h a l f b a k e r yJust add oughta.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The below idea only in reverse. It takes simple concepts
and draws them into super smart sounding word
tornados.
You'd have to do the work yourself, but the word
processor
would alert you to un-necessarily complex, hyper
intellectual sounding sentences so you can go back and
translate
it into human.
I read a pretty good example of this process in the
attached link from which I did a cut and paste:
"Plato: Obviously we must use observations or the
objects
in perceived reality as a stepping stone because we
cannot
"sense" reality with our minds. But it is fallacious to think
cognition can only make (logical) inferences from those
observations. If the only statements that could be made
based on perceived reality were of logical
(inductive/deductive) nature, then the noetic reality
would fundamentally be constrained to operate within
the
bounds of perceived reality and your point that there is
no
difference between the two would be quite valid.
However, that is clearly not so because cognition allows
generation of propositions which are illogical. These
hypotheses, therefore, can introduce thought-objects
into
noetic reality that lie outside of perceived reality."
"David Quinn: Translation: We can imagine things."
That's an extreme example, but you'd get that big "bad
grammar" style red underline that would prompt you to
go
back and ask yourself "Is this concept really that grand
that
it needs a two hundred word poem to get it across?" Sort
of
like it was rolling its eyes at you and saying "Oh, come on
man, you're not impressing anybody with this shit."
Admittedly this wouldn't be an easy algorithm to write,
but
if a human can figure out that Plato's long winded word
fireworks are a little more over the top than is necessary
to get the idea across, AI should be able to do the same
with a little work.
Kind of an interesting read.
http://naturalthink...inn/essay00npu.html
[doctorremulac3, Mar 29 2018]
[link]
|
| |
There are various apps that will rate text for its clarity and
complexity. I think even Word has a tool for that. |
|
| |
[edit] OK, I checked, and Word has a tool that displays
Flesch scores, so that's pretty much baked. The problem is
that many academics believe, stupidly, that they appear
cleverer by being more opaque. |
|
| |
So why do you persist in doing it, we ask ... |
|
| |
I don't. Of course, however low I try to pitch things, there's
no guarantee you'll be able to follow them. |
|
| |
(Ignores the bar fight going on across the room.) |
|
| |
Huh. Well, good idea anyway. |
|
| |
As standard procedure I leave the idea up
overnight before taking it down. Not so much like
walking through town with it strapped to my back
in the walk of shame as much as it having some
interesting stuff. Annotations included. I'd never
heard of a Flesch score before, might as
well share the knowledge born of my pain and
humiliation. |
|
| |
I get why people do this, it's virtue signaling, and
that's fine unless it's cloaking a lousy concept in
opulence and parading it down the catwalk when it
should be made to walk the plank. |
|
| |
Einstein was alway very easy to understand. I'll
leave it at that. |
|
| |
The quotation is originally from Testikles the Younger's "Travels with a Lemur" c279BC, in which he recounts the philosopher's riposte to a waiter, upon being asked to actually pay for his beer. |
|
| |
Siri translates it as "You're an idiot". |
|
| |
Arguably the same, but David Quinn missed the subtleties of the passive-aggressive tense. |
|
| |
I'm going to salvage this idea because it took a while
to write. Original was Overly Complex Language
Correction Word processor with an "academic-speak"
filter." |
|
| |
Changed to the exact opposite. |
|
| |
My D. Phil supervisor was an excellent writer, and he and I
would spend days arguing over a sentence. He was usually
right, and could say lucidly in ten words what I'd failed to
convey in a paragraph. At the end of my stint, I took
Wordsworth's "Daffodils" and edited it using his style. It
came out at about 25 words. |
|
| |
"Saw a bunch of flowers once. Pretty cool. Sometimes
I think about them while I'm waiting for my welfare
check." |
|
| |
You're wasted in this place, [doc]. And pretty much
everywhere, from what I hear. |
|
| |
Ok, I'm leaving this post up. Hitler would have taken
it down so it's a matter of principal. |
|
| |
That's another USD $5 someone owes us ... |
|
| |
// however low I try to pitch things, there's no guarantee you'll be able to follow them // |
|
| |
Your siblings are pretty (?)*, no abysmally, low, and there's very little chance we'll follow them anywhere. Except, perhaps, out of morbid curiosity ... |
|
| |
*on reflection, there is nothing "pretty" about your siblings**. |
|
| |
**or you, for that matter. "Fell out of the ugly tree, and hit every branch on the way down ..." |
|
| |
How far up the wall can you get, [IT] ... ? |
|
| |
I’m tempted to run a Vernon-beanangel mashup through
one of these just to stress-test it. |
|
| |
[8th], I have passed on your comments to Sturton and the
Intercalary. You may expect to be sibbled, but only when
you least expect it. |
|
| |
Very few words in the English language are precise synonyms. That's why it's often better to use longer words, where they more precisely match one's meaning, if the audience's vocabulary is sufficiently large. |
|
| |
Quantum physicists should be required by law to have an
app
for the original "make simpler" variant with voice rec on
their
phone
& the phone wired to a taser with the electrodes attached
to
their
sensitive fleshy parts, all permanently switched on. |
|
| |
So that when.. well, you get the picture. |
|
| |
Can there be a version of that for politicians ? Maybe linked to a 132kV distribution line ? |
|
| |
// if the audience's vocabulary is sufficiently large // |
|
| |
This is the halfbakery, mind .... |
|
| |
//Can there be a version of that for politicians ?// |
|
| |
That's an excellent idea, I'll pull some resources off the
math
teacher models
design team & get the admin boys right
on it. |
|
| |
//a 132kV distribution line ?// |
|
| |
I like where you're going with this. Know
anyone at the National Grid who can help with a discount? |
|
| |
A well carved crucifix is worth a thousand bibles .. I think
that was the crux of Jesus. (or to put it another way - Body
language ) |
|
| |
// One is to explain to people who don’t understand, // |
|
| |
If they don't understand, no point in trying to explain. They're obviously too stupid to grasp it. |
|
| |
// the other is to explain to people who do understand. // |
|
| |
Wasted effort - they already understand, so why explain ? |
|
| |
// anyone at the National Grid who can help get a discount // |
|
| |
We'll drop a feeder off one of the Cube's plasma conduits free of charge, just for the fun of frying the buggers. Just tell us where and when. |
|
| |
//A well carved crucifix is worth a thousand bibles// |
|
| |
I'm not so sure that's right, I've always found dropping a
thousand bibles on someone does a really significant
amount of damage.. it's going to need to be a really big
crucifix. |
|
| |
Pile the thousand bibles round the legs of the Wicker Man. Makes a lovely blaze, and you can bake potatoes in the embers too ! What could be better ? |
|
| |
OK, so there's the smell of burnt meat, but if you stay to windward it's usually bearable. |
|
| |
NB: that quotation in the idea is not from Plato. According to the
link, it's from some person called Sergei, who modestly posts as
"Plato". The real Plato is much more readable. |
|
| |
Thank you. Important note I should have put on that. |
|
| |
Note: This is not THE Plato. |
|
| |
The article refers to a guy who calls himself Plato in
a forum who was really good at spinning a massive,
tangled word web to get his ideas across. |
|
| |
That being said, they are kind of fun to try to figure
out. |
|
| |
//and will probably figure it out for themselves// at which point they will think they understand, and therefore by your own logic they will become //lost, and the hardest to reach with truth// |
|
| |