Official: You Can Now Get Early Access to the Next Version of Logos

I just signed up for Logos pro and did a search on the new search screen. It turned up hundreds of articles ALL LOCKED!

The reason the books and articles are locked, is because "All" is being searched and that particular search contain volumes you/we don't own and are being pulled from the entire Logos catalog.

I agree that Logos should have made "Books" the default so as to avoid the confusion (and I would definitely prefer that "Books" be called "My Library" because that's more straight forward. And perhaps "All" would be better labeled: Logos Catalog.

I have no problem with the "All" feature searching the entire Logos catalog and turning up many locked books as it does provide a summary from the locked books/articles and I have founded several I intend to purchase for which I was previously unaware.

As with all changes, there are growing pains that need to be ironed out.

Aaron, you should create a new thread in the Logos Deskop App forum and state your concerns where software issue are discussed. They won't get anywhere in this thread!

Dave,

The comment you referenced was an explanation in response to Graham's comment which began only with the intention of addressing the problem that John was experiencing as mentioned in this thread. Thus, this forum is the only location appropriate for said comment. That being said, I appreciate the advice. I agree that if I expect my concern in this area to be seriously addressed, the forum you mentioned would be a much better choice. If my concerns still exist in the future, I will take your advice to heart. However, perhaps I should first subscribe to Logos Pro before making serious improvement suggestions for it...

So, I decided to take Logos up on their offer for a month long free trial of Logos Pro. Here are my thoughts:

First, I should note that I decided to not let the subscription renew after the trial was up after trying Logos Pro out. Why? The amount and quality of books included with the subscription where not worth paying a subscription for when compared to the nearly 8,000 books I do own and utilize in my studies and sermon prep. I don't see the need to pay part of a subscription for books I just don't think are worth it. 

Secondly, the AI tools were not nearly as helpful as they are made out to be.

• AI Summaries - this is entirely unnecessary. If I want a quick overview of a book I just click on "Information" and can see the general scope of a book. And as for summarizing chapters, gosh, if I am busy I can easily just speed read a chapter to get the general sense of the argument. I don't need an AI summary. So that doesn't sell me.
• AI Sermon Assist - again, I found this mostly unhelpful. I am not going to use Illustrations an AI comes up with. I need to use illustrations that connect with my congregation and their lives - what fits their context. The AI just isn't able to do that. Same with the AI generated Questions. The only tool that I found even somewhat useful here was the AI generated Applications, as a way to bounce ideas off of the AI. However, I was underwhelmed by the results the AI suggested for Applications. Just to try it, I ran some Scripture passages through OpenAI to see what application questions that program would generate, and found OpenAI's application questions to be far more robust than those generated by Logos Pro's AI.
  
• Logos Pro's AI assisted Smart Search was a bit better. However, I know how to search through my books/resources, so I really just don't think it would prove that useful to me. Which again, means that I just cannot justify paying a subscription for something that I find only moderately useful.

In short, as of now, I do not find myself sold on subscribing. Logos 10's features do everything I need them to do and my current books/resources are more than sufficient. And if I ever would find myself stuck on points for my sermon, I could use OpenAI FOR FREE and get equally good results (or better ones). 

So, if anyone from Logos is still paying attention to this thread. I will reiterate what so many of us have already been asking for. Please keep purchasing available (and make the AI features an optional add-on people can subscribe to).

In Christ,

Rev. Eric Burrows-Stone 

I believe if this will affect our now own Logos program on our computers we will receive advance notice. I do not intend on getting your subscription service, so I understand my resources and features will be what they are when you abandon us, and will be satisfied with what i have.

#1- I would also like to know are we going to need to cut ties with Logos so our system will not be interfered with, in other words having our system start completely shut off from internet?

#2- will future resources be offered for purchase without a subscription?

#3- Hopefully there will be at least a 6 month notice when you implement this so as to allow time to make sure our personal systems are protected to prevent the reduction of our logos programs as they exist now.

I assume there's nothing to announce at this point in time. Like it or not, I think people just have to sit tight for the time being. If that means sitting tight with a closed wallet, so be it. At this point I would assume they have gathered enough feedback to gain a general consensus of what the community is hoping for. The big question is, what will they do with that feedback? We'll know soon enough...

I understand that cloud based AI features have a cost for the Logos team, but that being said I would love to see the option to have an LLM integration that runs locally on our devices to avoid the subscription route. This may be demanding, but some peoples computers may be able to handle it. 

Alternatively, giving us the option to strictly subscribe to the AI features and purchase non AI feature sets would be a good alternative. I like the idea of paying once and owning it rather than keeping a subscription. This is one of my favorite things about Logos.

I'm not sure, but Faithlife Assistant may have been close to your suggestion - which had it been improved may have been really useful without a per use cost, as with the current AI.Maybe Bradley can chime in to whether it fit your suggestion. Again not sure it was LLM, but is was added to the list of deprecated Features last year.

So, I decided to take Logos up on their offer for a month long free trial of Logos Pro. Here are my thoughts:

• AI Sermon Assist - again, I found this mostly unhelpful. I am not going to use Illustrations an AI comes up with. I need to use illustrations that connect with my congregation and their lives - what fits their context. The AI just isn't able to do that. Same with the AI generated Questions. The only tool that I found even somewhat useful here was the AI generated Applications, as a way to bounce ideas off of the AI. However, I was underwhelmed by the results the AI suggested for Applications. Just to try it, I ran some Scripture passages through OpenAI to see what application questions that program would generate, and found OpenAI's application questions to be far more robust than those generated by Logos Pro's AI.

Rev Eric ...

I agree with your overall comments and assessment.  I'm not sure if there is a place to offer this as a SUGGESTION, but maybe the Logos folks will see it here.  I too was underwhelmed by the current Pro AI tools ... I do see potential value in them if several things are **significantly** improved.  

1. The Search tool is not "smart" enough re interpreting grammar ... I posted earlier about a search test I had done that went something like this:  "What does the Bible say Noah's age was at the time of the flood, according to Young Earth Creationists".  I have a lot of books in my library about creationism that would have offered fodder for the answer.  However, the Search seemed to be unaware that the words "according to" effectively should be a "filter" to limit the hits to the first half of the question.  I tried rephrasing it in several ways but I always got hits ONLY to either the first half or the second half of the question.  So - SEARCH NEEDS TO BE SMARTER.

2. Sermon Illustrations ... all of my tests of this generated little stories like I might tell a child, which had no "meat" in them - and which I would be embarrassed to use in a sermon or lesson. In my library of 14k books, I own a LOT of books with Illustrations in them, many of which have scripture-tagging (a Library search for "Illustrations" got 328 hits).  I would find it VALUABLE if the Pro AI could be told to draw illustrations ONLY from my library's Books, rather than the current childlike story-generation.  So - ILLUSTRATIONS NEED TO USE MY BOOKS.

3. Sermon Applications ... similar comments as #2.  

Please comment on these, as to whether you think they have value, and whether if they were incorporated, you might join me in subscribing ... thanks.

"What does the Bible say Noah's age was at the time of the flood, according to Young Earth Creationists". 

This question/conversational style works best with chatbots. The Logos AI works best with a list of keywords.

Thanks MJ ...

I'm aware of that ... as are most others who've been exposed to "AI" interfaces in the past year or two.  The idea behind those interfaces, usually, (afaik) is to *** make it easy *** for the user who is unskilled in research methods, and/or search-query syntax and rules, to use "natural language" to ask questions that another human being usually would understand.  And to get focused, useful summary-answers.

That's what I expect from an "AI Search" feature in Logos.  Logos has long had an extremely powerful Search capability that unfortunately has so many nuances (types, categories, syntax rules), that the average Logos user either is unaware of their scope, or overwhelmed by its complexity/depth, or simply frustrated in trying to recall the categories and choices available.  Nonetheless, it's very powerful, when used as intended, and represents a fantastic benefit of the Logos engine as well as the book-tagging and datasets.

HOWEVER, if the "Logos Pro AI" is to be worth extra expense ... to me at least ... I expect it to be "decoupled" from a required understanding of syntax and categories and keywords ... I expect to come close to similar results as the current Search tool, but using natural language, *without* requiring the user to know a NEW set of rules.

If it cannot do that, even in a simple way such as the example I provided, then for me (and I suspect for many users) it has little or no marginal benefit ... certainly not enough to warrant $9.99/month (or more) ... for what (according to some posts here) turns out to be a fairly limited number of use-tokens per month.

I realize that you're likely of a different opinion, but I believe that what I've expressed SHOULD BE CONSIDERED by the Logos staff as the "desired endpoint" ... and that they try to get 80-90% of the way there before an "official release" of the AI Search tool.  Jmho, fwiw.

Jim, not disagreeing. Nor discouraging your comments.

But early on (!), Mark indicated the 'AI' was primarily applied after the search results were pulled. That the query had limited 'new' to it.

Meaning, he probably agrees with you, and has more enhancements in mind. More similar comments might assist in that direction.

That's good to be reminded of, Mark - thanks.  

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.  

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 ... but that's what "AI" is all about, imo.

If Logos Pro Search AI assistance ever meets or exceeds that threshold, I will happily subscribe for $9.99/mo ... it will save me that much time in trying to do it the "hard way".  But as I explained, I think it's currently "miles away" from that goal, so the subscription, to me, appears to be there to finance ongoing development, before a truly useful product is ready.  Again, my POV ... for others less acquainted with the current Search syntax, or who don't really want to do focused searches, maybe it's helpful as-is.

And as I stated earlier, I also think it COULD be very helpful for Illustrations and Applications when developing messages, IF (and only if) it draws those illustrations and app's directly from resources that I own, which incorporate the God-given insight and wisdom of those books' authors.  It does not do that now, so imo is useless in that regard.  Again, my POV ... others may find the simplistic results to be helpful.

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?

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)

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.

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.