Evaluating the writing, not necessarily the ideas. The core thesis is an interesting one: organisms aren't simply passive receivers of perceptual information which they use to form models of understanding. Rather, they engage in active inference, they hold prior beliefs and seek out either confirming/disconfirming information, update their beliefs, or reconcile them in other ways (e.g. by choosing a different environment). The principle behind action is the minimization of Free Energy, which is overly simplified as a measure of surprise. And this can be applied to a whole host of fields, neuroscience, behavioral psychology, AI, with specific and predictive mathematical formulas.
I'm not the audience for this book and I'm not certain who is. It is not clearly written - at least 50% of it is over my head. It's highly technical, both in language and in content, so reads like a difficult college textbook. It's the type of book that has a Matlab appendix. Very difficult to get through.
Even conceptually, I think the explanation is lacking for someone like me who's not already active in the field. There are some big jumps in the equations for free energy, equating several different things that to me feel like leaps but aren't justified in explanation. There is a particular jump that's remarked as being such - intention is represented as a prior. Meaning there is no difference (in the equations) between desire and knowledge. The book explains why this is useful, but it's making greater claims and could have used more explanation as to why it's true.
There are also 2 practical quibbles I had that made the book literally difficult to read - the book uses a tiny font with a huge page margin. Why? And the actual print is faint, as if it was printed in ink-saving mode. Tiny, faint print is not reader-friendly.
My colleague recommended this to me as being brilliant. I'll take their word for it because I could not understand much of it.