> Look, I get it. It’s Q3 2026, and we should expect that everyone is utilizing AI at SOME point in their process (sourcing ideas, creating outlines, refining prose, etc.).

I stopped reading there.

They have edited it again to be slightly more emotional. It's why their "On Taste" closure doesn't actually pertain to Taste anymore. Of course, they wouldn't notice the mismatch - they didn't write it in the first place.

They aren't being satirical. They're pissed they got called them out. Were they not, they'd not bother with edits.

This is a bigger difference to the pelican than simple reproducibility steps. The pelican is intentionally esoteric, and thus open ended. The LotR is mundane and has a "correct" answer, aka, copy the movie.

It makes it a really awful test of capabilities. The pelican isn't a slop test. This crap is.

But I do think this was a poor demonstration of the idea for another reason: Tolkien works have a HUGE corpus of training data. It's great that random users can come in and immediately recognize what the footage is, but it fails at the very first thing the pelican was meant to do:

- Render this thing you have only tangential training data of, that also happens to be an asymmetrical object so we can see how much you fuck up the details if you somehow flip the orientation half the time.

They should have used an obscure story, not "Most Studied Piece of Literally Work of The Past Century trademarksymbol"

Which is fundamentally a reference sheet, it's not for learning.

That might be why interacting with dedicated PKM-centric communities and content is personally so exhausting.

"Pi has *ALL* the tools, can you name one it does not".