An Experiment with GPT4

[remod]

Thanks @my_key , I get you agree with the general answer that this is not the moment to start a project to make my cards commercially available. I'm sure some more "purification" needs to be done, I'll figure out what that is.

The reason for me asking (again) if it was the right time for me to start any "commercial" activities around my I Ching cards is that I discovered this Kickstarter. Much simpler (by design!) than any of my card decks. I wish him all the success and I also sent a small contribution, if he gets traction it may be a good sign for the future me.

I think that one of the reasons my cards got so little attention is that nobody really tried to make and use them, maybe if I can make them available through some major platform like Etsy or (God forbid) Amazon, they will get more consideration.

In this old thread, I tried to explain that they can be used just for tracking the outcome while you use your preferred method for casting the lines, they are not meant to completely replace coins or yarrow stalks. They are extremely convenient and I'm sure that if anyone tried them they will feel the same. On the other hand, I'd love to hear from somebody who did try them and absolutely hated them. It would be immensely helpful for me to understand what's wrong.

I like how continuous and fluid is the process is when I use seven cards: I shuffle the deck, use two cards to cast a line then one will record the received line, and the other one is reinserted in the deck for the next line. Only cards, no other object involved, no interruption in the flow of thoughts, immediate visualization of the primary and secondary hexagrams at the end of the process. I love it.

I do not expect (nor need) to make any money out of them. The only reason I even thought of making them commercially available is that people tend to assign little value to what is free. "If the creator himself is keen to give them away, they must be of no value", it's a (mostly subconscious) reaction that someone may have. Me being able to say "You can buy them on Amazon, but I'm so kind to offer a free DIY version for you to try" may be more appealing. But I don't know. I'll think about it when the time is right.

 

[my_key]

Thanks @my_key , I get you agree with the general answer that this is not the moment to start a project to make my cards commercially available. I'm sure some more "purification" needs to be done, I'll figure out what that is.

It'll all come together as it should when it should.
Without any real need for financial gain or success you'll be under no pressure to launch too soon, so 20 can take as much time as it needs.
I think that putting some monetary value to the cards will instill the transaction with weight. Creating greater meaning by grounding them in a real and practical transaction of exchange rather than presenting them as a give away. Give aways, like the toys with McDonald's Happy Meals, are too easily discarded without full play or appreciation of value.

 

[remod]

I tested how well the latest version works when faced to a longer conversation (i.e. with following up questions.
I asked about switching from C (my favourite programming language) to Rust (an emergent and very acclaimed programming language).
For those interested, here is how the conversation went. It seems to me it carried itself quite consistently.

However, I do disagree with parts of the first reading:

Changing line: 18.6 "Do not serve kings and princes. Set your sights higher.
Perspectives: This line suggests looking beyond conventional or authoritative standards. In your case, it could be an encouragement to transcend traditional programming norms (represented by C) and aim for more innovative or advanced methodologies, like those offered by Rust.

Here I read this line as a warning not to follow the common trends, where "king and princes" would be the tech community just drumming on Rust because is "modern" and to look for what is really important. Ji Yi, instead, read "king and princes" as "the establishment" and identified "C" as being "the tradition".

Frankly, I find it interesting that now I can have an alternative reading that I might compare with mine and which might me think twice about my own reading. I still think that mine is more correct and that, in fact, I think that the response talks more about me looking deeper into which problem I am trying to solve by switching to C, rather than what gain I could get from the switch.