3 ms·
No "about" info? No "how it works", "how it was trained", etc.? It seems to only generate words that match English phonotactics & spelling conventions- things
by gliese1337 11y ago
No "about" info? No "how it works", "how it was trained", etc.?
It seems to only generate words that match English phonotactics & spelling conventions- things that could be English words. Can it be retargeted to other languages, or to arbitrary word-shape constraints?
I am particularly interested because I've recently undertaken a survey of word-generation software for conlangers (people who create artificial languages, like Quenya or Klingon or Na'vi), and while they do come in widely varying degrees of sophistication, with varying degrees of built-in linguistic knowledge, there are none yet publically available that are based on neural networks.
- maxmcd 11y agoThis seems to be the source: https://github.com/shariq/burgundy https://github.com/shariq/burgundy Training word list: https://github.com/shariq/burgundy/blob/master/wordserver/old_burgundy_words.txt https://github.com/shariq/burgundy/blob/master/wordserver/ol...
- cardigan 11y agoYes totally can be. Nothing English language specific about this. Scoring the models is a bit of a pain without a large corpus of English, but the training data was only 800 words.
- igravious 11y agoYou said that you wrote a scoring function based on your subjective response to outputs. Supposedly if English is your native language (it seems to be) then you would have influenced the algorithm to home in on English phonology. Surely? I looked at about 20 words and they all seemed like decent English candidate words, including one actual English word, "molest".
- cardigan 11y agoThe first kind of scoring function was language independent (e.g, penalize words showing up from the training set, penalize < 3 character words, penalize duplicate words, penalize common words), and the second scoring function needed a large training set of English words (but could be any other training set). All this is described at the top. I guess you didn't read that.