Direct answer: Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central. Neither format proves an inevitable future or replaces checking observable facts.
Article focus: AI facilitator and live Leela facilitator: what is the difference. Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central.
A visual map can hold the structure of reflection without turning it into a forecast.
AI facilitator and live Leela facilitator: what is the difference
Leela is a sequential self-reflection practice: the player states an intention, moves through themes on the board, records personal answers, and checks conclusions against real events. AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention.
Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central.
| Method | When it fits | Output | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI facilitator | Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central. | A saved game chronology and a concise hypothesis built from the player’s own notes. AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention. | AI facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player. |
| Live Leela facilitator | This format fits when the required outcome is: A conversation in which the facilitator adjusts the pace, asks follow-up questions, and notices group reactions. | A conversation in which the facilitator adjusts the pace, asks follow-up questions, and notices group reactions. | Live Leela facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player. |
How to choose the right format
AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention.
For useful context, continue with:
AI facilitator: Output
Output: A saved game chronology and a concise hypothesis built from the player’s own notes. AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention.
When it fits: Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central.
Risk: AI facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
Live Leela facilitator: Output
Output: A conversation in which the facilitator adjusts the pace, asks follow-up questions, and notices group reactions.
When it fits: This format fits when the required outcome is: A conversation in which the facilitator adjusts the pace, asks follow-up questions, and notices group reactions.
Risk: Live Leela facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
How to combine the formats without mixing their roles: AI facilitator → Live Leela facilitator
- Method: AI facilitator — A saved game chronology and a concise hypothesis built from the player’s own notes. AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention.
- What to save — Choose one primary method and use the second only for a separate clarifying question.
- Option: Live Leela facilitator — A conversation in which the facilitator adjusts the pace, asks follow-up questions, and notices group reactions.
- Check criterion — The choice can be explained in one sentence, and its result can be checked after one real event or in 7 days.
A concrete example
Situation: A player may use AI late at night to organise a private game, then choose a live facilitator for an emotionally difficult group session.
Action: Choose one primary method and use the second only for a separate clarifying question.
Check criterion: The choice can be explained in one sentence, and its result can be checked after one real event or in 7 days.
Safety comes before interpretation
- AI facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
- Live Leela facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
- Neither format proves an inevitable future or replaces checking observable facts.
- If the distress becomes unmanageable, there is a risk of harm to yourself or someone else, or ordinary functioning becomes difficult, stop the game and seek live professional or emergency support.
Questions and answers
AI facilitator and live Leela facilitator: what is the difference
Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central. Neither format proves an inevitable future or replaces checking observable facts.
What should be recorded?
Choose one primary method and use the second only for a separate clarifying question. The choice can be explained in one sentence, and its result can be checked after one real event or in 7 days.
Do these formats replace each other?
No. AI facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player. Live Leela facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
Can both approaches be combined?
AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention. A player may use AI late at night to organise a private game, then choose a live facilitator for an emotionally difficult group session.
Save your question and continue in Reflecta Leela; treat the AI response as an additional hypothesis, not a ready-made decision.
Related guides
- AI guide in Leela: benefits and limits
- How AI uses the full history of moves and answers in Leela
- AI answer vs template interpretation in Leela: the difference
- Privacy of answers in Leela: what other players can see
- Leela with AI participants: multiple views without finding a group
- Private Leela rooms: invitations, turns and personal answers
FAQ
AI facilitator and live Leela facilitator: what is the difference
Choose AI when privacy, saved history and a repeatable pace matter; choose a live facilitator when adaptive questions, group dynamics or human support are central. Neither format proves an inevitable future or replaces checking observable facts.
What should be recorded?
Choose one primary method and use the second only for a separate clarifying question. The choice can be explained in one sentence, and its result can be checked after one real event or in 7 days.
Do these formats replace each other?
No. AI facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player. Live Leela facilitator: do not use the result as a diagnosis, proof of an inevitable future, or a decision made for the player.
Can both approaches be combined?
AI is strongest at continuity, private notes and repeatable prompts; a live facilitator is stronger when nuance, group dynamics or emotional pacing require human attention. A player may use AI late at night to organise a private game, then choose a live facilitator for an emotionally difficult group session.
Sources and editorial method
This material is intended for learning and self-reflection. It does not promise to predict the future and does not replace professional help.