> what unique perspective am I getting if it's just AI?

It is entirely possible for existing AI tools to introduce you to a perspective on something that is neither new or unique to the world, but which IS new to you.

Whether what represents is a wholly unique perspective or not is kinda irrelevant, so long as it's unique to you.

For example - most popular science or history books aren't offering up wholly unique perspective that nobody in that field of study has ever thought about before / ever committed to paper. Most of them are providing an engaging overview of widely studied topics in a way that is accessible and engaging to the average enthusiast.

Sure, the more in-depth your knowledge of a subject is the harder it is for those books to give you a unique perspective...but that is true of human authors too (as anybody who has read multiple books on the same subject will surely attest).

Also - without getting all Rumsfeldian...there are things you don't know that you don't know...and whilst with the right approach you could get AI to enlighten you, there can be value in someone/something having already curated that content together for you.

Just to be clear here - i'm not arguing in favour of AI books or suggesting they are as good/equivalent to human-authored books. I don't believe they are, i'm mostly questioning the logic that because Ai isn't producing some unique perspective it's therefore of no value).

Bingo. I read plenty of AI writing. My AI writes it for me. The way I like it. Usually along with obvious action items already drafted.

There may be a market for sharing useful prompt ideas. There isn’t one—broadly—for sharing the outputs.