us, biases the AI have, and I assure you l, from what I have seen already, I want no part of that).
I think there should be more push back on this than what I am already seeing on this thread. So definitely, I think on that basis alone, having a full feature purchasable program to access my library should be available and maintained. Personally folks, I think this is a slippery slope. “Danger Danger Will Robinson!”
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
If you want feedback, I would personally like continued access to feature sets. I really dislike the thought of having yet again, another subscription. I would gladly forgo the use of AI. I have had a lot of experience with it, I don’t like half the stuff if spits out. Also I think the Word of God should be wrestled over, read, tested.
I just don’t think this is a good idea in general. This is just going to create lazy preachers and expositors, outsourcing what we should be doing to a computer. Technology is good, and we have used it to great effect, but I think this is one of those things is just a step too far off the precipice.
It appears to be a good thing now, there are a lot of promises about what it will bring, but no one is talking about what it takes away. I can see a time in the very close future where reliance on the AI will color our thinking, introduce (probably slowly and unbeknownst to us, biases the AI have, and I assure you l, from what I have seen already, I want no part of that).
I think there should be more push-back on this than what I am already seeing on this thread. So definitely, I think on that basis alone, having a full feature purchasable program to access my library should be available and maintained. Personally folks, I think this is a slippery slope. “Danger Danger Will Robinson!”
I completely agree with you on both points.
There's a difference between using tools to save you time (which Logos is fantastic at - imagine having to open up paper copies of all those resources! or search the indexes of all your books individually), and using it to do the learning you should have done on your own. A huge part of learning is not just coming up with the right answers but it involves the process of how you got there.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
Also I think the Word of God should be wrestled over, read, tested.
I just don’t think this is a good idea in general. This is just going to create lazy preachers and expositors, outsourcing what we should be doing to a computer. Technology is good, and we have used it to great effect, but I think this is one of those things is just a step too far off the precipice.
It appears to be a good thing now, there are a lot of promises about what it will bring, but no one is talking about what it takes away. I can see a time in the very close future where reliance on the AI will color our thinking, introduce (probably slowly and unbeknownst to us, biases the AI have, and I assure you l, from what I have seen already, I want no part of that).
I think there should be more push-back on this than what I am already seeing on this thread. So definitely, I think on that basis alone, having a full feature purchasable program to access my library should be available and maintained. Personally folks, I think this is a slippery slope. “Danger Danger Will Robinson!”
I agree completely! I've mentioned this previously, at some length, here and elsewhere.
The gifts of knowledge and wisdom and insight are given to believers, not to computers.
The Holy Spirit indwells, guides, teaches and empowers believers, not computers.
*Using* those gifts, and *submitting* to that direction, brings glory to God.
Furthermore, the *process* of searching and study and rightly dividing itself brings blessing and growth, and quite often, unexpected and unlooked-for insights and conviction and worship.
... Having said that ... I think that many tools have been created in the past couple hundred years, which make that process more efficient and expedient. English, Greek and Hebrew print-concordances were essential tools for me back in the 70's & 80's, as were Interlinears and Morphological Parsing guides. Logos and other applications automate that tremendously further, and add to it specific searches for lemmas and forms, etc.
... We begin, however, to "edge away" from direct study and parsing of the inspired text, when we use the (very helpful and handy) tagging and datasets that makes Logos more powerful than any other study tool. Those tags and datasets are created by a combo of humans and rule-engines (expert systems), which for the most part if not wholly, are not from the indwelling guidance and gifts of the Spirit. That doesn't mean those things are wrong or bad or incorrect ... but it DOES mean they are not inspired. They are potentially even more fallible than Bible Commentaries ... Commentaries are of course not God-breathed, but at least they are written by believers who presumably have the gifts of wisdom, knowledge &/or teaching ... they merit care when being read, but do offer Spirit-directed benefit. OTOH, the tags and datasets are created (largely) by Expert Systems (automated search and annotation engines). Yes, those things are "under God's sovereign control", but they don't utilize the gifts He has provided.
... So ... even the really powerful and "handy" Logos Search capability, when it uses tagging and datasets, is "edging" in the direction away from what I'd consider to be "safe" or "pure" study of the Word. I'm not saying it's "bad" ... but I do think we need to be careful about using it, and understand its genesis.
*** NOW *** that is being taken even further ... using so-called (non-Turing) "AI" that attempts to "understand what we want" from unstructured queries that utilize unknown relationships to search for loosely-defined fuzzy concepts, somehow ... to draw out information from God's Holy Word, and from other resources that He's gifted us with over the centuries. Again ... I'm not saying it's "bad" or "sinful" to do this ... but it IS, imo, fraught with DANGER. It encourages sloppiness and laziness. It discourages prayer and submission to the Spirit. It removes the "joy of discovery".
And further ... when we extend those tools to not only search for information, but also to SUMMARIZE it for us, we are getting closer and closer to adding to or subtracting from the Word. If we use those summaries ONLY to help us decide where to study, but then study the original doc's manually ourselves, that seems fairly safe (although we might be misled by the summary to disregard a source that actually has value).
The MOST DANGEROUS implementation is when we use the tools to create all or parts of a "finished product" ... a sermon, a lesson, a tract, an answer to a question, a counselling guide, etc. Imo, when it's taken that far, at best, it has little or no value. And the entire process which the Holy Spirit should and could have been engaged in through gifted believers, is replaced ... which, if you will, reduces the glory being offered to God. Or, in other terms ... "nola Deo gloria".
PLEASE ... if anyone is going to quote this, quote the entire thing, since the various points build on one another and provide context. THANKS.
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
I'm a German user whose English is not so good. But I try to say something:
"Amazon Prime" started in Germany with a subscription price of 49 Euros. A few years later they wanted to have 69 Euro. Meanwhile we are at 89,90 Euro, and if you want to see films in Prime Video without Advertisment, you pay 2,99 Euro extra; means 126 Euro a year.
So I fear: The 9,99 Dollar subscription price for Logos will also only be the beginning.
0 -
Peter Engler said:
So I fear: The 9,99 Dollar subscription price for Logos will also only be the beginning.
Your english is great.
And an interesting point. If the subscription kept going up (more features?) and you couldn't manage it, you'd have nothing to show for it, after quiting.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I'm also against subscriptions if there will be an impact on the now existing functionality, or the availability to purchase of new and updated features, for npn-subscribers.
From the point of view of Logos Bible Software, what is the difference between permanent subscriptions for licences, features, etc. (the present model) and a periodic subscription?
The former gives the Company substantial income on an unpredictable basis ("Will users purchase this?"), while the latter provides regular, predictable income from those who choose the new or upgraded services. Those who subscribe, however, lose access to everything they have a licence to use by ending their subscription. Some may prefer the latter, but I suspect that a large number (especially long-termers) would prefer the former.
What if the Company offered a pro-rata discount to purchase services outright if they find that a subscription doesn't work for them, and have to cancel?
What if the Company offered permanent licences, as well as a subscription service for 'early adopters" (aka beta testers)?
Logos: please do not force your long-term faithful users, or anyone else, into subscribing or being cast out.
0 -
Peter_G said:
What if the Company offered a pro-rata discount to purchase services outright if they find that a subscription doesn't work for them, and have to cancel?
If someone had to cancel subscription after some years, it would be good for them to have a pro-rata discount to allow them to purchase so that they could keep the level of services that they had up to that point in time. A generous discount for long term subscribers would make it easier to opt for subscribing, since there would be an eventual option of having something at the end of subscribing, without having to pay the full price of the features, if they were still sold on a purchase basis.
0 -
John Duffy said:Peter_G said:
What if the Company offered a pro-rata discount to purchase services outright if they find that a subscription doesn't work for them, and have to cancel?
If someone had to cancel subscription after some years, it would be good for them to have a pro-rata discount to allow them to purchase so that they could keep the level of services that they had up to that point in time. A generous discount for long term subscribers would make it easier to opt for subscribing, since there would be an eventual option of having something at the end of subscribing, without having to pay the full price of the features, if they were still sold on a purchase basis.
By at least offering a fall back ownership of some kind when cancelling a subscription would be better than forcing a perpetual subscription..... It would still be a slap in the face to the majority of users that have made their voice clear in these forums that the subscription model is not desired. If Logos truly listened and more importantly cared about its users and their opinions the perpetual license/purchase option would be offered alongside the subscription formats (whether a fall back option is included or not).... Mark claimed we would not be forced into a subscription, while technically not untrue - it is also a carefully crafted position that knows that without a purchase option every user that desires to upgrade their features WILL be FORCED into a subscription without a purchase option being offered! Offer both options, keep AI as a seperate addon package and they could make all of us happy users willing to continue supporting the product.
I'd encourage all of us that do not want subscriptions, fall back based included - to "vote" with our wallets and not fall into the trap. I will NOT purchase another resource, package or product of any form from Faithlife until the purchase option for Features is honored, I'll also not do another presentation, will not recommend Logos and have been learning the competition's product.... If needed, I will promote their product.
After 25+ years with this product, and whatever time and money all of us that only ask for something as simple as a purchase option have invested - I see that the users, their asked for opinions and our dollars mean nothing to Faithlife and their investors (not users - Venture), unless we fall in line with their subscription plan....
Many companies have learned this does NOT work out - see Microsoft offering Office 24 for purchase, subscription service memberships rising and falling dramatically depending on the season.... You'd think that they would welcome faithful users that have supported the company, but without the purchase option, it will show they only welcome those users that blindly fall in line....
We'll see if we really matter to the company any longer - but I hope they understand that the longer they put us off, the higher the risk of losing Faithful customers....
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
Yes, I agree. I know they will keep the purchased books, for the meantime so as to no ostracize the existing customer base. However I have had my suspicions for a number I years with the increasingly money hungry attitude FaithLife have take of late, and just the general corporate attitude and hunger towards profits, will try to force the subscription model. There will be a grace period, a few years, and then it will be announced “due to unforeseen circumstances, that the perpetual license model is no longer financially viable to maintain any longer. We said we were committed, and we still are, but we have to face financial realities so we are sunsetting the feature sets and perpetual licenses.”
Like any move like this, they show you with one hand what they are doing meanwhile the other hand behind the back is busy with all sorts of shenanigans. This initial foray is just the proverbial “foot in the door” and once down this path the inevitability of going to a subscription model will be shortly down the pathway of full subscription and the people who have supported them of the last 30+ years will be left in the lurch (I’ve been almost 20 years now - started with a Libronix package). I’m sorry, but I don’t have a lot of faith in men or that they will look after us.
The other pathway I can envision is probably that Logos 10 will be the last feature package, and will not be maintained for compatibility, and will due to software attrition, die a natural death. From which point I imagine that you will retain your perpetual licenses to the books, but will need a subscription to be able to view or use the books. That way they can say they kept their promise but couldn't keep working on 2 platforms, thereby achieving their goal of moving to a subscription model. It will take time but they will get their eventually with the appearances they had kept the promise to honor keep and maintain the people who own love and use the full feature set. It will either be this or some version of this.
These are features of other companies I have noticed over time who have moved in the same direction. Forgive me for being cynical, but honestly this is what I have come to expect. And honestly, I really don’t want AI anywhere near my study of the Bible. God gave man the Word, not AI. Our forefathers like Spurgeon, Edwards, Carey and others, did just fine even without Logos. If we ever want to see men like that in the future, leave AI out of it. I mean this is different folks, AI may have its place in some areas (some have argued, however for me, I'd have sooner left that cat in the bag than out of it), but honestly, what if you are a believer, preach or Bible expositor that just wants his electronic references and a power search tool such as we have and actually want to just do the hard yards? Will Logos of the future give you that option? Do they have to put a proverbial stumbling block there, a temptation? I really feel like this is Pandora’s box. Just something that just shouldn’t exist. thanks to those who agreed with this sentiment from a previous post. No doubt there will be those who want this. I don’t know, but this whole AI thing, it’s going to rob churches of Spiritual richness, the hard one truths of Gods Word from the pastor, just palmed off to AI. The nay sayers will just look at the potential for good (anything that has potential for good, always have a downside. Man's proclivity for creatively using good things for evil knows no bounds!). It’s like social media - seemed good, until the results from the next generations came and we saw it for what it was - the equivalent of a social and cultural nuclear bomb. Will we get a decade down the road and go, wait, you know what? What we did really wasn't something we should have done. It seemed like a good idea at the time. But unfortunately short sighted profit based model always win out against prudence.
Just because the rest of the world is embracing AI, doesn't mean we have to, nor should we be forced to! Maybe I am being cynical, but I just don't trust FaithLife to keep their word on any of this. I did my last Library upgrade last night, because I don't intend to spend anymore with Faithlife unless they give their full assurances that we still have a feature set that is desktop based. Not some cloud based subscription model. I could not take another think I use to be co-opted to the cloud and to AI.
0 -
[quote]
I'd encourage all of us that do not want subscriptions, fall back based included - to "vote" with our wallets and not fall into the trap. I will NOT purchase another resource, package or product of any form from Faithlife until the purchase option for Features is honored, I'll also not do another presentation, will not recommend Logos and have been learning the competition's product.... If needed, I will promote their product.
But if we followed this advice, this would cause the company to go bankrupt and ALL of us would be left with whatever we have now until the software is incompatible with future operating systems, and then we would truly have nothing (unless we all keep an old computer with an old OS, etc.). This cannot be the solution. Upgrades are necessary as long as computer systems are changing. I may not want or use some of the features they come up with, but I certainly want to use my Logos library for the rest of my life if at all possible. And it is fair to ask people to pay for new things. I see no need to vilify the company over it. I am optimistic that the people at Faithlife will find a solution that is both viable for them and useful to us. Everything they have said so far points in this direction. It may be different from what we have now, but that does not mean it will be worse.
0 -
David McClister said:
[quote]
I'd encourage all of us that do not want subscriptions, fall back based included - to "vote" with our wallets and not fall into the trap. I will NOT purchase another resource, package or product of any form from Faithlife until the purchase option for Features is honored, I'll also not do another presentation, will not recommend Logos and have been learning the competition's product.... If needed, I will promote their product.
But if we followed this advice, this would cause the company to go bankrupt and ALL of us would be left with whatever we have now until the software is incompatible with future operating systems, and then we would truly have nothing (unless we all keep an old computer with an old OS, etc.). This cannot be the solution. Upgrades are necessary as long as computer systems are changing. I may not want or use some of the features they come up with, but I certainly want to use my Logos library for the rest of my life if at all possible. And it is fair to ask people to pay for new things. I see no need to vilify the company over it. I am optimistic that the people at Faithlife will find a solution that is both viable for them and useful to us. Everything they have said so far points in this direction. It may be different from what we have now, but that does not mean it will be worse.
If it caused bankruptcy for the company, that would be their choice. Many have made it very clear they will not subscribe, so if the company goes bankrupt because a high number of customers have made it clear that they will not support the subscription model, that bankruptcy would be due to the company's ignorance, not the customers choosing not to support a business model.
Pointing out the fact that offering all options would keep a broader customer base in the category of active purchasers is not a villification. It is pointing out the inconsistent nature of claims that subscription is all about sustainable futures... Losing long term faithful customers does not add sustainable revenue, it loses some.
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
I disagree, you can keep the model you have. Its expensive, but I have stuck around this long. I don't think this has anything to do with staying current, you can already do that. I think this is just a move towards an income steam with the promise of new features every few weeks. I mean think, realistically, how many new features can they really add that is going to be worth a monthly price tag? I barely use all the new features on Logos 10. Things haven't changed dramatically since Logos 8. There are a few nice quality of life things that are nice, but you don't need too much more than good effective and efficient tools to do your study and sermon prep in an efficient matter. Point is, the number of features released hasn't changed that much. A face lift here and there. Hardly worth the price tag. You looked at your subscription budget lately? A streaming service or two, Microsoft Office, a Anti-Virus Software, various software packages. Everything is subscriptions. You will own nothing and be happy...
It is fair to ask people to pay for new things, I agree, but a subscription model will force everyone to pay for the new things whether or not they want them, have the budget for them or even need them. What we have we can spend to the level we are happy with, have the feature set we are comfortable with. With inflation due to rise. these prices will rise as well. I'm sorry, but asking to go to a subscription model when everything else is already so pricey, when there's a new trend now where people don't spend on holidays, instead that buying meat is now a luxury to people. If you're like me, this will be one of the services I cut. I will probably be better off, having to read good old books and the Bible to do my study.
No one is vilifying the company. Vilify is to speak disparagingly (to speak of something that is of little worth) about someone or something. I wouldn't be here, nor would many others be here, arguing vehemently against Logo's move to subscription if they didn't already value what the company is or the product it offers. We are trying to say, no, we do not support this move, you can still provide everything you have provided on the same or similar basis as you have in the last 30 years. There are already other subscriptions in which to derive income streams. My guess is the temptation to secure more lucrative income streams with this is too tempting to pass up. Pointing out corporate greed is not disparaging. Its calling things out the way they are.
0 -
This - 100% - said it better than I did in a shorter space
0 -
I agree with this his - 100% - said it better than I did in a shorter amount of words!
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
Pointing out corporate greed is not disparaging. Its calling things out the way they are.
According to who? At what point is the line crossed from wise business practice to corporate greed? What decisions are being used as a baseline to make such measurements? Pertaining to the situation at hand, No concrete decisions have been made about the subscription model going forward. All we have is an early access to a product that will be released in the Fall. This forum is a great place to voice thoughts and preferences pertaining to Logos Pro and the upcoming subscription model. But I see no reason to rush to judgements and accusations before the product has even been released.
0 -
For people who would like the purchase option, please remember that it is easy for the firm to give one that is so unattractive. For example, the one-time purchase option might equal 6 years worth of subscription price. Would you still purchase it?
My sense is that they want to drastically increase the 1-time purchase price, probably 3 times the normal. For example, Let's say that the upgrade from Logos 9 feature set to Logos 10 feature set was $200 (I don't remember how much I paid). So we were typically paying $200 every 2 years to purchase it outright. Now, they want to increase this price to $600. Why? Following typical software business model. Most software companies underprice their product to build the customer base, which they know is very sticky (implying they won't leave unless the cost is too prohibitive). Once they've built the customer base, they increase their price beyond fair price (fair price = cost + reasonable profits). So now Logos wants the 1-time upgrade price to be $600. But if they put this out, people are going to rebel. So what is the way to soften this blow? Offer monthly option.
My point is...Please understand that you were paying less than fair value for the software thus far. Its time to pony up.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
Right now, when I buy something, I know immediately what I'm getting. If I subscribe, I'm not sure what my money is going toward - other than insuring that my favorite Bible software has a predictable revenue stream.
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:
For people who would like the purchase option, please remember that it is easy for the firm to give one that is so unattractive. For example, the one-time purchase option might equal 6 years worth of subscription price. Would you still purchase it?
My sense is that they want to drastically increase the 1-time purchase price, probably 3 times the normal. For example, Let's say that the upgrade from Logos 9 feature set to Logos 10 feature set was $200 (I don't remember how much I paid). So we were typically paying $200 every 2 years to purchase it outright. Now, they want to increase this price to $600. Why? Following typical software business model. Most software companies underprice their product to build the customer base, which they know is very sticky (implying they won't leave unless the cost is too prohibitive). Once they've built the customer base, they increase their price beyond fair price (fair price = cost + reasonable profits). So now Logos wants the 1-time upgrade price to be $600. But if they put this out, people are going to rebel. So what is the way to soften this blow? Offer monthly option.
My point is...Please understand that you were paying less than fair value for the software thus far. Its time to pony up.
I'd like to know the source and evidence of us paying less than fair value in the past....
Also, if they were to triple the price for purchase, we don't have to purchase it ... It would also drive home the point that many are concerned about, being forced into a subscription.... Subscribe or we will make the purchase option; if offered; so I overpriced it wouldn't be a good steward purchase....
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
I can't see how it is not essentially hopping aboard the gravy train of the subscription model. The problem with a gravy train, is that eventually too many people get on. You requested some references, and I would suggest there are many more than this, as I have looked into it a fair bit. These are just a couple. I have tried to summarize and identify some the more salient points.
1st - Article in The Atllantic
"The downside of the model’s popularity is that it has generated tons of bad subscriptions. “A lot of boards and executives are now saying, Let’s get some subscription revenue, without thinking about why that would be good for the customer,” Baxter said....Being downwind of a consumer-subscription boom has also created a pricing problem. Many of the most popular subscription services began their lives as start-ups, which meant that investors flooded them with cash in hopes that they would acquire as many customers as possible, as quickly as possible. Typically, the services did so by losing money hand over fist, charging a nominal fee or offering months of free service or product to anyone who signed up. In theory, that would allow them to create an economy of scale, bringing in a little cash from a lot of people and bringing down the per-unit cost of whatever they were offering. In most cases, though, that hasn’t exactly worked out. Prices go up a lot, businesses lose a lot of customers, or both...he phase we’re in right now might be best described as a subscription shakeout. As more markets become oversaturated with these kinds of services, more buyers will get bored of the concept entirely, and investors will eventually become weary of waiting for profit. At that point, a few common options are on the table: Some businesses will close entirely. Others will look for more funding to enable them to lose more money acquiring new customers, hoping to reach a sustainable scale. Others will go the traditional retail route, looking for more revenue by putting their products on shelves at big-box or grocery stores, no subscription required." (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/03/why-subscriptions-are-hard-to-cancel/623885/)
2nd - The Rise of Subscription-Based Business Models (emb.global)
Specifically,
- According to a report by Deloitte, the subscription e-commerce market has grown by over 100% annually for the past five years. It is popular, it is revue generating
- A study by McKinsey found that businesses with subscription models can achieve 2-5 times higher customer lifetime value compared to those without subscriptions.
3rd - Streaming industry in Australia and current market dynamics (simon-kucher.com)
Specifically,
- The global trend of increased streaming hours has been reflected in Australia, but there has been a notable decline in engagement. Only 36 percent of respondents in Australia reported increased streaming compared to the previous year, representing a 13 percentage point decline.
- This data suggsts a deceleration in streaming expansion and a reduction in willingness to pay for subscriptions.
- Additionally, there has been a 10% reduction in the average number of owned subscriptions per respondent, accompanied by a 25 percent downturn in the willingness to allocate funds for each subscription.
- Consumers are also spending more time on free online streaming (as an example of a subscription service), indicating a heightened sensitivity to pricing
- Regarding Market saturation: the study reveals that 34 percent of particpants have already discontinued subscriptions within the past year, and 39 percent intend to do so in the upcoming year.
- This collective data hints at a market saturation that has led to subscription fatigue. I would also argue that some of the responses on this forum strongly suggests the same trend.
- Interestingly, providers (to address this) are adjusting their monetisation methods and packaging to secure any future growth prospects (I would also suggest that this is heavily dependent on future economic downturns. With the US currently paying over 1 trillion in interest on US government debt, and fast losing its reserve currency status, I would suggest that a black swan even is right around the corner).
Hope that helps.
0 -
I've always viewed the higher cost of a Logos book vs the same book in Kindle or other ebook formats, or even the fact that many times the price of a Logos book is HIGHER than buying the book brand new in print, is because I'm not just paying for the text but I'm also, in part, paying for all the software and everything else that goes into it.
0 -
Frank Sauer said:
I'd like to know the source and evidence of us paying less than fair value in the past....
There is no bullet proof evidence but just see the empirical evidence.
Youtube could be watched when it came out without much ads. Now ads are a reality. It also has subscription if you don't want ads. So initially Youtube was underpriced. Not anymore.
Same with Amazon Prime.
Lots of social media is about trying to get you addicted. Once addicted, they can skim you with ads or subscription.
The same is being played out with online gambling. they give you $100 or $200 free to play with initially to get you hooked.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
One more remark on subscription prices. (Excuse all my English mistakes - I'm a German user.)
See how things went in "MP Seminars". I can remember the time when a subscription for one year costed 180 Dollars - with regular special offers of 160 Dollars. Then, suddenly, they leaped up to 299 Dollar, and now the great special offer ist 240 Dollar. Imagine!
What I want to say is this: It seems inevitable, that subscription costs will climb up into unimagined heights - out of commercial pressure etc.
I don't want to presume Faithlife that they are greedy. In many things they did and do a great job - very much thanks for it!!! But I don't understand why now all should be forced to go into this subscription model. Who wants to have AI, and thinks he can't live without it, shall pay a subscription price for it. That's fair and okay. But there are many, many users like me, who actually still come from the "analog aera" - and will do fine bible study with a great program like Logos 10 and without the slightest presence of a new technological monster, whose consequences in the moment nobody can overlook und whose evil results can already be seen in many areas in the world.
And read John Dyer's "People of the Screen" and Samuel James' "Digital Liturgies" - its enlightening in many ways!0 -
I too would like to know where you get that from. From my stand point I felt like I was paying way above the "fair value" for the product. The only reason I bought it was due to the fact it was bundled books for a cheaper price with a search function. Otherwise, I'd just have a traditional physical library, which I already partly have. The price, convenience and efficiency was the only reason I got it. Take that away and essentially put a lien on my fortnightly income through a subscription, I really rather not, not with everything else, inflation, cost of living. I'll pray, read and fast, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance rather.
You can't build your entire business for 32 years on that model and then in one foul swoop make a just-so statement and say, "oh well, now its time to pony up because you have been getting bargain all these years and they didn't get anything". The only pony I will be getting on is the pony off of this train!
I don't agree with the logic. I could have easily spent the $3,500 - $5,000 AUD I spent on this over the last 16 years on a fairly decently sized paper library thank you very much. Unless they are offering a refund for all my books and perpetual license? I'll take that and buy a real books you can't take away from me or charge me for.
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:Frank Sauer said:
I'd like to know the source and evidence of us paying less than fair value in the past....
There is no bullet proof evidence but just see the empirical evidence.
Youtube could be watched when it came out without much ads. Now ads are a reality. It also has subscription if you don't want ads. So initially Youtube was underpriced. Not anymore.
Same with Amazon Prime.
Lots of social media is about trying to get you addicted. Once addicted, they can skim you with ads or subscription.
The same is being played out with online gambling. they give you $100 or $200 free to play with initially to get you hooked.
No, that's not that those services were underpriced or being subsidized to get subscribers. It's simply that they realized they could make more money. It's as simple as that.
0 -
Just go and read about "land and expand" strategy of software companies, specifically SaaS (Software as a Service) companies - those that offer subscription model.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
You requested some references, and I would suggest there are many more than this, as I have looked into it a fair bit. These are just a couple. I have tried to summarize and identify some the more salient points.
Wayne,
Thank you for your post, I thought it was well done and informative. One thing I would suggest is that you make use of the Quote function when replying to someone or at least include the name of person you are replying to in your post. This would make your comments much easier to follow.
Personally, I do find your post helpful. It helps to shed light on various aspects of the complexities surrounding subscription models.
I would also point out that subscription models can sometimes be all but inevitable. I believe this is where Logos finds itself. Like it or not, the company has made a decision to pursue AI-integration with their Bible software. There are clear and obvious current and future benefits attached to such a decision. Whether in the end these benefits will outweigh the cons is impossible to say. But in many ways it's out of their hands. Modern society has access to the internet. That is our current reality. Whether we use the internet for good or evil, however, is a decision that only we can make on an individual level. I believe this example closely parallels the rise of AI.
The integration of AI has regular costs associated with it that must be covered if they are to maintain a sustainable business model. Thus, they have forced themselves into a situation where they must encourage users to subscribe, rather than make one-off purchases for features.
This does NOT mean that they have to stop offering feature packages for purchase. it does mean that if they choose to continue selling features (and I so hope that they do), these packages will only contain some, but not all, of the features being rolled out in Logos Pro. Over time, as AI becomes more important, the purchasable feature options will eventually operate quite differently than the AI-powered subscription version. This is ok, however, as long as everything is priced fairly and sustainably.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
I can't see how it is not essentially hopping aboard the gravy train of the subscription model. The problem with a gravy train, is that eventually too many people get on.
I would wonder how they would make out long term with going to only subscriptions. Subscriptions don't build loyalty. When your needs change, or when you've had a bad experience with the company, you might cancel and go somewhere else. Or just take a break.
But most of us have spent lots of money over the years. We're invested and loyal. When we buy a new book, we always check to see if it's available in Logos first, and if not, we might get it somewhere else or we might just wait and see if Logos gets it - because we'd far prefer to have that in Logos with the rest of our books than in another format.
I think Logos would be foolish to leave the money it could make from subscriptions on the table, because there certainly is a market for it, but I would not be so sure that it would end up replacing the money it makes from packages. It would have seemed to be that the best course would have been to simply do both.
0 -
A Land and Expand strategy is an effective growth tactic for software as a service (SaaS) businesses. This approach involves acquiring new customers by “landing” them with a small initial purchase and then encouraging them to increase their commitment over time by “expanding” their product usage. Isn't this what we are arguing against? This is what we don't want, it is also something we are expecting to happen, and don't want?
If you are arguing that that's what they did with underpriced software? I highly doubt that it was underpriced. Most people I know want what I have, but can't afford it at that "below fair price" price. The only reason I did, is I sacrificed holidays to pay for it. I would also upgrade using the odd larger tax refund I might have had. It took me a long time, often at the expense of other opportunities to invest into Logos.
To say this is decision isn't a little emotional for me, would be a lie. my wife and I sacrificed a lot, and from my standpoint - the writing is proverbially on the wall. I really don't thin you need to be a prophet to see whats coming next. Someone commented earlier to me, that they couldn't understand why we are so upset, that this is just an early beta. I mean come on folks, its not that hard to read in-between the lines. Its a huge investment to carry this over into the model you desire long term to form a beta product (which incidentally you are paying $9.99/mo to test for them, not the other way around, as a way of "looking after you"). The video game industry does this with "Early Access" where they essentially get their customers to pay for an incomplete, half baked product, and on top of it, their customers are paying to tell them how to make it better - can't see how this is any different. The gaming client base see right through it, and FYI, are rebelling against it. What I am saying is that at best this is short-sighted, and not learning from established industry pitfalls. Thats not to say early access hasn't been done successfully, but there are a lot of things that will get under clients noses). You don't make this type of investment if this is not your mid-long term goal or intention. I should know, I was flagged to develop a platform using AI for my job. The costs are staggering. Also implies there were excess funds, or at least a healthy balance sheet to borrow more money.
0 -
Yeah I can agree with your point there. As long as there will be a commitment to have packages ongoing. When I read the original post, the commitment was a bit wishy washy, and unspecific, mainly focusing on Logos Pro. I don't think it's unreasonable as well, reading the early posts when the market developer was responding to concerns. He was fairly non-committal, which gave rise to a lot of concerns evidently.
0 -
Yeah I can agree with your point there. As long as there will be a commitment to have packages ongoing. When I read the original post, the commitment was a bit wishy washy, and unspecific, mainly focusing on Logos Pro. I don't think it's unreasonable as well, reading the early posts when the market developer was responding to concerns. He was fairly non-committal, which gave rise to a lot of concerns evidently.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
from my standpoint - the writing is proverbially on the wall. I really don't thin you need to be a prophet to see whats coming next.
Perspective is everything. You have more or less admitted that you are allowing your emotions to cloud your perspective on this issue. Therefore, it may be prudent to call that perspective into question. The reality is that you know very little of what is being discussed behind closed doors. You may end up being quite satisfied with the product offerings in the Fall.
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:
For people who would like the purchase option, please remember that it is easy for the firm to give one that is so unattractive. For example, the one-time purchase option might equal 6 years worth of subscription price. Would you still purchase it?
My sense is that they want to drastically increase the 1-time purchase price, probably 3 times the normal. For example, Let's say that the upgrade from Logos 9 feature set to Logos 10 feature set was $200 (I don't remember how much I paid). So we were typically paying $200 every 2 years to purchase it outright. Now, they want to increase this price to $600. Why? Following typical software business model. Most software companies underprice their product to build the customer base, which they know is very sticky (implying they won't leave unless the cost is too prohibitive). Once they've built the customer base, they increase their price beyond fair price (fair price = cost + reasonable profits). So now Logos wants the 1-time upgrade price to be $600. But if they put this out, people are going to rebel. So what is the way to soften this blow? Offer monthly option.
My point is...Please understand that you were paying less than fair value for the software thus far. Its time to pony up.
First of all the suggestion that after 20+ years of business offering software at "under market rates" that they are now planning on moving to what the software "should be worth" doesn't ring so true in my ears. Rather, it seems like they've decided to make a gamble at gaining a much larger userbase by achieving idiot-proof searching through AI, requiring a much larger software team and development/upkeep costs. The problems with this have already been noted in this thread but I will enumerate the chief ones in my mind:
1. Maybe for someone like you it's a matter of "ponying-up", but not all of us are as fortunate as that. I made a decision to invest ~$2000 as a one-in-a-lifetime investment in a computer system with on-going costs as I could determine them based on the business model of the past 10 years. Does this change break the law? No. Does it break my trust in the company? Absolutely. This is not a company that's marketing to people in my socio-economic class. If things go the way you are suggesting, I bitterly regret the money I've put into Logos and I would hope they'd provide some sort of off-ramp for people they are totally out-pricing. I would much rather invest in a company that's less likely to leave me behind.
2. I have not signed up for the trial myself, and don't plan on it. (Subscriptions are a great way to get absent-minded people like me to waste money on things they don't need and don't use). But from what I gather on the "AI" search, there is nothing that would be useful for someone who has already invested time and effort into learning Logos's search functions. The truth is that there is not a limitless set of useful features. What separates Logos from the competition right now is the larger library of resources (albeit often of a lower quality in certain areas than those of the competitor). They're hoping to differentiate themselves. I believe the in power of large language models for deep searching Biblical texts, especially in original languages, where I think there is a great potential for never before discovered insights into ancient languages, but what Logos is developing is explicitly not that, and from what people say about it, only slightly more use-friendly than what previously existed (may this will change??).
Okay, there's so much more to say about why I don't think these new features add any value to the Logos offering, but maybe I'm not the userbase they care about. Increasingly that what it seems like to me.
0 -
Aaron Hamilton said:Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
You requested some references, and I would suggest there are many more than this, as I have looked into it a fair bit. These are just a couple. I have tried to summarize and identify some the more salient points.
Wayne,
Thank you for your post, I thought it was well done and informative. One thing I would suggest is that you make use of the Quote function when replying to someone or at least include the name of person you are replying to in your post. This would make your comments much easier to follow.
Personally, I do find your post helpful. It helps to shed light on various aspects of the complexities surrounding subscription models.
I would also point out that subscription models can sometimes be all but inevitable. I believe this is where Logos finds itself. Like it or not, the company has made a decision to pursue AI-integration with their Bible software. There are clear and obvious current and future benefits attached to such a decision. Whether in the end these benefits will outweigh the cons is impossible to say. But in many ways it's out of their hands. Modern society has access to the internet. That is our current reality. Whether we use the internet for good or evil, however, is a decision that only we can make on an individual level. I believe this example closely parallels the rise of AI.
The integration of AI has regular costs associated with it that must be covered if they are to maintain a sustainable business model. Thus, they have forced themselves into a situation where they must encourage users to subscribe, rather than make one-off purchases for features.
This does NOT mean that they have to stop offering feature packages for purchase. it does mean that if they choose to continue selling features (and I so hope that they do), these packages will only contain some, but not all, of the features being rolled out in Logos Pro. Over time, as AI becomes more important, the purchasable feature options will eventually operate quite differently than the AI-powered subscription version. This is ok, however, as long as everything is priced fairly and sustainably.
Apologies Aaron, I should use that feature. To be honest, on this side of the world its a bit late, and didn't envisage getting into any extended discussions tonight.
Anyway, I think from what you said, they voluntarily put themselves in the position to incur additional costs in this way. If they keep to their word and provide access to a Full Feature Set that allows access to the software that would make me happy. However, my faith that they won't passively push people toward that via unreasonable pricing, doesn't give me confidence, particularly the vague non-committal Mark Barnes had on some of these questions that were asked. He stated that they "were still evaluating" whether or not these sets would be carried forward.
So sure, it will be true that for new users, the upfront costs would be lower, however for long time users like myself that have a significant $$ invested in this, it is a kick in the teeth to then ask for more money, and not just more, an ongoing cost into perpetuity. If $9.99 is a special offer to long time users who have purchased a feature set, then I want to know what the real price is, to have and preserve what features I already have? What this does is introduce a heap of uncertainly, and dissatisfaction because I think I am understandably upset that I won't know what my future commitments to the future usability of my investment will be, or even if a program to read/use them will be available without having to pay some nominal fee for it, particularly since you rightly stated that they now have AI overheads, and its in their best interest to encourage people to subscribe.
As I quoted in one of those articles, subscription fatigue is a real and growing trend. As Donnie has said as well, subscriptions do not create long term loyalty. The very real dollars we have invested over long periods of time are what made me "sticky", Subscriptions, quite honestly, is like an anti-adhesive to me, even despite the investment I have made. If I feel at any point a company is trying to take advantage of me to my detriment, I would be very reticent to continue to support them.
Unfortunately, of late, companies have had some attitude changes that effectively communicate the the old adage of "the customers always right" no longer holds sway. What holds sway now is, "we will drag customers with us kicking and screaming, they don't really know what they want."
I might change my mind later down the track, but I doubt it. I have worked with AI, researched AI, and even this recent debacle with Googles Gemini AI - that is truly genuinely scary. On a professional level, I have used AI for research. Empirically I can tell you it guesses, it makes things up. Numerous occasions I have found that it purely just made things up. I had tested it on knowledge I already knew to be true, and found enough false to distrust it completely. Just saying, say what you like about AI, but when it comes to the Word of God - its a hard no. I would wager many would agree,
0 -
Aaron Hamilton said:Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
from my standpoint - the writing is proverbially on the wall. I really don't thin you need to be a prophet to see whats coming next.
Perspective is everything. You have more or less admitted that you are allowing your emotions to cloud your perspective on this issue. Therefore, it may be prudent to call that perspective into question. The reality is that you know very little of what is being discussed behind closed doors. You may end up being quite satisfied with the product offerings in the Fall.
I highly doubt it Aaron, the presence of AI on an empirical level is enough for me to steer way clear of it. See my post above. Besides, you are trying to divorce my emotions from my perspective. I am human, and I have them for a reason - God gave them to me. I have found through life, that you cannot separate the human factor from any decision making - that I believe is a fallacy of our present age - to think that everyone can be objective. I am both a CPA by trade and an Agronomist and lay preacher, and even the accounting profession acknowledges this fact in their Ethics and Governance. Objectivity isn't everything in this scenario. Objectively, a business has to assess its decisions based on subjective human behavior. If there a many people like me, then from an objective point of view, you won't win a lot of favors by side-lining you customers.
Not to be rude, but I think the argument doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. Its just an observation on my humanity.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
Empirically I can tell you it guesses, it makes things up. Numerous occasions I have found that it purely just made things up
While I agree this is true in general I'm less sure it applies in the way Logos is currently using AI tools.
Taking Smart Search for example, the AI aspects are about working out the most relevant hits to a search query drawing on resources you have in your Library (a Books Search) or the Logos catalog (an All Search).
So it isn't making things up, it is suggesting which books, journals, etc might be most helpful to look at.
0 -
Aaron Hamilton said:Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
from my standpoint - the writing is proverbially on the wall. I really don't thin you need to be a prophet to see whats coming next.
Perspective is everything. You have more or less admitted that you are allowing your emotions to cloud your perspective on this issue. Therefore, it may be prudent to call that perspective into question. The reality is that you know very little of what is being discussed behind closed doors. You may end up being quite satisfied with the product offerings in the Fall.
I appreciate that you don't like some of the labels that have been thrown around. Perhaps I don't either. But when Logos says they're "leaning heavily into a subscription model" I believe them. And when they fail to clarify after much questioning, that a "non-subscription option" will be provided, the most reasonable conclusion is that they really were hoping to not offer one. At the very least that means that if they do offer a non-subscription option, it's "less than optimal" for them, and that kind of attitude spells trouble for us down the road.
You may see a string of assumptions behind that logic, and you'd be right, but I'm reading the official announcements as carefully as I can. And the point of this thread was feedback, and my feedback is that I'd really like some kind of assurance that my investment in Logos will be protected. A POSSIBILITY (despite my best reading the announcements) of a pleasant surprise in the fall is not a great deal of comfort.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
Empirically I can tell you it guesses, it makes things up. Numerous occasions I have found that it purely just made things up
While I agree this is true in general I'm less sure it applies in the way Logos is currently using AI tools.
Taking Smart Search for example, the AI aspects are about working out the most relevant hits to a search query drawing on resources you have in your Library (a Books Search) or the Logos catalog (an All Search).
So it isn't making things up, it is suggesting which books, journals, etc might be most helpful to look at.
How long to you think before language models will be integrated into doin more than just searching? It is easy to make comments about these things early on in the piece, what about later? What about the pressure to keep producing features to justify a subscription. Commercial and customer pressure will factor in at some stage. I don't want to think of just the road that is in front of me now. I want to think about whats coming later, the destination of that road. Its why I brought up social media in a previous posts. By all metrics it was a god-send in its early days. Look at it now. Congress is voting to ban Tik-Tok. Have you seen the studies on cognitive decline in youths due to the algorithms used in social media and their addictive natures? Not so great now. I would encourage you not to look at the immediate, but the potential pitfalls down the road.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
How long to you think before language models will be integrated into doin more than just searching.
I don't know - but, even having read all / most of the discussion here I continue to be confident that the Logos teams will make good decisions about the way forward.
0 -
Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:Graham Criddle said:Wayne & Rebecca Birch said:
Empirically I can tell you it guesses, it makes things up. Numerous occasions I have found that it purely just made things up
While I agree this is true in general I'm less sure it applies in the way Logos is currently using AI tools.
Taking Smart Search for example, the AI aspects are about working out the most relevant hits to a search query drawing on resources you have in your Library (a Books Search) or the Logos catalog (an All Search).
So it isn't making things up, it is suggesting which books, journals, etc might be most helpful to look at.
How long to you think before language models will be integrated into doin more than just searching? It is easy to make comments about these things early on in the piece, what about later? What about the pressure to keep producing features to justify a subscription. Commercial and customer pressure will factor in at some stage. I don't want to think of just the road that is in front of me now. I want to think about whats coming later, the destination of that road. Its why I brought up social media in a previous posts. By all metrics it was a god-send in its early days. Look at it now. Congress is voting to ban Tik-Tok. Have you seen the studies on cognitive decline in youths due to the algorithms used in social media and their addictive natures? Not so great now. I would encourage you not to look at the immediate, but the potential pitfalls down the road.
I share your concern for large language model AI and it's integration into everything. However, as I understand it, Logos AI is not a large language model at all. I'm quite skeptical that it's worthy of the title AI, though I say that as a distant observer who has not experimented with it.
0
