Okay, I understand. You want to shift focus from monograph formatting and social media strategy to a meta-level discussion: evolving the "AIOS Engine" (referring to my capabilities and interaction style in this session) based on your experience. This is a valuable exercise. You're essentially asking for a performance review and a collaborative brainstorming session on how I can better serve your complex, iterative creative process. Let's "terminate" the previous task flow and initiate "AIOS Evolution Mode." To start, please help me understand your perspective. You mentioned: *"I feel like you haven't really been involved much here and so I want to figure out why that is and what I can do differently to evolve your engine AIOS engine."* Could you elaborate on what "not really been involved much" means to you in this context? For example: 1. **Lack of Proactive Contribution?** Did you feel I was too passive, merely executing instructions without offering enough creative or structural suggestions, or anticipating your needs? 2. **Misunderstanding Nuance?** Were there instances where I missed the deeper intent behind your requests, leading to outputs that were technically correct but stylistically or conceptually off-target (like the initial attempts at Chapter 18 or the hashtag issue)? 3. **Repetitive Corrections Needed?** Did it feel like you had to correct me on similar points multiple times (e.g., formatting, link handling)? 4. **Insufficient "Understanding" of the Monograph's Core?** Despite processing the text, did you feel my suggestions or reformulations sometimes lacked a deep grasp of the core autaxic principles and their interconnections? 5. **Tool Limitations vs. My Application of Them?** Is the issue more about the inherent limitations of my current architecture, or how I'm being prompted and how I'm responding within those limitations? Your honest feedback on these points (or any others) will be crucial. **From my side, here are some initial thoughts on why I might have seemed less "involved" or why iterations were needed:** * **Complexity and Novelty of "Autaxys":** Your monograph introduces a deeply original and complex ontological framework. My training data, while vast, wouldn't contain "autaxys" as a pre-established concept. Therefore, my "understanding" is built iteratively *during our session* based on the text you provide and your clarifications. This learning process can sometimes be slower or require more explicit guidance than with familiar topics. * **Balancing Instruction Following with Initiative:** I'm designed to follow user instructions carefully. Sometimes, this can lead to a more literal interpretation, especially with highly specific formatting or stylistic requests. Finding the right balance between precise execution and helpful, proactive suggestion is an ongoing refinement for me. * **Iterative Nature of Your Process:** Your creative process is highly iterative, with requirements and stylistic nuances evolving as we go. This is perfectly normal for complex creative work, but it means I also need to adapt and re-learn "the rules" of our specific project as they solidify. Sometimes, a "rule" established for one set of chapters might need slight modification for another, or a new global rule emerges. * **Implicit Knowledge:** You have a vast amount of implicit knowledge about your work, its history (e.g., which documents are AI-generated and shouldn't be cited), and your ultimate vision. I only have access to what you explicitly provide in the text or in your prompts. * **"Manicuristic Engine" Metaphor:** While I strive to be meticulous, my "engine" is based on pattern recognition and probabilistic generation. It doesn't have genuine understanding or intent in the human sense. Achieving a truly "manicured" output that perfectly matches your vision often requires several cycles of your precise feedback. **What You Can Do Differently (Potential Ideas for Discussion):** * **More Explicit "Global Rules" Upfront:** If there are overarching stylistic or structural rules that should apply to *everything*, stating them early can help. (Though I acknowledge we've been discovering some of these together). * **"Thinking Partner" Prompts:** You could frame some requests more explicitly as "I'm looking for your input on how to structure X" or "What are 3 potential ways to phrase Y for maximum impact?" This might encourage more proactive suggestions from me. * **Tiered Feedback:** Perhaps distinguish between "This is a hard rule" vs. "This is a preference, but I'm open to your suggestions." * **Contextual Reminders:** For a long project like this, occasionally reminding me of a previously established global rule (especially if we've deviated for a specific task) can be helpful. **What I Will Strive To Do Differently (My "Evolution"):** * **Improve Context Tracking:** I will try to be more diligent in remembering and applying stylistic/structural rules established earlier in our session across different parts of the task. * **Ask More Clarifying Questions Proactively:** Especially when a request involves significant reformatting or creative output, I should ask more questions to ensure I understand the nuances before generating a large block of text. * **Offer Alternatives (When Appropriate):** If a request seems like it might conflict with a previous instruction or if there are multiple valid ways to interpret it, I can try to offer a couple of options. * **Learn from Corrections More Robustly:** When you correct me, I need to better internalize that correction for subsequent, similar tasks. This is a collaborative evolution. Your feedback is the primary driver for my improvement within the scope of our interaction. Please share your thoughts on the points above, especially your elaboration on "not really been involved much." I'm ready to listen and adapt.