23-03-2026, 03:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-03-2026, 04:12 PM by Walter Mandron.
Edit Reason: added: @ Tavie: Okay, i’ll just skip that part.
)
@ Rafael thx.
@ Rafael and Tavie
But no, the theory isn’t AI-generated. AI is far too stupid for that; it finds the idea completely absurd, which makes sense because it can’t grasp the deeper meaning of this practice.
It is familiar with the apophatic theory as presented here, but I don’t think it really understands it. Pain and failure as an ideology for recognizing the divine—I don’t know how an AI is supposed to understand that—let alone come up with it as an idea?
The idea that students are used to create a work that deceives them... even that is beyond the capabilities of AI.
It doesn’t understand that back then, students were given monotonous tasks to train their discipline and endurance, but also simply to keep them occupied and prevent them from giving in to their impulses....
Some were made to draw plants that don’t exist, others to paint wheels according to the Llullian principle, and still others to use Llull’s wheels to create divine texts, which some then painstakingly and meticulously transcribed onto paper. The best of all was selected and thrown before a new generation of bored and spoiled nobles as fodder.
And that’s supposed to be AI????? Funny Idea!
Or easier: I also don’t think it’s that familiar with this forum—who said what in what context. It probably wouldn’t be able to poke fun at the individual theories with a wink, the way I did. Nor would she weave in Asterix comparisons, or draw a connection between Vellum and the death of an animal. Etc. that’s not her sense of humor. I don’t know how u got the idea that an AI does that? Maybe u should ask the AI properly—it’s quick to say “that’s AI” when texts are formulated a bit better and more structurally sound.
But I work with an AI to translate texts and, in some cases, to refine and improve the phrasing in the translations—that’s just for my own enjoyment; maybe that’s what u mean. @ Tavie: Okay, i’ll just skip that part.
----
@ Rafael and Tavie
But no, the theory isn’t AI-generated. AI is far too stupid for that; it finds the idea completely absurd, which makes sense because it can’t grasp the deeper meaning of this practice.
It is familiar with the apophatic theory as presented here, but I don’t think it really understands it. Pain and failure as an ideology for recognizing the divine—I don’t know how an AI is supposed to understand that—let alone come up with it as an idea?
The idea that students are used to create a work that deceives them... even that is beyond the capabilities of AI.
It doesn’t understand that back then, students were given monotonous tasks to train their discipline and endurance, but also simply to keep them occupied and prevent them from giving in to their impulses....
Some were made to draw plants that don’t exist, others to paint wheels according to the Llullian principle, and still others to use Llull’s wheels to create divine texts, which some then painstakingly and meticulously transcribed onto paper. The best of all was selected and thrown before a new generation of bored and spoiled nobles as fodder.
And that’s supposed to be AI????? Funny Idea!
Or easier: I also don’t think it’s that familiar with this forum—who said what in what context. It probably wouldn’t be able to poke fun at the individual theories with a wink, the way I did. Nor would she weave in Asterix comparisons, or draw a connection between Vellum and the death of an animal. Etc. that’s not her sense of humor. I don’t know how u got the idea that an AI does that? Maybe u should ask the AI properly—it’s quick to say “that’s AI” when texts are formulated a bit better and more structurally sound.
But I work with an AI to translate texts and, in some cases, to refine and improve the phrasing in the translations—that’s just for my own enjoyment; maybe that’s what u mean. @ Tavie: Okay, i’ll just skip that part.
----