3 ms·

Right, invoking "ideology" seems a bit unnecessary and politically motivated. "More highly educated people produce better content." In other news, poor neighbor

Right, invoking "ideology" seems a bit unnecessary and politically motivated. "More highly educated people produce better content." In other news, poor neighborhoods have more violent crime than rich neighborhoods... > We then demonstrate that the filter's measurement of quality is unaligned with other sensible metrics, such as factuality or literary acclaim. So the filter can't check whether something is scientifically accurate or artistically appealing. That makes sense. Of course it can't.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I’m kind of confused by the literary acclaim bit. If wealthy people produced better content why isn’t the best written content of all, pinnacles of literary acclaim (often acclaimed by the same wealthy population) within this cohort? If it’s because wealthy populations write better then why isn’t the pinnacle of writing within this cohort? Intuitively this seems non obvious to me. What am I missing?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  It's just measuring adherence to a particular standard of written english. To use it to determine whether one work is "better" or not, you need to make a value judgement about which written standard or dialect you want to consider the target and compare to. Choosing that target is the ideology mentioned in an earlier comment: holding one dialect as superior or more fit to a purpose is ideological in a pure technical sense. You could also choose a different standard to get different results, for example imagine telling it that this is the goal for "best" https://www.bbc.com/pidgin https://www.bbc.com/pidgin Anyway since it mentioned using wikipedia as a source for "good" english, it makes sense to me to intuit it that way. Prose on wikipedia is detailed and held to a very specific standard, which is legible to the filter. Prose on wikipedia is also not usually going to win literary awards though, since that depends on more than careful adherence to a standard.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

I’m kind of confused by the literary acclaim bit. If wealthy people produced better content why isn’t the best written content of all, pinnacles of literary acclaim (often acclaimed by the same wealthy population) within this cohort? If it’s because wealthy populations write better then why isn’t the pinnacle of writing within this cohort? Intuitively this seems non obvious to me. What am I missing?

giraffe_lady 5y ago
It's just measuring adherence to a particular standard of written english. To use it to determine whether one work is "better" or not, you need to make a value judgement about which written standard or dialect you want to consider the target and compare to. Choosing that target is the ideology mentioned in an earlier comment: holding one dialect as superior or more fit to a purpose is ideological in a pure technical sense. You could also choose a different standard to get different results, for example imagine telling it that this is the goal for "best" https://www.bbc.com/pidgin https://www.bbc.com/pidgin Anyway since it mentioned using wikipedia as a source for "good" english, it makes sense to me to intuit it that way. Prose on wikipedia is detailed and held to a very specific standard, which is legible to the filter. Prose on wikipedia is also not usually going to win literary awards though, since that depends on more than careful adherence to a standard.