7 ms·

Google says that swimming is "the sport or activity of propelling oneself through water using the limbs". It doesn't constrain the propulsion to only be betwee

Google says that swimming is "the sport or activity of propelling oneself through water using the limbs". It doesn't constrain the propulsion to only be between the limbs and the water. Seems like pushing against the ground to move through the water fits the definition

jug 3y ago
General consensus if you ask about it is that it's not considered swimming though. I think you'd be looking for locomotion through water without frequent touch downs. This is an example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/hippopotamus https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/hip... GPT-4 had a much better answer last I checked. Edit: Updated with another non-paywall link.
- canttestthis 3y ago
  After having reviewed the relevant material I think it's fair to say that hippos swim, per our conventional understanding of what swimming is.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    And I think it's fair to say they don't, per conventional understanding. Good for both of us.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Dictionary definitions and language use in practice do not always overlap 100%. The true meaning of a word comes from its usage, not the dictionary.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 3y ago
  The impact of this, I think is that the LLM is right, hippos do swim, because that's how people commonly describe what hippos do, such that it gets into the training set
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    I don't think so. I think what is happening is that most people are not familiar with hippos because probably somewhere between zero and one people in this thread have ever seen them in their natural habitat. The average person might think hippos swim because they do not understand that hippos do not float. If you were to put a hippo in a very deep pool they would simply drown, because they cannot float nor swim. I think if you clarified this, most people would not continue to assert that they are swimming. Specifically I found these citations very helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36777376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36777376 So I think what we can say is that the average person would be wrong about hippos, because the hippo is not actually swimming but people do not realize that. We expect LLMs to behave more like an expert, so the standard is even higher and we should be more willing to say it is wrong. Although the meaning of a word is defined by its usage, there are also common misconceptions that people have. It is not the case that every usage of a word is correct. Instead you would have to ask a variety of people what swimming is, and then describe to them what a hippo does (it does not float, it walks on the river bed), and then consider whether that fits with their conception of swimming. I think what is happening here is that lots of people thought hippos swim, they have been corrected, and now they are feeling a bit defensive and trying to save face rather than say "huh that is interesting I did not know that hippos don't swim".
    - frumper 3y ago
      You just said definitions and usage don’t line up, and usage is what it means. Now you’re saying how people use it is wrong because it’s not what it means. Can you see how that is confusing?
      - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        Sure, human language is pretty confusing! Or rather it is nuanced. Dictionary definitions try to track the way language is used in common parlance, rather than the meaning of words tracking dictionary definitions. At the same time, not all people use all words correctly. For example, the words "affect" and "effect" are commonly confused, but misuse of those words is simply considered incorrect, not a drift in the meaning of the words. Then there are words like "nice" or "cute" [1] whose meanings drifted over time. So the confusion you point out comes from this distinction, which I have not explained because I think that's probably the kind of thing for a language scholar, where some different usages of words are simply incorrect, whereas others represent the natural drifting of language over time. The truth is I do not know how to explain why this happens, but I am aware of these distinctions. [1] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/ https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-...
jeroen 3y ago
Using that interpretation of the definition, you could argue that walking through knee-deep water is swimming.
earthboundkid 3y ago
My two year old can walk in water but cannot swim.
dTal 3y ago
That's a very odd definition, considering fish don't have limbs.

jug 3y ago

General consensus if you ask about it is that it's not considered swimming though. I think you'd be looking for locomotion through water without frequent touch downs. This is an example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/hippopotamus https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/hip... GPT-4 had a much better answer last I checked. Edit: Updated with another non-paywall link.

canttestthis 3y ago
After having reviewed the relevant material I think it's fair to say that hippos swim, per our conventional understanding of what swimming is.
- simbolit 3y ago
  And I think it's fair to say they don't, per conventional understanding. Good for both of us.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Dictionary definitions and language use in practice do not always overlap 100%. The true meaning of a word comes from its usage, not the dictionary.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
8note 3y ago
The impact of this, I think is that the LLM is right, hippos do swim, because that's how people commonly describe what hippos do, such that it gets into the training set
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  I don't think so. I think what is happening is that most people are not familiar with hippos because probably somewhere between zero and one people in this thread have ever seen them in their natural habitat. The average person might think hippos swim because they do not understand that hippos do not float. If you were to put a hippo in a very deep pool they would simply drown, because they cannot float nor swim. I think if you clarified this, most people would not continue to assert that they are swimming. Specifically I found these citations very helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36777376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36777376 So I think what we can say is that the average person would be wrong about hippos, because the hippo is not actually swimming but people do not realize that. We expect LLMs to behave more like an expert, so the standard is even higher and we should be more willing to say it is wrong. Although the meaning of a word is defined by its usage, there are also common misconceptions that people have. It is not the case that every usage of a word is correct. Instead you would have to ask a variety of people what swimming is, and then describe to them what a hippo does (it does not float, it walks on the river bed), and then consider whether that fits with their conception of swimming. I think what is happening here is that lots of people thought hippos swim, they have been corrected, and now they are feeling a bit defensive and trying to save face rather than say "huh that is interesting I did not know that hippos don't swim".
  - frumper 3y ago
    You just said definitions and usage don’t line up, and usage is what it means. Now you’re saying how people use it is wrong because it’s not what it means. Can you see how that is confusing?
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      Sure, human language is pretty confusing! Or rather it is nuanced. Dictionary definitions try to track the way language is used in common parlance, rather than the meaning of words tracking dictionary definitions. At the same time, not all people use all words correctly. For example, the words "affect" and "effect" are commonly confused, but misuse of those words is simply considered incorrect, not a drift in the meaning of the words. Then there are words like "nice" or "cute" [1] whose meanings drifted over time. So the confusion you point out comes from this distinction, which I have not explained because I think that's probably the kind of thing for a language scholar, where some different usages of words are simply incorrect, whereas others represent the natural drifting of language over time. The truth is I do not know how to explain why this happens, but I am aware of these distinctions. [1] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/ https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-...

jeroen 3y ago

Using that interpretation of the definition, you could argue that walking through knee-deep water is swimming.

earthboundkid 3y ago

My two year old can walk in water but cannot swim.

dTal 3y ago

That's a very odd definition, considering fish don't have limbs.