#is there... a word for textual analysis but how it relates to other texts

[grendelsmilf]

the term headcanon can be useful to describe a very specific phenomenon but is largely conflated with simply reading or interpreting the text in a way that leads to some degree of extrapolation. gonna use dungeon meshi as an example (i first tried using hamlet because i figured it’s more universal but as it turns out i have way too much of a stake in shakespeare scholarship and we don’t need this post to be a million words long). “kabru would be a psych major” is technically a headcanon, but it’s also one that is grounded in the text as it relates to kabru’s fascination with human behavior and their psychopathologies. “falin would listen to joanna newsom,” on the other hand, is not in any way grounded in the text (that i know of), but rather something i nonetheless believe because she has good vibes: it is a headcanon. “marcille is in love with falin,” however, is not a headcanon, but rather a coherent interpretation of what is explicitly depicted in the narrative. sure, there is enough plausible deniability that you could argue “they’re just really good friends who have a deep, sisterly bond,” but that is also a reading. do you see the difference. if something is not explicit in the text but nonetheless can be extrapolated from direct textual evidence, calling it a “headcanon” rather than an interpretation, reading, or even extrapolation, is actually just reductive. i’m sick of making posts that directly cite multiple textual examples to ground my claims being tagged with shit like “cool headcanon.” when i said chilchuck would smoke from a fanciful contraption of a bong, that was purely conjecture, that was a headcanon. actually employing direct quotes from the text to guide a specific reading of it is not a “headcanon,” however, unless literally all analysis constitutes “headcanon” since it’s the canon that exists within your own subjectivity. but that would make it far too broad and nebulous a term to ever be useful. so let’s not kid ourselves here, and let’s refrain from conflating genuine analytical work with self-indulgent fancy. both play key roles in how fandoms and engagement with fiction operate, but there are degrees to these things, and i think those distinctions matter.

[familyabolisher]

re: this post, would you perhaps be able to reword it? i understand the words you're using individually, and i think i might kind of get what you're trying to say, but it's just one very long sentence and so i'm having trouble parsing it! (wait--i just reread it. initial question canceled, mostly--now: what alternatives might we have available to us?) and what does this section: "it feels all too easy to jump from that to then just stymieing our ability to actually describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive construction of that normativity in the first place" mean, exactly? thank you as always for running this blog. :-)

What I’m describing is a critical phenomenon wherein people will approach (usually canonical) horror texts which reify hegemony by ‘identifying’ with the monster who is generally figured in terms of alterity in some capacity; by extricating, for example, a queer narrative out of what is in fact a homophobic one, and treating this as something of a ‘reclamatory’ practice in which one ‘relates’ to that which the text figures as monstrous. The most common instance of this which I see is people’s discussion of Carmilla as an erotic lesbian romance; other examples include Dracula, or Frankenstein, or the socially currency invested in the idea of a ‘madwoman in the attic’ (ie. Jane Eyre).  

I don’t think this is like, a practice that we need to do away with entirely, lol – but I do think that a) there are marginalised writers + filmmakers who are making horror with actual teeth, with actual radical edge, and we don’t need to keep pretending like this approach of reclamation-through-identification with a monster in a v normative work is all we have available to us when politically subversive horror does very much exist, and b) this critical practice is often vvv limited in its discursive scope, and tends to lack the kind of materialist analysis that I would consider necessary in talking about literatures of alterity/marginality/violence.

When I talked about stymieing our ability to describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive constructions of that normativity in the first place, I meant that overfocusing on these texts as “reclaimed” articulations of an essentially queer (or otherwise ‘othered’) imaginary can inhibit our ability, as critics, to describe how those texts in fact do not think of their monstrous figures as worthy of a sympathetic or appreciative narrative. I mentioned Carmilla above – we can talk about Carmilla as erotically lesbian, sure, but how far down the line in talking about it as a Queer Narrative do we lose track of the fact that the text itself asserts the sexual norms of white Christian hegemony to necessarily succeed over the perversion of the corruptive, predatory lesbian, or as an Anglo-Irish work positing Carmilla as an Irish woman (and thus a contaminant threat to Anglo-Irish society)? At what point in adulating Dracula as articulating a particular form of queer, effeminate Jewishness destabilising and threatening Jonathan and Mina’s persistent heterosexuality do we lose track of Dracula as having grown out of the fear that the new waves of Jewish immigration in London’s East End were vampiric sources of contagion, or its possible relationship to the antisemitic smears that grew out of the Jack the Ripper murders? Or like, taking Bertha Mason (or ‘the madwoman in the attic,’ because truly, v few people using this phrase are actually thinking about Bertha Mason lol) as a kind of feminist paragon – at what point do we begin to overlook the fact that Jane Eyre is a v racist text?

These aren’t necessarily contradictory approaches – like, for example, you can talk about ‘identifying’ with Dracula as emblematic of British Jewish assimilation and the discontents thereof whilst also talking about Dracula as an antisemitic text, even if the analysis in the former isn’t especially coherent – but the focus of the ‘identification’ treatment is often incredibly limited in its scope, and those limitations can often be detrimental to one’s ability to talk frankly and honestly about what a text actually says and does. A very good example such limitations is that of Frankenstein; an identification with Frankenstein’s monster as an entrypoint for textual analysis obfuscates the way in which Frankenstein constructed a discursive template by which the ameliorationist argument against the immediate abolition of slavery could be argued for. (The linked post lays this out v clearly, but the cited source is Mary Mulvey’ Roberts’ ‘Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and Slavery,’ in Dangerous Bodies: Historicising the Gothic Corporeal). What I basically mean is, when we talk about relating to, identifying with, ‘reclaiming’ the monster, we have to have a real grasp on what it is we’re trying to impose such a practice on, and what the actual substance of the source text has to say for itself. I’m not one for assuming a text as a body with a set of metaphysical properties that we as critics are tasked to find – I think the relationship between text and reader ought to be dialectical – but part of that dialectical process means situating the text in its material social context and responding appropriately.

[ilynpilled]

I think what bugs me the most about the type of analysis that is common in this fandom is that sometimes people are obsessed with not actually looking at choices being made by characters and instead try to project extra-textual symbolism/parallels they pulled out of thin air or use essentialist arguments to predict a certain character’s trajectory. There is already a weird tendency to blame bloodlines instead of institutions, oppressive/destructive social constructs/systems, and abusive cycles. This series repeatedly deconstructs bio essentialist ideas in a multitude of ways. Characters being viewed as monsters for the way they are born is a concept that is repeatedly torn down. There is a combination of nature & nurture at play with these characters, I admit, but it is nuanced. Your environment and your nature are in constant conversation with each other. Certain environmental factors will worsen certain attributes, while repress others etc. Your blood is not evil, nor is it pure, it just is, and your nature will be affected by your rearing, tragedies you face, and the environment you live in. Monsters are created and developed, not born. This whole concept is apparent with all the siblings in the series. Dany & Viserys are drastically different people, and make different choices despite having similar experiences and the same blood. Same can be said for Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen. Another very good example are the Lannister siblings. The twins’ idea of “one soul in two bodies” is deconstructed, and they are faced with how dissimilar they actually are. All three siblings have differences in nature, as revealed by their behavior as young children & their current values and motivations, and they are all shaped very differently by their environment. Cersei is affected by the oppressive system of the patriarchy, Jaime by the trauma due to the violent construct of knighthood, and Tyrion by the rampant ableism of the world around him. Tywin also shapes them by giving each of them their own flavor of parental abuse based on the role he wants them to play in his legacy. It is so apparent just how these characters became what they are, and how they navigate their world as a result of a nuanced combination of nature and nurturer. But in the end, it comes down to choices that they keep making. Characters on the right path can also falter sometimes, weigh their values wrong, and make bad decisions at certain points. Not to mention how thoughts and words do not speak as much as actions and actual choices that are made do. You all take bio essentialist arguments that some characters in the text make at face value, even when it is obviously bullshit. Any analysis that hinges entirely on “this character is the son/daughter of this character”, or “this thing on the surface parallels this other thing from something I read/watched”, “this character is a dragon. Dragons plant no trees”, “this character is a monster”, “this character is from this house”, “this character is related to this character” etc instead of actually looking at what said characters do or try to do is gonna lead to unconvincing arguments that are antithetical to one of the main ideas that this series is built on. To me it feels like these books are communicating that in spite of your birth, your origin, your trauma, your prophecies, etc it is primarily your choices that lead you to where you are and the legacy that you create. Cersei’s prophecy will come true as a result of the choices she makes. Dany’s many prophecies are also as a result of choices she makes, she was not just gifted with everything that she has achieved, she is an active agent who makes choices that push her a certain direction. This is also why it is weird when everybody wants to make characters have a predetermined trajectory solely based on “what” they are, or who they are related to.

Not only does George say this in interviews, it is an explicit thesis statement in the text itself:

This is the concluding statement of Jaime’s ASoS arc. Like “The things I do for love”, “So many vows...”, and “The heroes […] the best and the worst, and those who were a bit of both”, as extremely relevant it is to him in specific, it is a major thesis statement for the series as whole, and overlaps with many characters, just like how other characters also have a bunch of these overlapping arc theses. So can we please primarily look at the choices characters make and what ultimately motivated them to make these choices rather than thinking their ending and what they “are” as characters is set in stone because of the reasons mentioned. I feel like how you all engage with some of these characters contradicts the deconstruction of this kind of essentialism that is so apparent in these books.

[fancyfade]

Hi! Just wanted to say that i love reading your analysis and your knowledge on comics astounds me

Question, do you view any of dc's heroes as autistic? (If thats too much just batfam is fine)

Thank you for all your thoughts and mini essays 💚

Ty!! Glad to hear you enjoy it!

Ok right. So I'm thinking in general about DC characters I imagine as autistic. Batfam is easy to start with b/c I"ve read so much, but I'll include other characters as well

Cassandra Cain (Batgirl) - This is kind of a gimme, almost everyone headcanons Cass as autistic b/c she is explicitly textually neurodivergent (but they do not give her a real world diagnosis) and canonically has problems with language.

Damian Wayne (Robin) - another one I've seen a lot of. He has difficulties socializing that COULD be chalked up to being raised as an assassin, but also.... its in a way that's realistic for very many autistic people :P he also generally does not care about gaining the approval of everyone around him, like he's prickly and often unlikable but he's not trying to be liked.

Barbara Gordon (Oracle) - she reads as so autistic to me. Her conflict with Dinah in the beginning of BoP is positioned in the text as right brained vs left brained, which I think doesn't really make a lot of sense neurologically but does work as words the characters are using to describe things - the just think differently. Babs often reads as if she's coming at things from what in her perspective is trying to be analytical and unemotional (tho I do not think she always succeeds in this), and keeps people at arms length socially.

Bruce Wayne - he just reads as kind of autistic to me :P

Talia al Ghul - same :P

Milagro Reyes (Jaime Reyes/Blue Beetle's little sister) - she's not a superhero but she reads as very autistic to me. We have scenes where we see her clearly upset by sudden change, she also acts generally very similar to how I did as a little kid. We see her blocking everyone out by watching the TV when a lot of new stuff is going on in the house.

Raven - NTT Raven reads as very autistic to me as well. NGL just like many other characters this can be explained by other factors (She was raised in a cult in another dimension, taught not to emote, and is fighting off the influence of her demonic father) but also. They keep doing characters that are relatable to neurodivergent people like that ;P

Back when I watched YJ, I had very strong opinions about Kaldur'ahm being autistic. I still do, even tho I don't normally count the animated tv shows in my version of DC

I also feel a case could be argued for Diana of Themyscira/Wonder Woman. But I am still marinating this in my brain.

[bethhiraeth]

A literary reading of byler

so in school (and outside of it) most of the subjects I am taking and my interests are some form of literature, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on byler from a literary analysis standpoint

when you are analysing literature, it can be divided into three major buckets: narrative, aesthetics and text. Let me quickly break down what they actually mean

Narrative: This one is pretty self explanatory. It is how the overall structure of the story fits together, including plot, character arcs, and all that big picture stuff that spans the whole text.

Aesthetic features: Also sometimes called stylistic devices, they are the artistic elements that contribute to the text, often adding new meaning/emotions/ideas to it. In the case of cinema, these are pretty much everything you see on camera, like lighting, costuming, props, camera angles, etc. Often these are used to establish literary techniques such as symbolism or narrative foils.

Text: This one is also pretty obvious- it is all the words and actions of the characters. Dialogue and movement are what primary make this up. Think of it as anything in the script (or what the actors say/do if it is improvised), and any directorial choices relating to that.

What I find so interesting about byler is how it has tons of supporting evidence in all of these. What you will see with most ships that are non-canon is that they have a few bits of 'evidence' in one, or two at most, of these categories. Within the fandom, steddie is probably a good example of this. In canon they are physically positioned close to each other a lot of the time, and a lot of their shared dialogue could be read as 'flirty'/having romantic connotations, so they have the textual box checked. However, there is really no grounds for thinking it will be canon (even putting aside eddie being dead) because there is arguably nothing that could really be considered 'evidence' in either the aesthetics or narrative.

Which brings us back to byler. I am going to list a few examples of evidence supporting their endgame for each of the categories just to provide some context, but this is definitely not all of it.

Narrative

In my opinion the most conclusive evidence for byler endgame narratively is the character arcs of mike, will and el. this has been gone over many times and there are many great posts that explain this in more depth, so I won't go into detail, but all three of them have been following their own character arcs since the beginning. in essence, will's is about accepting that he is not broken/a mistake and deserves a happy ending, el's is about finding her independence from the abusive men/other people that have controlled and learning to be herself, and mike's is about realising that conforming to societal expectations is not the path to happiness. they obviously each have other sub-arcs, but imo these are the main ones that are followed throughout the whole show.

Basically what this achieves is setting up a satisfying ending for each character. And really the only way to resolve all three of these in that way is for el to be on her own, and for mike to accept that he does not conform (is queer) and for him and will to be together. that is the only way. any other ending would be wildly unsatisfying

Other evidence within the narrative includes things like tropes, eg a love triangle with childhood best friend and seemingly perfect person, and how the best friend is always the one that ends up with the protagonist.

The overall themes of the show also tie into this. Arguably the whole show is about 'freaks and outcasts', and how "forced conformity is killing the kids". therefore it doesnt make sense thematically for the one (currently) canonically gay boy to end up alone and rejected after going through his whole arc, or for one of the main characters to have nothing really defining him as an outcast if he is not queer.

Lastly, to quote that one person, who the fuck writes a slowburn rejection? It makes absolutely no sense to drag out will's feelings for so long if they are not reciprocated.

Aesthetic

This is my favourite section for byler evidence. There is just so much of it. Which is extremely interesting because in every other non-canon ship I can think of, this is the area where they fall woefully short.

The first thing that springs to mind is the queer imagery constantly associated with mike. He is repeatedly placed in front of closets, his wardrobe is s4 is almost entirely the colours of the gay flag, he is associated with rainbows, fruit, triangles and words like 'men' and 'boy', etc. These were intentional choices made on the part of the production crew.

The blue and yellow motif also deserves a mention here as well, given how prominent the association with them is in their costuming, lighting, etc. There are many aesthetic devices that are used, eg symbolism like mike's flowers to el dying in her hands, byler always being blocked together alongside other couples, using the same music in a scene with mike as they did when robin told steve she was a lesbian, I could go on.

What is so interesting about these is how intentional everything has to be, especially when there is this much of it. You don't accidentally have a light focusing only on two character's faces during an emotional scene, or dress a character in a particular colour scheme or have them looking at another character's lips. With textual and narrative features, you can fuck up or have a coincidence fairly easily, but it is an obviously deliberate choice to have a character standing in front of an open closet the first time his girlfriend tells him she loves him.

Textual

These features are the most obvious to the general audience, so often they have to be a bit more subtle.

Every scene in the show uses dialogue and/or action, so there is plenty to draw from. The 'crazy together' scene is a really good example on multiple levels. Not only is it a very emotional scene that shows mike deeply cares about will via dialogue, the line itself (crazy together) calls back to the audience's mind other scenes that establish the word 'crazy' as a stand-in for 'love', such as the jancy scene in the police station in s1.

Additionally, a very clear shot is shown of mike reaching out to grab will's hand, something that is likely to be intended to be read romantically, due to the parallels with other canon couples.

The same could be said for almost any other 'byler scene'; "cool" "cool", "we're friends", the van scene, etc. Speaking of the van scene, all the lip glances are fair game to include in this section too!

-----

The Duffer's arent stupid. They know this stuff. looking at this from a literature student standpoint, saying it is a compelling argument is a wild understatement, and I am certain any reasonable lit teacher would agree.

We are not the delusional ones. At this point, if byler isn't canon the show was written wrong. Its as simple as that

[thatswhatsushesaid]

been mulling over a comment I saw in the notes of that recent poll asking fans to state how their opinions on jgy have changed over time, and to indicate what their first exposure to mdzs was (cql or the novel). and I can't share a screenshot of this comment anymore because op has either deleted it or blocked me, but it is so consistent with so many other comments of a similar nature about jgy I have seen since getting involved in this fandom, and it blows my mind!! to paraphrase:

'I barely pay attention to jin guangyao when I read the book/watched the show; my feelings about him were initially negative, and that hasn't changed'

okay! so, just to be clear, you are saying that you did not pay attention to this character's narrative journey in any of the adaptations you have read/watched, which means you have not devoted time to considering the societal constraints placed upon jgy by his circumstances, nor have you closely examined the textual parallels he shares with wwx. this means your dislike of the character is informed by a superficial reading of the text.

'you're putting words in my mouth, i didn't say that!!' you didn't have to! because you cannot both ignore a character central to the events of the story and have thoughtfully considered his actions in relation to the world he inhabits, as well as wwx. it's one or the other, it can't be both.

and--listen, I don't actually think it's a crime against fandom to just not feel that drawn to or engaged by any particular character in the novel, there are only so many hours in the day and we're all here to have fun, and that's fine actually. I know plenty of people who are feral for jiang yanli for whatever reason, which I straight up don't understand, but whatever makes them happy! but I think it definitely becomes a problem when The Vibes of this superficial reading of a character as divisive and polarizing as jgy begin to carry as much weight in the discourse as analysis of his character that is grounded in the text.

[post-academic]

Helping STEM Students Write Literary Papers

If you’re a college instructor - likely teaching general education courses - and you have a student or five that just can’t seem to wrap their head around the difference between writing humanities papers and writing scientific papers, here’s a guide I created to help my own students. It may work, it may not. Every student is different. But it’s here, if you need it.

Thesis Statements

Thesis statements should not simply be statements of fact, but more like a theory in a scientific study. For example, this is not a scientific theory:

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.

The above statement is a fact and no one would disagree with it because it is true (it has already been proved and established as fact in the scientific community). However, you can develop a theory out of a fact. For example, you can ask yourself: Why is hydrogen the most abundant element in the universe? This question is like the “problem” you have to identify in your paper when beginning a literary analysis.

To turn your question into a theory, you can propose that the laws of the universe favor lighter elements. Therefore, your complete scientific theory would be:

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe because the laws of the universe favor lighter elements.

The above statement is like a literary thesis statement, which seeks to solve a problem by answering the questions “how” and “why.” You might do the same for a literary analysis. For example:

In Jane Eyre, Jane likes to draw and Bronte spends a lot of time describing Jane’s paintings and drawings.

The above statement is not quite a thesis, but it has identified a sort of “problem” in the text. From here, we can ask ourselves why Charlotte Bronte might have put so much focus on art compared to the novel’s overall theme. 

In Jane Eyre, Jane’s love of drawing is reflective of her need to control the representation of herself and others.

From there, we can move on to finding supporting evidence.

Supporting Evidence and Relating It To Your Thesis

If your scientific theory about hydrogen is true, you would expect to find evidence supporting it in your experiments or observations of collected data. For example, the second lightest element in the universe is helium – we know this for a fact. To make this data relevant, you might complete a spectral survey yourself and collect some numbers: by observing a few stars, you can analyze the light and measure their wavelengths, thus determining what elements the stars are composed of. If that analysis shows that the stars are composed of mostly hydrogen and helium, you could use that data to support your theory.

Thus, because the light you observed proves that hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe, you can “prove” that the universe favors lighter elements.

The same process is true for literary analysis – your data and supporting evidence is just textual and linguistic rather than numerical. You also must do more explaining when using quotes to help your reader see your point. Because words can have multiple meanings, you need to explain which one you’re using or why their subtleties in meaning are important.

For example, if you wanted to prove the above literary thesis, you might use the following quote as your data:

 “To-morrow, place the glass before you, and draw in chalk your own picture, faithfully; without softening one defect; omit no harsh line, smooth away no displeasing irregularity.”

Just leaving the quote as-is will not help your reader see the connection between your evidence and your thesis – this is the point where scientific papers and literary ones diverge. For explaining literary data, you need to pull out words and phrases that show how the quote proves your thesis. For example:

“To-morrow, place the glass before you, and draw in chalk your own picture, faithfully; without softening one defect; omit no harsh line, smooth away no displeasing irregularity.”

The bolded lines might be useful for proving your thesis because:

Chalk is an art medium that is easily smudged, erased, and redrawn; Thus, it represents the ease at which Jane can control her own representation in both her portrait and her “autobiography.”

Jane claims to be drawing her portrait “faithfully,” which acts as a claim to truth. She wants whoever sees her portrait to know it is a faithful likeness.

By choosing to include her “defect[s],” “harsh line[s],” and “irregularit[ies],” Jane shows her need to portray herself as plain and not particularly beautiful – a need she uses deliberately to control her emotions.

You should repeat this process over and over again to prove your point: quote a passage, then tell your reader what words or phrases or literary devices help prove your thesis.

[tladb]

This video demonstrates something I need to do more. It demonstrates that that using seeds you can test which words actually affect the final image. This should lead to a better directed image. For a text summary :

Video Summarizer AI

Talked to process.videosummarizerai.com

Educational summary of ENGINEER Your Midjourney Prompts with SEEDS by Video Summarizer AI:

Time Interval: 00:00:00 - 00:12:21

The video demonstrates how to effectively use Midjourney, an AI system, for creating images based on textual prompts. It focuses on understanding which words in a prompt impact the AI's output.

A key technique shown is isolating variables in prompts. The "seed number" is used as a constant variable, allowing the user to change other elements of the prompt to see their effect. Midjourney has over 4 billion seed numbers, each potentially leading to a different outcome.

The presenter uses an example prompt to test the impact of specific words. By comparing results from the same seed number with and without a particular word, they determine the word's influence.

An example is given using the phrase "gai group" within a prompt. By generating images with and without this phrase, but with the same seed number, the presenter shows that the phrase had little effect on the outcome.

In contrast, removing the phrase "in the style of graffiti inspired portraiture" resulted in significantly different images, indicating that this phrase substantially influenced the AI's output.

The video demonstrates the use of permutations in prompts, which can speed up the process of testing different words or phrases.

There's a focus on how specific words, such as "speeding" and "rushing," or artistic styles and artists' names, affect the images generated by Midjourney.

The presenter also explores how changing one aspect of a prompt (e.g., the hairstyle in a character description) while keeping the seed number constant can produce varied results.

It's highlighted that seed numbers are not a guarantee for consistency across prompts, especially when the Midjourney version changes.

The video concludes by offering troubleshooting advice for using Midjourney, such as enabling DMs from strangers to receive seed numbers and using the correct emoji for reactions.

Analysis and Insights:

Impact of Specific Words: The experiment demonstrates that not all words in a prompt have equal influence on the outcome. Some phrases, like artistic styles, can significantly change the generated images, while others may have little to no effect.

Seed Number as a Control Variable: Using a constant seed number is crucial for accurately assessing the impact of changes in a prompt. It helps isolate the effect of specific words or phrases.

Artistic Influence: The significant change in results when removing phrases related to art styles suggests that Midjourney is sensitive to artistic descriptors, potentially using them as strong guiding factors in image generation.

Prompt Permutations for Efficiency: The use of permutations allows for the rapid testing of variations in a prompt, which can be particularly useful for artists or designers seeking to understand how different elements influence the final image.

Limitations of Seed Numbers: The fact that seed numbers don't guarantee consistency across different versions of Midjourney or in multi-prompt situations highlights the complexity and non-linear nature of how the AI interprets prompts.

[myrefersofficial]

Can ChatGPT Replace Google: A Comparative Analysis 

Soon after the emergence of this powerful tool, people are estimating it to replace Google. Whether it is just an assumption or has any relevance - let's explore in detail in this article. 

ChatGPT is a powerful AI-based language model. A research-based IT venture OpenAI has developed it. It is trained on a wide variety of content from the internet to generate responses to human-like prompts. It is designed to carry out various activities involving natural languages, such as text completion, writing blogs, dialogues or poems, etc. 

The architecture of ChatGPT at OpenAI is called GPT, which stands for "Generative Pre-trained Transformer." To put it more simply, ChatGPT is computer software that uses artificial intelligence to comprehend and respond to natural language text in a manner that is analogous to how a person would do so. 

Developers have trained it on a significant quantity of textual data. However, ChatGPT is not a search engine, it is quite good at what it does, which is to generate what seems to be knowledgeable in a conversational manner. Even though it can't directly answer your queries, it reacts to cues in the same way that you would expect an intelligent person to reply.

If people continue ChatGPT as a search tool, it would make sense for Google to view this as a threat to its economic model. It is simpler to integrate adverts into the search results that are listed than it is to do so within chatbot responses. If fewer individuals are conducting traditional searches, this may have the potential to have a significant impact on the bottom line for Google. 

But the main question is whether or not ChatGPT can even be utilized to perform searches comparable to those by Google. Let's compare the two different technologies so that we can better understand the answer. Also, we have provided a comparison table between the two technologies for getting a better idea of their features. 

Can ChatGPT Replace Google: A Comparative Study

Google and other search engines are essentially superhuman versions of librarians. They can locate any website that you request on the internet and suggest other websites that might be relevant, generally doing so in a fraction of a second. After that, it is up to you to determine whether or not those websites are useful sources for what you are attempting to achieve.

On the other hand, ChatGPT is more like a medium or psychic who purports to communicate with the dead than it is to a librarian. As an online search tool, its most evident shortcoming is that it can't connect to the internet, or at the very least, it will not be able to connect to the internet after the year 2021.

Because of this, ChatGPT is rendered worthless for responding to the vast majority of search inquiries. The queries that require the most current and accurate information are the ones that are consistently the most popularly searched for on Google. You can see in the image that the ChatGPT can't provide the correct information regarding the FIFA World Cup 2022. 

You can't find the latest news related to breaking news and local information, such as stock market websites. Even if chatbots can search the internet in real time, which technology experts have not yet figured out how to accomplish, they would likely prove to be unreliable go-betweens for internet searches.

This is because models like ChatGPT are taught to "hallucinate" text as part of their training. They do not look through their databases to find portions that are pertinent and then repeat or rework them. Instead, they construct responses one word at a time by employing a method analogous to the autocomplete tool you have on your phone.

To that already extensive list of drawbacks, you can add that the development of chatbot language is quite sluggish compared to search engines. Even if the chatbots could react more quickly, the format of their responses, which is in the form of paragraphs, is not ideal for readers who wish to quickly assimilate more information.

Features Of ChatGPT And Google Compared

Purpose: Google's primary purpose is to search the web and provide relevant results based on the user's query. On the other hand, ChatGPT is a language model developed by OpenAI, and its purpose is to generate text based on the input it receives conversationally.

Data: Google trains its algorithms on web pages, images, videos, and other types of data that it crawls from the internet. ChatGPT, on the other hand, is trained on a large corpus of text data obtained from the internet.

Output: Google outputs relevant search results based on the user's query. You can get varied data. ChatGPT outputs natural language text based on the input it receives which is limited to its knowledge. 

Scope: Google's scope is vast, and it can provide information on a wide range of topics. However, the information it provides is limited to what is available on the internet. ChatGPT, being a language model, can generate text based on the patterns it learned from the training data. However, it is also limited to the text it was trained on, and it may not have information on recent events or current knowledge.

Interaction: Google provides results based on keyword-based queries. On the other hand, ChatGPT interacts with the user through a chat-based interface and generates text based on the input received.

Intelligence: Google uses rule-based algorithms and machine learning to provide relevant results. ChatGPT, on the other hand, is based on deep learning and can generate text based on the patterns it learned from the training data.

Can ChatGPT replace Google? 

No, ChatGPT cannot replace Google. While both Google and ChatGPT use artificial intelligence, they serve different purposes with different capabilities. Google is a search engine that helps users find information by crawling and indexing billions of web pages. It provides relevant results based on the user's query.

Its scope is vast, covering a wide range of topics. ChatGPT, on the other hand, is a language model that generates text based on the input it receives conversationally. It can answer questions and provide information based on the patterns it learned from the training data. However, its scope is limited to the text it was trained on.

When the novelty of having a conversation with a robot wears off, most people will probably want the information they need to be supplied rapidly and in an easy-to-understand list style. In summary, while ChatGPT can complement Google by providing conversational answers to queries, it cannot replace Google as a search engine.

[francispruitt92]

Excel Basics: Introduction, Components & Examples

Are you applying to a new job and wondering what it takes to get in? The reality is that you should have a solid grasp of Microsoft Excel before approaching any firm.

Microsoft Excel is used by everyone, from a secretary to a human resource person and even administrators.

It might be hard to grasp the basics of Excel when there is so much data available online. So, where do you begin? Right here!

This guide has been put together to aid you with all the Excel Basics. Using descriptions, you will now comprehend all the fundamentals of Excel. Also included are some of the most crucial introductory lessons.

Table of Contents:

Introduction to Microsoft Excel

Components of Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel Window Components

Frequently Asked Questions

Summing Up

Introduction to Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel is any company’s most popular spreadsheet application, with millions of users worldwide. Excel with other such applications is excellent for data processing, analysis, and visualization.

Microsoft Excel is best used for tasks like:

Analysis of any Business

Management of Employees and Clients

Managing Operations

Recording and reporting various performances

Managing various projects and tasks

Administration of the office

Tracking store inventory

Forecasting and prediction

Components of Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application created by Microsoft in 1985. The express goal was to assist companies in compiling all of their records.

Here are a few examples of what Microsoft Excel can carry out for you:

The crunching of figures or numerical values

Importing and storing of data

Executing data as graphs and charts

Working around the manipulation of text

Aiding with the automation of various tasks

Handling dashboards and other templates

So how do I get to work and accomplish all these tasks? That’s simple. First, you must grasp and master the three fundamental components.

The 3 most crucial components of Microsoft Excel that you must initially learn are:

1. Workbook

A workbook in Microsoft Excel is a compilation of one or more spreadsheets, also known as worksheets, in a single document. As you launch Microsoft Excel (a spreadsheet software), you launch a workbook.

You may add or delete worksheets, conceal them without destroying them. You can also rearrange the sequence of them inside the workbook.

Steps to create a new Workbook:

For the Excel 2013 and subsequent versions, follow the steps below.

Open the excel file.

Navigate to the File menu.

Select New.

Select the Blank workbook option.

For Excel 2010, follow the steps below.

Open the excel file.

At the top of the window, select the File tab.

Select New.

Select the Blank workbook option.

For the Excel 2007 version, follow the steps below.

Open the excel file.

Press the Office Button.

Choose Blank and recent.

Dual Blank worksheet in the right window.

2. Worksheet

In Microsoft Excel documents, a worksheet is a bunch of cells organized as rows and columns. A workbook often comprises many worksheets with related information. You can work with one worksheet at any given moment.

Here are some features of the excel worksheet that you should be aware of:

A worksheet tool lets you insert, edit, and remove rows and columns.

You may change the height of each row as well as the width of columns.

You may use Name Collection to create, edit, and manage names.

The Worksheet’s Used Cell Range property provides a cell range that begins with cell A1. It also includes all cells with data or formatting.

Every worksheet can include several links to specific cells in the workbooks, mailing addresses, or online sites.

Numerals and textual content in a worksheet may be readily found and replaced.

You can stop people from changing the worksheet’s structure and content.

3. Cell

A cell is the tiniest yet most prominent piece of a worksheet. You may enter information into the cell by manually typing or simply copy-pasting.

Information can take the form of words, a figure, or dates. You may also change the size, text color, color scheme, borders, and more. Every cell is identifiable by its cell name, which includes the column and row numbers.

Vertical columns are labelled with alphabetical values. Horizontal rows are labelled with numerical values. Hence they will be named A1, A2, B1, B2, and so on.

Microsoft Excel Window Components

If you open an excel file, you will see a plethora of choices! Before you begin working with a spreadsheet, you must grasp what is in its window.

Here is a list of the key options you will need to be aware of.

1. Title Bar

The title bar shows the name of the program as well as that of the open spreadsheet. It is located near the quick access bar or on the top of the window.

Excel labels new files progressively when you access them. If you save workbooks, you give it a new title.

2. Quick Access Toolbar

The quick access bar is used for access to commonly used settings. You may add your preferred choices to the fast access toolbar by introducing new choices.

It provides access to a predefined set of instructions in a toolbar. This is always displayed regardless of which ribbons tab is chosen.

3. Ribbon Bar

Beginning with Microsoft Excel 2007, all selection menus have been replaced by ribbons. Ribbon bars are a collection of particular options as groups that contain additional tools.

The ribbon is a row of tabs and icons at the top of the Excel window. They enable you to rapidly find, comprehend, and apply commands for performing a certain activity.

4. File Menu

The file menu, like all other programs, is basic. It has choices such as Print, Excel Options, Share, Save, Open, New, Save As, and others.

The File menu is located on the left side of the Excel ribbon. It gives you access to the back perspective.

5. Formula Bar

The formula bar is an entry bar located beneath the ribbon. It displays the current cell’s information and may also be used to insert a formula into a cell.

It may also be used to make changes to the data or formula in an active cell. The main cell shows the formula’s outputs, whereas the Formula Bar presents the equation itself.

6. Rows

A row is a laterally aligned set of cells. A single worksheet has a total of 1048576 rows. For identification, each row has its unique number ranging from 1 to the last numeral.

Selecting a row is as simple as tapping on the row number shown on the left side of the screen.

7. Columns

A column is a row of cells arranged vertically. Each worksheet has a total of 16384 columns.

Each column will have its letter for identification, starting with the letter A. By selecting a column’s heading, you may choose to use it.

8. Active Cell

A cell that is presently chosen. It will be denoted by a rectangular area, and its location will be displayed in the search box.

You may engage a cell by either clicking on it or utilizing the arrow keys. You may modify a cell by double-clicking on it or by pressing F2.

9. Address Bar

The address bar is a text box in an internet browser that indicates the location of a user on the internet and enables them to browse multiple websites.

The address bar displays the location of the currently active cell. If you have picked more than one cell, the location of the first cell in the group will be shown.

10. Fill Handle

The fill handle is a tiny dot in the current cell’s bottom right. It assists you in filling numeric data, word series, inserting serial numbers, typing in ranges, and so forth. It is displayed when a cell or group of cells is chosen.

You may use the fill handles to copy-paste the information from the cell in just about any manner.

11. Worksheet Tab

The worksheet tab displays all of the worksheets present in the workbook. By configuration, your created workbook will have three sheets.

These come with names as Sheet 1, Sheet 2, and Sheet 3 correspondingly.

12. Status Bar

The status bar is a small bar that sits at the foot of the Excel window. It will be of immediate use once you begin working with Excel.

It may be set to display statistics such as the total, sum, and mean of the presently chosen cells.