Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books? • Hacker News Board

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#481

Post by goobatrooba » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 7:39 PM UTC

gorfian_robot wrote: post #447

wisty wrote: post #362

IMO the WORST thing you can use chat for is advice in a field you are unfamiliar with. It's way better at search and grunt work when you already know what you want. All IMO: Syncophancy (and in extreme cases AI psychosis) is a huge problem when you take advice from AI. It's risky to learn a new field as you often just fall for a superficial, glib explaination and just nod along without learning. AI will do that becau…

idk. it helped me fix my washing machine.

But that's a concretey very well scoped problem with a clear truth state. Anything mental has none of these properties. Ask an AI if you have depression or another disorder, and keep asking with more details and back and forth, and a few hours later you might be convinced.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#482

Post by lstodd » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 7:40 PM UTC

senordevnyc wrote: post #459

lstodd wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, so one just reads up on psychology, psychiatry and neurophysiology branching into sociology and anthropology, approximately to a graduate level. After which all this self-help looks quite naive. This sure takes 10-15 years, but the result is that you begin to understand wtf is going on around.

Yes, because the PhDs in those fields famously have their lives all figured out and are extremely happy and successful at everything.

It's your life. To the left there is the tank for those like you. Please jump.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#483

Post by lstodd » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #473

lstodd wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, so one just reads up on psychology, psychiatry and neurophysiology branching into sociology and anthropology, approximately to a graduate level. After which all this self-help looks quite naive. This sure takes 10-15 years, but the result is that you begin to understand wtf is going on around.

Academic literature isn't written to be applied. Some of the books I like the most distill the Academic findings into actionable frameworks. I do agree it's a good idea to also look at the research. But also recognize that the research changes as new studies deepen our understanding or invalidate prior findings.

> Academic literature isn't written to be applied.

Thank you. You made my point.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#484

Post by digitaltrees » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

vincnetas wrote: post #254

murkt wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Never Split the Difference”, which is a book about how to successfully communicate with terrorists. Very suitable for talking with kids! I’ve even read aloud a few chapters to my kids, because it’s very suitable for communication with parents as well

Read AI summary what “Never Split the Difference” is about. And its a bit scary that you think its suitable for talking with kids. Its pure manipulation technique. If you need to do this to your its most likely you were unable to create a real connection with them before.

Thank you for proving Tim Ferris right and showing that AI actually degrades the knowledge adding a second order harm to human society.

The tactics themselves are morally neutral. They can be used to manipulate or elevate another person whose well being you are deeply committed to, the intention behind the tactics are what determines if it is manipulation or connection/persuasion.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#485

Post by NeutralCrane » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 11:04 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #326

__alexander wrote: post #50

Personally, I see the self-help industry dying because people are starting to realize that it’s just a network of individuals selling products, promoting each other’s products, and creating new avenues to sell more products. I refer to it as the “self-help mafia.” Tim Ferriss kind of created it.

I can't stop referring to the irony that the gist of "the 4-hour work week" is to write a book about working only 4 hours a week. But also pretty much all of the self-help books I've read can be summarized in a few paragraphs, that is, a blog post. The rest is repetition or examples. Which are important for learning and understanding, I suppose, but when an AI can both tell you the gist of it while applying it direct…

The repetition and examples aren’t there for learning. They are there for monetization.

This is my biggest issue with the self-help industry. There is a lot of self-help books out there with ideas that are genuinely valuable, or at least worth considering. But as you say, the entirety of the idea can be conveyed perfectly well in a blog post. But you can’t sell a blog post. So it has to be padded out with cruft into a book length publication that can be sold to people.

That’s how AI undermines the industry. It has those general ideas and can convey them in the simplistic, cruftless versions that are most helpful, and can iterate back and forth with someone on applications to their own life.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#486

Post by K0balt » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 12:30 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #256

K0balt wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that is not what the book teaches at all. Sometimes people can’t take the advice of “just be a better person and care about other people” unless it’s explained to them more specifically and anchored to their goals. It’s not because they are inauthentic, it’s because they are lacking skills and understanding.

I actually crashed out semi-recently about this exact thing, quit church and all and was genuinely surprised when the people who were speaking politeley to me reached out in a genuine, non-public and non-coerced way. I don't think the word "inauthentic" quite captures why people react negatively to this sort of communication. At least part of it comes from the fact that this particular style of "kindness-is-cool-code…

If your were (never mind presented as) inauthentic after reading HTWFAIP your reading comprehension was lacking. HTWFAIP is about building authentic, mutually beneficial relationships with people, not shining them on. I’m totally with you about fake people, but HTWFAIP is not about that.

Aside from being about forming sincere relationships, it handles influence with essentially this advice: Stop trying to force people to care about what you want. Understand what they want, treat them with respect, and align your request with their self-interest and self-image. If you come off as false doing those things, it’s because you didn’t actually do them, you pantomimed them.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#487

Post by ragequittah » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 1:49 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #476

ragequittah wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wonder if some people don't often get to their end years and regret putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. Having dialogues with people like it's a transaction to win instead of a conversation.

> putting on an inauthentic mask their entire life because a book told them to. I think the key difference- at least for the book I mentioned - is that it actually teaches to you take a genuine interest in those around you. It's not a mask or a ploy, it is making you engage positively in a way that yields genuine connections.

If at any point in a natural conversation you're going to a trick a book taught you instead of just speaking your mind I'd argue it's a mask of a kind.

Example: if at the start of a conversation a personal anecdote comes to mind but you think 'no that's not what the book said, I should talk about the other person instead' I'd argue you're masking your natural persona. If your natural inclination is to raise an eyebrow but no that's not what I was taught smile instead, that's a mask. You see it often among high earning people and it's pretty transparent. Luckily you often also see people who are not at all like that everywhere and they're the ones I'll prefer having a drink with 10/10 times.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#488

Post by alexitosrv » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 4:46 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #480

brainzap wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my book was one by Terry Real. The excersise to find love for myself was life changing

Please expand! What’s the exercise!

He also took a course in baiting and suspense short stories

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#489

Post by Kyuren » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 5:45 AM UTC

Yea the shift is right in front of our eyes. It's a "if everyone is super, no one will be" situation. People will simply gravitate towards that with less supply, and that's usually smaller but higher quality content(whatever content means for you whether entertainment or software). The line will split in two ways, some will start making higher quality content which stands out beyond the noise and branching in ways that we've never seen before, and the others will chase the higher but more fraudulent numbers of easily generated content.

Re: Has AI already killed self-help nonfiction books?

#490

Post by sota_pop » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:20 AM UTC

Sturgeon’s Law abounds.

I’ve always found that most books within or similar to Ferris’ genre hold a nice message but are 90 fluff.

He picks on summarization as the sort circuit and claims the lived experience imbued within his books is the real draw. Not disagreeing here. LLMs unpack the intentional content stretching rigmarole authors go through as a function of publishers requirements to produce something that is minimally viable to publish.

Some seemingly important questions that come to my mind in a future where LLMs, ad-based revenue, and attention-as-currency prevail:

how do you create a knowledge-based product valuable/compelling enough to make people want to pay for it? And what is the best value-prop way to monetize it? (For BOTH producer and consumer)

Is length a necessary requirement for substantiveness?

If so, where on the spectrum of long-content_vs_short-content should it live?

Unfortunately, I im not confident the internet can fundamentally diverge from an ad-based or subscription monetization model in its current form. IMO, Michael I Jordan has a lot of refreshing ideas on how to build better marketplaces that sustainably benefit producers and consumers (as opposed to mostly just platform-maintaining-rent-seekers).