The models are lifted from an open source 3d model of human anatomy.

I am one of the 3D modeler's working on complete anatomy and I agree, It's a nice demo but it feels half baked. There's no real love in it. I feel like so many of the AI projects are like that, shiny but lacking polish and love.

I would like to thank you for your work. It helped me tremendously when I took anatomy and I continue to use it as a reference.

Really glad to hear that, the whole team works really hard to build something with value.

Well done on getting through the courses.

Looks like it was misattributed as CC BY 4.0 but it should be CC BY-SA 2.1 Japan

I actually find it easier to sleep with the sound of people talking around me, it's very comforting.

Did you make an account just to make this comment?

I think it matters because for a lot of us writing and thinking happen at the same time.

Something that's been written "well" shows that someone has thought about it, maybe reframed it some way or just done something by thinking about it for a while.

AI can think, but whether it's thought about something or not it's always going to sound the same.

If you are using it to help you think fine but I think it's about effort and I would want to know how much effort you've put in.

I think that's a fair perspective. I also see writing as part of thinking. Personally, I don't mind people using AI as long as they're still doing the thinking themselves rather than outsourcing it entirely.

I wonder could you ask for a video instead of a text, like a screen recording with a voice recorder.

Harder to fake.

Yeah, but I guess harder for the professor to check up on too. It's a course on a specific kind of creative writing so human feedback would be QUITE helpful instead of AI responses about how good parts are.

Thanks for the context

I don't drink coffee, but this is such a great implementation of simple tec.

Well done.

Could it be that they were colonized by Britain?

(I'm not sure if this is what you were insinuating, but it would make sense)

It could be colonization but it would predate the British. The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation. At the time, there wasn’t the overwhelming disparity between the countries there is today. Mughal India was one of the gunpowder empires, with the largest military in the world in the late 17th and early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Mughal_Empire. The per-capita GDP gap between India and Britain was only a factor of 2. But India’s vastly large population meant it had about four times the state revenues.

Britain couldn’t have, and didn’t, colonize India the way the Mughals had: through a direct land war. Instead, the British East India company entered into deals with various port cities one by one to establish toe holds. Then in the Battle of Plassey, they overthrew the Nawab with just 750 British soldiers and 2,000 Indian mercenaries against a Mughal army of 50,000. The British persuaded the Mughal generals to defect, and the Nawab, fearing further defections, capitulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

> The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation.

nah, they used guns and cannons.... force. same as any conqueror ever.

The history of colonization is far more complicated than that.

For example, the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines was a relative cakewalk where there was little to no cooperation (most of the island chain), but to this day the Muslims in the south still retain an autonomous region despite centuries of foreign occupation and interference by a host of nations, due in large part to their higher degree of cooperation.

Nope. India had guns and cannons, and more of them than the British East India company!

Robert Clive overthrew the Nawab of Bengal with 800 europeans and a dozen artillery pieces: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/battle-plassey. He also had 2,000 Indian soldiers (Britain conquered India with Indians doing the work). The Nawab had an army of 50,000 along with 50 artillery pieces.

> India had guns and cannons India didnt really exist yet. 26 different states had guns and cannons. plenty of people who had guns and cannons were defeated by the British.

> Robert Clive overthrew the Nawab of Bengal with... I believe the indian rulers at the time could match the british technologically. even at Plassey the british had superior tech

In the 1600s, the Indians probably had superior land-war weaponry. https://easy-history.com/the-military-revolution-in-india-pa.... By the 1700s, the British had leap-frogged the Indians by getting to iron-based canons earlier. But we’re talking incremental improvements. The point is that the Indians had a modern, gunpowder-powered military.

On the other side of the equation, the British were vastly outnumbered. Before 1800, the east india company had less than 20,000 Europeans in its army. On the other side, the Indians had hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Iron canons versus bronze canons weren’t the reason the British were able to overcome the Indian armies. It was that the EIC was able to get thousands of Indians to fight on their side, and exploited the divisions between the various Indian states.

> the Indians had hundreds of thousands of soldiers

the "Indians" were all fighting each other, so Im not sure you can count their numbers together like that. India proper might have been on paper a force to be reckoned with, but the reality of it was actually dozens of smaller, poorer countries all vying for power AGAINST each other, not in cooperation. that isnt a formidable enemy, Im sorry

the Sikhs still push the narrative that internal skullduggery defeated them in 1857, not being beaten by a superior force... the British say similar things about the battles they lost too. In fact Ive never heard a group of men say "fair enough, they were the better side that day" after losing

The British took India from the Marathi empire, not from the Mughals.

Historians generally mark the beginning of British rule in India from the Battle of Plassey in 1757: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

But the subsequent consolidation of power in campaigns against the Maratha has similar features. The east india company won by exploiting division and conflict among the Maratha: https://www.worldhistory.org/Anglo-Maratha_Wars. What’s crazy is that during these wars, the East India Company armies were mostly Indians, with 15% or so being European soldiers.

Hong Kong was colonized by Britain, doing just fine now. The Mughal invasions were probably the biggest adverse shock.

I think this is my main confusion around vibe coding.

Is it a skill for the layman?

Or does it only work if you have the understanding you would need to manage a team of junior devs to build a project.

I feel like we need a different term for those two things.

"Vibe coding" isn't a "skill", is a meme or a experiment, something you do for fun, not for writing serious code where you have a stake in the results.

Programming together with AI however, is a skill, mostly based on how well you can communicate (with machines or other humans) and how well your high-level software engineering skills are. You need to learn what it can and cannot do, before you can be effective with it.

I use "vibe coding" for when you prompt without even looking at the code - increasingly that means non-programmers are building code for themselves with zero understanding of how it actually works.

I call the act of using AI to help write code that you review, or managing a team of coding agents "AI-assisted programming", but that's not a snappy name at all. I've also skirted around the idea of calling it "vibe engineering" but I can't quite bring myself to commit to that: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/7/vibe-engineering/

My favourite part of that story is when he shows the maths to one of the other professors they can't understand why he is "wasting time" on it.

And then he goes on to win the Nobel prize because of it..