In the news

Posted on
Page
of 2,984
First Prev
/ 2,984
Last Next
  • you realise how incredibly 'dumb' and limited AI systems are

    Yeahbut, everyone* thinks they are smart, and so they implement it to do important stuff, and it ends up doing important stuff shoddily. Like driving cars. Shoddily.

    * people who don't realise a computer is a just a calculator on crack

  • Ol' musky is full of shit, you can safely disregard everything that comes out of his mouth

  • So... on the language thing, languages literally change and evolve. Linguists decided a long time ago that trying to prescribe how to use language was a pointless folly. It's like trying to turn back the tide. End of.

    This is why modern linguists take a descriptivist approach, studying those changes and the evolution of languages instead of trying to preserve them in aspic.

    The purpose of language is to communicate. If a given word usage or phrase is understood by a community of speakers, it's "correct" - or at least, not wrong. If the answer to "D'ya get me?" is yes, then anything else is entirely subjective.

    (Source: I've got a degree in linguistics, which is generally about as useful as it sounds).


    1 Attachment

    • david-malki-in-which-there-is-taunting.jpg
  • Not sure what Musk's (probably mental) views are, but isn't the generally accepted Doomsday scenario less Skynet and more "kill everyone to make paperclips". It's precisely shoddy programming that most people are scared of. Basically some system doing a HAL on a global scale.

  • In principle, I'd say that is much more likely thing to happen, as it's based on humans fucking up in applying ML, rather than some AI going rampant. But 'luckily', connecting systems to that extent is an absolute bloody nightmare, so I can't foresee being anything even remotely as powerful and all-encompassing existing - probably ever. So while that kind of scenario sounds dangerous in theory, in practice I've never heard of any such fuck-up even on a much smaller scale.

  • If the answer to "D'ya get me?" is yes, then anything else is entirely subjective.

    Innit!

  • Thank you for decimating those other arguments.

  • The purpose of language is to communicate. If a given word usage or phrase is understood by a community of speakers, it's "correct"

    Well yeah, but language is also used to persuade, to argue, to entertain, to engage people in a story, and to project a chosen version of yourself. We change our own language in selective ways to do all of these things and when language choices impede those things, it's worth pointing it out.

    It's fine to accept the gradual shifts in how words are used, but that doesn't change the fact that when somebody says "different than" or writes "LFGSSers are far to obsessive about there bikes" it's like fingernails on a blackboard (to me at least). I totally understand what the person is getting at, but my response to what they're saying will be shaped by more than the bare facts (or opinion) that they're stating. How you say something can be as important as what you say.

    Strangely enough, I'm fine with "Ginormous" because it's novel and expressive and doesn't get in the way of the use of any other word or phrase. On the other hand, when somebody says "I could care less" or "expresso" it bugs me because it's just a fuck-up (i.e., you can see that the origin of it is just somebody mishearing or misunderstanding something) and, more importantly, it's a fuck-up that has propagated because not enough people have been sharp enough to notice or have bothered to say "hold on, that doesn't actually make sense."

  • On the other hand, when somebody says "I could care less" or "expresso" it bugs me because it's just a fuck-up (i.e., you can see that the origin of it is just somebody mishearing or misunderstanding something) and, more importantly, it's a fuck-up that has propagated because not enough people have been sharp enough to notice or have bothered to say "hold on, that doesn't actually make sense."

    If you think that's bad you have another thing coming.

  • Blarrrgh language chat.

  • "exprexxo" loosers.

  • If we posit that the tyranny of the majority should drive languages meaning, and that it's frankly ridiculous to expect any sort of rigour when it comes to what words actually mean, should we embrace "fixie", as that's clearly the term that has the most widespread adoption?

  • should we embrace "fixie"

    Defo!

  • What is this? A forum for the hoi polloi?

  • Yeah, just seen this too, not sure if we have thread on it but couldn't find it in Rider Down.

    I hadnt realised she'd fallen from her bike, (not clear if this was purely her own error, or involved anyone else) and then the guy did not react in time because he was on his phone.

    Good he's getting jail time. Sentences do need to get longer though. Driving your vehicle while being on your phone is universally known to be dangerous, it is expressly illegal for this reason, so I don't understand why it can be argued to be only careless and not dangerous.

    Careless to me is a lack of concentration, a minor error with unfortunate consequences, something you could do without thinking, a genuine "mistake". Picking up that phone is a cognitive decision to do something dangerous and the conviction should reflect that.

  • In keeping with the thread's previous linguistic pedantry, surely just 'hoi polloi', otherwise it's tautological. However, commonly accepted usage etc...bores self to sleep

  • Good he's getting jail time. Sentences do need to get longer though. Driving your vehicle while being on your phone is universally known to be dangerous, it is expressly illegal for this reason, so I don't understand why it can be argued to be only careless and not dangerous.

    Careless to me is a lack of concentration, a minor error with unfortunate consequences, something you could do without thinking, a genuine "mistake". Picking up that phone is a cognitive decision to do something dangerous and the conviction should reflect that.

    Same happens in many cases. Despite being charged with causing death by dangerous driving, the CPS knows the likelihood of a jury acquitting them. Accepting an admission of causing death by careless driving guarantees a conviction.

  • wait till everyone finds out what "berk" means!!

  • Yeah, I get it. The jury system is part of the problem here, as most of them have probably used a phone while driving already.

    Something needs to change on the careless/dangerous classification though. Convictions for dangerous driving are too hard to secure. That is the problem. How can this be changed?

  • What is this? A forum for hoi polloi?

    pls.

    ftfy.

    [Edit] that ^^^^

  • pls.

    stahp

  • Please can we have some news?

    [](https://youtu.be/OuCAQnWyAiQ

    )

  • What cunt said that ;-)

  • On the other hand, when somebody says "I could care less" or "expresso" it bugs me because it's just a fuck-up (i.e., you can see that the origin of it is just somebody mishearing or misunderstanding something) and, more importantly, it's a fuck-up that has propagated because not enough people have been sharp enough to notice or have bothered to say "hold on, that doesn't actually make sense."

    This is exactly my problem with 'Literally'; although you've described the situation far more politely than the guy I quoted in my post. I understand words having meanings beyond their meaning and the evolution of our language; but the 'literally' scenario is also IMO a fuck up. It's lots of people all using the word to mean 100% the opposite of what it's supposed to mean. And then rather than people saying 'Right! stop that, it's SILLY', it's just propagated to the point of mass acceptance.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

In the news

Posted by Avatar for Platini @Platini

Actions