Great! Thank you, Jajwalya! I’ll reach out once the KADH meeting is over. 😀

Thank you for the congratulations and the tip, Quinn! It’s an honor to meet the veterans, and I'm relieved to know they’re here! 😀

To visit my old friend's on the outskirts, I've checked the bus service. Buy the ticket from the driver??? Yet??

I may miss this at the college accommodation where I'll be during the school. No I'm looking forward to the kitchen talk.

Ah, not 9 but 8 years. It's 9 years since I took the dear old coach from Heathrow directly to Cambridge. The old drizzling night & calling a cab via phone yet - I had been worried. But surprise! The hotel lobby had the bar bright open at midnight and I could have a pint of local beer.

our presentation for widening the field of DH. So the conclusion is a disproportionate influence of one negative reviewer and a conservative (an irony) approach to the field boundary among the decision makers.

Our methodology score ranged from a high of 10 (one reviewer understood our vision) to a low of 3 from the reviewer who also scored 3 on diversity. Then what does the committee consider? Another reviewer, although he felt that some aspects of our project were unclear to him, strongly recommended

We are exploring with the artificial (writing) agent (we have two agents that have been trained with two different, comparative corpora) that is being thrown into the world!

If, for example, we use CNN to experiment with the meaning of perception in the AI agent, is that outdated research because we don't compare it with ChatGPT (which has no sensory input - Please don't confuse it with "multimodal") in terms of numbers?

What is the philosophical implication of the current LLM regime? Can we create an alternative writing algorithm to the big tech based LLMs? These are questions that precede the numerical demonstration of the weak/old-ness of the "baseline model" (there should be one, but for later!)