4 ms·

I think I can see what you're getting at with your last post, but you might also want to work on the coherence of your written English. You are writing based o

I think I can see what you're getting at with your last post, but you might also want to work on the coherence of your written English. You are writing based on the spoken word, which doesn't lend itself to reader comprehension (in English). As an example: > You think of a term, that's what you may think of, this is the realm in which you are supposed to think. That's more of a series of phrases than a sentence, which is also a common characteristic of computer-generated text. All this is combined with the allusive nature of your posts, which will set off "conspiracy theorist troll" or "AI-generated" alarms everywhere it goes.

mdp2021 5y ago
> You are writing based on the spoken word ... an example That is intentionally didascalic for the intentional expression of clarity, and it is enclosed in quotes, which do denote a switch. It intentionally describes a process in blocks. > your posts, which will set off My dear friend, do you realize that when something is labelled through «common characteristic[s]», that would be the shallow labelling that a machine does? And it is not even Bayesian, because important amounts of texts are written in a way similar to that in which I write - machine learning itself mocks human learning after all. "Maybe" it would be important in this time and age for information accessors to realize that either they put themselves seriously into understanding expressions - or, if they have to break a guinness world record of processed text per time unit (cpr.: "Spedread War and Peace, 'ts about Napoleon in the east"), the one serious approach is to then renounce actual judgement - do it properly or act consequently, knowing that you stopped before the threshold. After all, there are machines for preprocessing - and really they cannot but guess on normalspeak because they are stupid: if you are really intelligent, it's your job to use it (and a duty - "use it or lose it"). You should see even more the absurdity. Again - the point is very important: rushed prejudice-like labelling ("Cialis - spam") is not appropriate, it's machine-level, and a sign of decadence.

mdp2021 5y ago

> You are writing based on the spoken word ... an example That is intentionally didascalic for the intentional expression of clarity, and it is enclosed in quotes, which do denote a switch. It intentionally describes a process in blocks. > your posts, which will set off My dear friend, do you realize that when something is labelled through «common characteristic[s]», that would be the shallow labelling that a machine does? And it is not even Bayesian, because important amounts of texts are written in a way similar to that in which I write - machine learning itself mocks human learning after all. "Maybe" it would be important in this time and age for information accessors to realize that either they put themselves seriously into understanding expressions - or, if they have to break a guinness world record of processed text per time unit (cpr.: "Spedread War and Peace, 'ts about Napoleon in the east"), the one serious approach is to then renounce actual judgement - do it properly or act consequently, knowing that you stopped before the threshold. After all, there are machines for preprocessing - and really they cannot but guess on normalspeak because they are stupid: if you are really intelligent, it's your job to use it (and a duty - "use it or lose it"). You should see even more the absurdity. Again - the point is very important: rushed prejudice-like labelling ("Cialis - spam") is not appropriate, it's machine-level, and a sign of decadence.