fullofbees

I like that there's three examples. Two named, who are both men and then one woman who is mentioned by an anonymous source and if she's real, doesn't sound that unlike (at least in moral terms) to the crypto evangelist archetype.

There's an animated version of the graphic novel of An Béal Bocht that I haven't had a chance to watch yet but have had highly recommended to me.

I did find the description kinda funny though "An animated adaptation of Flann O’Brien’s only novel written in Irish under the pseudonym of Myles Na gCopaleen. It is a biting satire of the life story of a young Gael reflecting on his life from Sligo Gaol." - as if Flann wasn't also a pseudonym, but I suppose he never wrote much under the name Brian.

(Entirely unrelated, I saw the German adaptation of ASTB as a teenager and it was fascinating. Not necessarily good, but out there)

I read Being and Time recently and it has a load of concepts that are defined iteratively. There's a lot wrong with how it's written but it's an unfinished book written a 100 years ago so, I cant complain too much.

Because it's quite long, if I asked Perplexity* to remind me what something meant, it would very rarely return something helpful, but, to be fair, I cant really fault it for being a bit useless with a very difficult to comprehend text, where there are several competing styles of reading, many of whom are convinced they are correct.

But I started to notice a pattern of where it would pull answers from some weird spots, especially when I asked it to do deep research. Like, a paper from a University's server that's using concepts in the book to ground qualitative research, which is fine and practical explications are often useful ways into a dense concept, but it's kinda a really weird place to be the first initial academic source. It'll draw on Reddit a weird amount too, or it'll somehow pull a page of definitions from a handout for some University tutorial. And it wont default to the peer reviewed free philosophy encyclopedias that are online and well known.

It's just weird. I was just using it to try and reinforce my actual reading of the text but I more came away thinking that in certain domains, this end of AI is allowing people to conflate having access to information, with learning about something.

*it's just what I have access to.

It is wild to me that the bulk of responses here seem to take how this is being described by the poster at face value.

As well as the question of interfering with registration, he has also gone about this in a way that causes reputational damage (& UW have probably caused their own, but that's not necessarily relevant here), which I cant imagine they'll take that kindly either.

But I work in a public university in the EU, so my understanding of how these institutions probably operate is likely a little skewed.

I like how this is visualised (at least aesthetically) and I appreciate the utility of genre in that it creates expectations, but at the same, it sort of reeks of this feigned complete knowledge of music and this obsession with categorising things that cannot be neatly categorised. The techno section has this 'these are the types I've read about on reddit'-ness to it and the metal section... I remember crunkcore but I really dont understand how it could be in such large text.