5 ms·
Could someone propose U+200D ? Maybe the easier answer is to change reality to match human and language model memory/expectation.
by basch 1y ago
Could someone propose U+200D ?
Maybe the easier answer is to change reality to match human and language model memory/expectation.
- egoisticalgoat 1y agoEven though the context is relatively harmless in this case, "changing the reality to match LLM expectations" is a very dystopian concept
- zettabomb 1y agoHonestly, it sounds like it's not just LLM expectations but human expectations. And changing a standard to meet that isn't really dystopian IMO.
- sva_ 1y agoSeahorse emoji has been proposed before and declined: https://www.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-proposals-status.html https://www.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-proposals-status.html
- xg15 1y agoWould be interesting to read that proposal, as "usage level"[1] and "compatibility with existing systems"[2] are both factors that the emoji working group officially considers for new proposals. So if the proposal includes one or both of those sections, that could shed some light on possible former usage in "proprietary" software. Unfortunately, I don't see the actual proposal accessible anywhere. [1] https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_Usage https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_U... [2] https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_Compatibility https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Selection_Factors_C...
- basch 1y agoInteresting, I sent this comment from a client on a phone, and forgot that the emoji wouldnt show up. What I wrote was U+1F30A U+200D U+1F40E