On most topics, this community mostly values pursuing personal curiosity even if it's not for a larger purpose. We never know where we will find larger purposes, after all! And following interest and desire is generally a valued habit.
I didn't get the impression they were a rando "cutting someone up for fun" (note "someone"). I did get the impression they were a rando who wanted to know more about the human body, with a particular interest in the nervous system likely from a career in AI/ML. Note how the author has a better appreciation for the effects of disease, for the effects of exercise, and how they had intuitional leaps around brain structure and its applicability to ML as well as nascent intuition around the importance of social systems to evolution.
Personally I'm really glad that these opportunities exist. Most bodies become ash or sit rotting unnaturally slowly. This is a better use, even for lay people with idle curiosity.
This brings up a central question about the value of collective vs individual knowledge. If you donated your body, would you rather help a lot of people a little or a few people a lot?
If I knew that my body had the power to bring about a truly humbling, enriching, and perspective changing experience to a few individuals, I would be happy with that. In an indirect way, it might be so inspiring for those individuals as to result in a net gain of collective knowledge in the future.
I'm not going to go so far to say that only med students should have access to cadavers... but this article does feel like a rando just cutting someone up for fun, and that feels a bit off to me.