Dasein is da (there) and sein (being), fused in same word. I'm in the Husserlian camp that consciousness and being are inexplicably linked, and ontology has to be an reductive endeavor, if possible at all (Kant's noema). Heidegger muddies already muddy waters by introducing anthropological/existential concepts like "utility" and "authenticity", wrapping manifolds rather than unbinding them. Though MH is right that human ontology is The critical question of philosophy. Curious of your background/interest in this.

Thanks!

big difference between being in the world and an object's specific state of being. The latter can inform the former, but Heidegger views the two as interchangeable imo. Again, I haven't read Being and Time but have viewed multiple lectures on it.

Plato was concerned more with order than power, the dichotomy you mention's a result of a contemporary confusion between the two.

Difficult not to use anthropomorphic terms in describing computer processes, but what irks me is the AI folks confusing metaphors with capabilities. Halfway through Bostrom's Superintelligence and full of such errors. Gates and Musk have both endorsed the book as a warning bell about the "existential catastrophe" we could be facing otherwise known as the singularity, though the author avoids this term. The singularity's both a fantasy and clever misdirection. The real catastrophe is the death of ethics behind the veneer of technology, and that's happening now. If one lacks control can they still be held responsible? True for both the courtroom and boardrooms. In one sense, AI is an apologia for continuing Pleistocene-wired asshole behaviors about power and greed.

Haven't read B&T but seems Heidegger mixes-up ontology with existentialism which to me is an big mistake. In that case here's a better title: 'Being and Being More'