New Feature suggestion

I agree. My initial tests with Smart Search gave been...underwhelming. If Smart Search dynamically built a Factbook entry based on my resources, I think that would be more useful than what I'm seeing now. Currently, Smart Search makes searches easy, but I think they're less accurate than building a search query. Smart Search may help people not too familiar with the search syntax (I'm definitely in that crowd; the support pages for it are in my web browser favorites), but I'm skeptical power users would benefit much. 

I concur. It would be nice to be able to ask the Factbook basic factoid questions.

Today I would have ask it:

"Where is Dothan?" and "Where is Zoan?"

Maybe there can be a chat bot in the Factbook that you can have a conversation with.

Maybe we can start calling the Factbook "the Oracle" (kidding); it could have all the info that the current factbook has but is interactive, you can talk to it.

Instead of making me open a map with Dothan or Zoan you could just have a little map pop up inside the chat conversation with a link to open a map.

That shouldn't be a factbook feature though. Factbook has a pre-defined list of articles, which are then dynamically created based on the works on one's own library.

Better have an entirely new feature. Just to give it a name, I'll call it AskDrLogos.

That AI engine would be trained with the entire Logos catalogue, no matter whether the respective resources are owned by the user or not. Current free AI engine are not trained with current theological works. One of the tests I did while beta testing, is the following. I haven't shared it here yet, since it says something about the state of ChatGPT rather than the Logos AI. I asked ChatGPT to give me a summary of a chapter of a book. ChatGPT did give me a summary. However, whereas there was a small overlap with the contents of the book, much of it seemed to be totally made up. I kept pressing ChatGPT to reveal where it got the information from, and it finally did. It compiled the summary from public information about the book and assumptions what it thinks a book about comparative religion should contain. What a surprise!

ChatGPT did not have access to the content of the book. It admitted that much to me.

ChatGPT has access to publicly infomation available on the internet, and not necessarily current scholarship. The totality of the information publicly available is an example of crowd wisdom, which usually gets things right. But it's not good for scholarly research. Not for theology, or any other fields of research.

A scholarly trained AI looks like a market niche, and AskDrLogos could step in. It would give refereces to scholarly books and current journal articles. Not to reddit threads and personal blogs, like ChatGPT and Gemini. That would give a lot of users an incentive to subscribe.

That shouldn't be a factbook feature though. Factbook has a pre-defined list of articles, which are then dynamically created based on the works on one's own library.....

A scholarly trained AI looks like a market niche, and AskDrLogos could step in. It would give refereces to scholarly books and current journal articles. Not to reddit threads and personal blogs, like ChatGPT and Gemini. That would give a lot of users an incentive to subscribe.

That is what I am hoping for with AI.  I don't need Logos to do a narrow, blindered job of what ChatGPT can do any more than I expect it to replace Google searches.  I want a NLP interface with LLM that can work its magic internally on Logos.  

Imagine the ease of searches then!  Imagine how much laity in churches around the world would want Logos then!  $$$