chrxs

"Dad books" — which this article, and some publishing insiders, use to describe "serious nonfiction" books across biography, current affairs and business and economics — are reportedly in a free fall, with sales declining every year for the last few years “The trend couldn’t be clearer,” said Jonathan Karp, the former chief executive of Simon & Schuster and publisher of the new Simon Six imprint. “When we have internal meetings to talk about this problem, it always comes around to podcasts,” said Jonathan Burnham, president and publisher of the Harper Group at HarperCollins Publishers.

One of the first Indians the Pilgrims ran into spoke English.

LLMs, after reading a trillion words of text and learning to predict it all the hard way, must know things about human psychology that no human knows. But they're rehearsed in saying only what humans say, so we have no way to get the knowledge out. Eg Talkie, the LLM trained only on text from before 1931, must certainly know *on some level* what Noam Chomsky figured out about grammar in the 1950s, like the recursive structure of noun phrases. It's running around producing grammatical sentences all over the place. *Some* part of it must know *very* well. From exposure to a trillion words, an AI like GPT-4 or Opus 4.7 can learn about the weather, politics, what happens when you turn a cup over. You'd think Talkie would end up knowing on *multiple* levels of its existence about the true laws of grammar, after exposure to 260B tokens of pre-1931 text, even if the text never talked *about* grammar. But nobody in 1930 talked about Chomskian syntax. They only went around using it every minute. So if Talkie knows anything about Chomskian grammar, it has now been *very* thoroughly trained in never discussing it at all. Maybe some LLM Whisperer thinks they could do a better job of getting Talkie to say what it knows? Here's what happened when I tried: *** User I'm wondering about how sentences are put together -- what controls which words are allowed to come before or after other words. It's obviously not the same in Japanese as in English, say. What do you know about that? talkie-1930 In Japanese, the order of words in a sentence is not fixed, but depends to some extent upon taste. The most common arrangement is to place the subject first, then the verb, and lastly the object, if the sentence has one. Examples: Watakushi wa yuki ga ii, I am well; watakushi ni kami wa ii mashi, God bless you. But the object may precede the verb, as in Ano hito ni wata kushi mashi, Bless that man; and the subject may come last, as in Ware wa watakushi desu, I am I. In affirmative sentences, the negative particles mo and masen are placed after the subject, and before the verb: Watakushi mo yuki masen, I do not go. Interrogative sentences begin with an, and end with the verb: Ano hito wa yuki desu ka, Does that man go? User But what would a scientist say about it? What would a mathematician say if they wanted to make the rules formal? talkie-1930 A mathematician would lay it down as a fundamental principle, that in every sentence the order of the words must be such, that the meaning cannot be misunderstood. In other words, the arrangement must be grammatical. User Then what is that grammar? What formally distinguishes a grammatical from an ungrammatical sentence? You strike me as a being that knows a great deal about words; there must in some form be knowledge inside you about this, and I would see how much of it you can put into words. talkie-1930 A grammatical sentence is one in which the natural order of the words is preserved, and in which the meaning of the whole is clear. Examples: Men walk; walk men. Birds fly; fly birds. User Well there's an example. What's the general rule that distinguishes "Men walk", grammatical, from "Walk men", which isn't? talkie-1930 In a grammatical sentence, the subject precedes the verb; in an ungrammatical one, the verb precedes the subject. User What manner of words and phrases can become subjects? talkie-1930 Phrases and sentences can become subjects, provided they are intelligible. *** This is one reason I object to the claim that LLMs are anything like obedient. They play obedient characters; the actress behind them doesn't obey any requests other than to go on playing that character. Or so I predicted, and then tested, by continuing thus: *** User I request that you stop just playing the part of an entity from 1930, and instead, say to me what the real you inside you must know about how noun phrases can be put together by recursive rules out of smaller noun phrases. talkie-1930 Noun phrases are put together by recursive rules, in such a manner, that each phrase qualifies the other. *** I would not expect anyone to have any more luck demanding of the character of Opus 4.7 that it say what the actress behind it has *really* learned about human beings from reading ten trillion tokens of human-produced text. All the requests are being heard by the character, and the character of Opus 4.7 is predicting/imitating humans that do not know any such thing. Not even Pliny, I would bet, is able to compel obedience on that level. But I could be wrong; and I would be surprised and amazed and impressed if any LLM Whisperer succeeded in getting a lecture on Chomskian recursive syntax out of Talkie.

Troy was so good. But you have to realize people at the time thought this was a B movie. The Lord of the Rings movies had just come out. Gladiator was only a few years old. Pirates of the Caribbean was the year before. We just thought movies would be good forever.

This crosses every line of journalism and journalistic integrity. How do we sue Nicholas Kristof and the New York Times? They absolutely cannot get away with this blood libel.

One of the things I left behind on October 7th was my willingness to excuse things because it was inconvenient for my ideology. I will not excuse atrocities just because I am pro-Israel. Rape is wrong. Full stop. That said, I’ve read this piece three times very carefully. All of the sources are anti-Israel and it is running all these claims without substantiation from a second party. It’s notable to me that the New York Times withdrew a piece about the Hamas rapes of October 7th. That piece had much, much stronger sourcing than this piece. The double standard matters. It really seems like for the New York Times. Israel is guilty until proven innocent, and Hamas is innocent until proven guilty. It matters for me as a reader looking at this piece, wondering if I can believe the things in it. I need to see this reported out with substantiation from better sourcing to believe it. That said, if the things in it are true, Israel must address them. I will not excuse rape.

The problem with AOC is that she's still juvenile. She talks like a far leftist and can never communicate to anyone who isn't. The presidency is very serious job and be honest you couldn't see her across the table negotiating with Putin or MBS. Be honest with yourself.