4 ms·

This is basically useless without a place where you can use it to generate new random bodies of text on the fly. It's easy to cherry pick 10 good samples out of

This is basically useless without a place where you can use it to generate new random bodies of text on the fly. It's easy to cherry pick 10 good samples out of hundreds with the intention of attempting to fool people - maybe not so much if they're generated on the fly.

commandlinefan 7y ago
It's also kind of useless if you don't compare it to other subjects: maybe Trump is easier to imitate than, say, Obama.
- deadmetheny 7y ago
  He almost certainly is - he doesn't have nearly the same gift for public speaking that Obama did. As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, his speech patterns are pretty simple and repetitive, and thus ideal for RNN training.
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    It feels like maybe your bias for Obama is clouding your judgement for computers to discover and reproduce patterns in general. Like, what evidence do you have that Obama's speech patterns are easier or harder for ML to discover and reproduce patterns? And if his patterns are harder, what evidence do you have that the increase in complexity is meaningful?
    - belltaco 7y ago
      Here's some analysis that shows Trump comes lowest in complexity among the last 15 presidents that were analyzed. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-ob... >The words were run through a variety of lexicological analyses, besides the Flesch-Kincaid, and the results were the same. In every one, Trump came in dead last. Trump also uses the fewest "unique words" (2,605) of any president—Obama was the best at 4,869—and uses words with the fewest average syllables, with 1.33 per word, compared to positively multi-syllabic president Hoover at 1.57. >"By every metric and methodology tested, Donald Trump's vocabulary and grammatical structure is significantly more simple, and less diverse, than any President since Herbert Hoover, when measuring "off-script" words, that is, words far less likely to have been written in advance for the speaker," Factba.se CEO Bill Frischling wrote. "The gap between Trump and the next closest president ... is larger than any other gap using Flesch-Kincaid. Statistically speaking, there is a significant gap."
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Simple speech is often less deceptive. A surprising amount of political speach is deliberately dualistic. By any measure, President Trump actually does what he has said he will attempt to do. Bigly.
    - thefounder 7y ago
      Trump's speeches/sentences can be twisted either way you want and nobody can't tell if it's just gibberish or real statements so the computer has fewer chances to produce "bad" samples. Just like a broken record!
      - bluntfang 7y ago
        Again, this all makes sense anecdotally, but how can you measure how significant this to produce believable text?
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      Maybe a more diplomatic description could be to liken it to modern poetry. It's more about conveying a feeling than following strict rules of grammar or composition.
    - deadmetheny 7y ago
      As shown in sibling comments, it's pretty easily picked up on both statistically and just by reading their speeches that his are simpler. I'm not really a ML expert, so I can't necessarily comment to that making it easier to make a Trumpbot, but my gut reaction is that it would if for no other reason that this sort of text works better for generators like Markov chains. For what it's worth, I don't like Obama - but it would be churlish to deny he's a top-tier orator.
- zitterbewegung 7y ago
  I have actually done what they have done in the paper. The primary difficulty that I had is that when attempting to fool people they would basically believe nearly anything that the system would say. Its relatively easy to reproduce see http://trumptwitterarchive.com/archive http://trumptwitterarchive.com/archive and then you just follow the directions on https://github.com/minimaxir/gpt-2-simple https://github.com/minimaxir/gpt-2-simple
artur_makly 7y ago
how about with this > https://TrumpTweets.io https://TrumpTweets.io ;-)

commandlinefan 7y ago

It's also kind of useless if you don't compare it to other subjects: maybe Trump is easier to imitate than, say, Obama.

deadmetheny 7y ago
He almost certainly is - he doesn't have nearly the same gift for public speaking that Obama did. As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, his speech patterns are pretty simple and repetitive, and thus ideal for RNN training.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  It feels like maybe your bias for Obama is clouding your judgement for computers to discover and reproduce patterns in general. Like, what evidence do you have that Obama's speech patterns are easier or harder for ML to discover and reproduce patterns? And if his patterns are harder, what evidence do you have that the increase in complexity is meaningful?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    Here's some analysis that shows Trump comes lowest in complexity among the last 15 presidents that were analyzed. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-ob... >The words were run through a variety of lexicological analyses, besides the Flesch-Kincaid, and the results were the same. In every one, Trump came in dead last. Trump also uses the fewest "unique words" (2,605) of any president—Obama was the best at 4,869—and uses words with the fewest average syllables, with 1.33 per word, compared to positively multi-syllabic president Hoover at 1.57. >"By every metric and methodology tested, Donald Trump's vocabulary and grammatical structure is significantly more simple, and less diverse, than any President since Herbert Hoover, when measuring "off-script" words, that is, words far less likely to have been written in advance for the speaker," Factba.se CEO Bill Frischling wrote. "The gap between Trump and the next closest president ... is larger than any other gap using Flesch-Kincaid. Statistically speaking, there is a significant gap."
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Simple speech is often less deceptive. A surprising amount of political speach is deliberately dualistic. By any measure, President Trump actually does what he has said he will attempt to do. Bigly.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    Trump's speeches/sentences can be twisted either way you want and nobody can't tell if it's just gibberish or real statements so the computer has fewer chances to produce "bad" samples. Just like a broken record!
    - bluntfang 7y ago
      Again, this all makes sense anecdotally, but how can you measure how significant this to produce believable text?
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Maybe a more diplomatic description could be to liken it to modern poetry. It's more about conveying a feeling than following strict rules of grammar or composition.
  - deadmetheny 7y ago
    As shown in sibling comments, it's pretty easily picked up on both statistically and just by reading their speeches that his are simpler. I'm not really a ML expert, so I can't necessarily comment to that making it easier to make a Trumpbot, but my gut reaction is that it would if for no other reason that this sort of text works better for generators like Markov chains. For what it's worth, I don't like Obama - but it would be churlish to deny he's a top-tier orator.
zitterbewegung 7y ago
I have actually done what they have done in the paper. The primary difficulty that I had is that when attempting to fool people they would basically believe nearly anything that the system would say. Its relatively easy to reproduce see http://trumptwitterarchive.com/archive http://trumptwitterarchive.com/archive and then you just follow the directions on https://github.com/minimaxir/gpt-2-simple https://github.com/minimaxir/gpt-2-simple

artur_makly 7y ago

how about with this > https://TrumpTweets.io https://TrumpTweets.io ;-)