the course’s professor Zrinka Stahulja called her decision to use an “AI-assisted” textbook a “no-brainer”
More accurate than you realize
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
34 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14264 readers
826 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The bit where she says comments about 250 dollar textbooks that are out of date within a couple of years really says it all. First off, the textbook should probably cost 25 dollars like this AI bullshit, and second, it wouldn't need to be out of date were it not that curriculum builders make them out of date and force a new generation of students to fork out for a 250 dollar textbook.
Fuck capitalism
At the time, Elizabeth Landers, a grad student who helped put together the volume, said that the errors “aren’t a failure of AI.” Instead, she argued, “they’re an intentional artistic choice that prompts students to question their assumptions about language, meaning and historical truth.”
Amazing response
“Of Nerniacular Latin To An Evoolitun On Nance Langusages,” blew my whole mentality
they’re an intentional artistic choice that prompts students to question their assumptions about language, meaning and historical truth
but when I do that they make me re-write the whole dissertation from scratch
>make ai slop
>Charge 25 for it
>Force students to buy it
>"This was a success"
History of the World Part 3....now AI free!
Protip: read Erich Auerbach's Mimesis. You will now be smarter than literally anyone who took this person's course.
"It's bad on purpose, isn't it sooo subversive?"
I'm wondering if this is contributing to an increasing body of evidence that Western literature (and by extension literary criticism) is out of things to say. There was an article[^1] in n+1 a little while back that makes that point, and then there was the coverage of Your Name Here, which is being praised for being a difficult read in a sea of easy-to-read but shallow chaff, but seems like it's loaded with "self-aware" decisions like copying and pasting whole email exchanges, a decision that seems like a signal the author is infatuated with their own perceived cleverness rather than an actual innovation, and making a lot of references to other obscure/"difficult" books.
This latest bit almost does seem like performance art, a way of saying that all that's left to do is keep chopping up and regurgitating the same ideas in different combinations ad infinitum, but the level of self awareness needed to pull it off just isn't visible.
[^1]: "The latest crisis in literary studies feels different: more spiteful and less fertile, more terminally gloomy, a scene of death throes rather than birth pangs. It can seem that literature professors agree on little beyond a sense that something is irreversibly wrong."
I am reminded again of this quote from Sartre:
If philosophy is to be simultaneously a totalisation of knowledge, a method, a regulative Idea, an offensive weapon, and a community of language, if this “vision of the world” is also an instrument which ferments rotten societies, if this particular conception of a man or of a group of men becomes the culture and sometimes the nature of a whole class-then it is very clear that the periods of philosophical creation are rare. Between the seventeenth century and the twentieth, I see three such periods, which I would designate by the names of the men who dominated them: there is the “moment” of Descartes and Locke, that of Kant and Hegel, finally that of Marx. These three philosophies become, each in its turn, the humus of every particular thought and the horizon of all culture; there is no going beyond them so long as man has not gone beyond the historical moment which they express. I have often remarked on the fact that an “anti-Marxist” argument is only the apparent rejuvenation of a pre-Marxist idea. A so-called “going beyond” Marxism will be at worst only a return to pre-Marxism; at best, only the rediscovery of a thought already contained in the philosophy which one believes he has gone beyond.
It feels to me like a lot of western intellectualism, by its rejection of socialism, is forced into a position where it is incapable of making progress and, having hit a wall of its own construction, can do nothing but sink to the floor.