4 ms·

this isn't an achievement, it's yet another amateur crank claiming he solved a famous puzzle, without a paper and without any critical review. many people have

this isn't an achievement, it's yet another amateur crank claiming he solved a famous puzzle, without a paper and without any critical review. many people have claimed to decode Linear A before. just because this guy used an LLM doesn't make it more credible

Kosturdistan 4mo ago
He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts, and there is an excerpt of the paper in my blog post. I have also seen and read the paper with my own 2 eyes, I can't publish it though, Tom wants to keep that under wraps while it's reviewed by linguistics experts.
- evilfred 4mo ago
  the info provided is completely unverifiable.
- BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago
  > He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts So did many of the previous attempted solvers.
  - Kosturdistan 4mo ago
    One way to assess the validity of prior claims is to see how many words you can translate using their proposed system.
    - evilfred 4mo ago
      of course we have no way to assess this claim as there is no public software or paper to review
    - qustio 4mo ago
      But the entire corpus for Linear A is tiny, you could backfill a "translation" that has no actual similarity with the real language when properly tested against novel examples. How was this tested?
fooster 4mo ago
"amateur crank claiming" I don't know why you want to stoop to name calling which violates the guidelines and the spirit of this site. "without any critical review" is also seemingly untrue: the post says Rutgers and Cambridge are reviewing it
- YeGoblynQueenne 4mo ago
  The post says so. What do Rutgers and Cambridge say though? My following searches turn out no announcements by either Rutgers or Cambridge: "rutgers linguists evaluate deciphering of linear a by tom di mino" https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&sca_esv=b92336fc4f83e43b&hl=en&sxsrf=APpeQnuYnp2vNCApBHrdh3UKThvgiJtobA%3A1781911305864&ei=Cc81auSiNMGB9u8PyYTQoQM&biw=1920&bih=995&ved=0ahUKEwiky6DzuJSVAxXBgP0HHUkCNDQQ4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQXJ1dGdlcnMgbGluZ3Vpc3RzIGV2YWx1YXRlIGRlY2lwaGVyaW5nIG9mIGxpbmVhciBhIGJ5IHRvbSBkaSBtaW5vSOiiAVDKGVjqmQFwEXgAkAEAmAHGAqAB_SqqAQgwLjIzLjUuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCGaAC7QvCAggQABjvBRiwA8ICCxAAGIAEGKIEGLADwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQABiABBiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHBjE3LjYuMqAH-48BsgcFMC42LjK4B8ELwgcGMC4xOS42yAczgAgB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+d... https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&sca_esv=b92336fc4f83e43b&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&sxsrf=APpeQnvP_YtO7pQ-AUzKrC7bdE48i4veeA%3A1781911347290&ei=M881auyvEZWpxc8Pvdqn8QE&ved=0ahUKEwislYGHuZSVAxWVVPEDHT3tKR4Q4dUDCBI&oq=cambridge+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQ2NhbWJyaWRnZSBsaW5ndWlzdHMgZXZhbHVhdGUgZGVjaXBoZXJpbmcgb2YgbGluZWFyIGEgYnkgdG9tIGRpIG1pbm9I5PICUOaVAljOnQJwAngAkAEAmAGRAqABlg2qAQUwLjguMrgBDMgBAPgBAZgCAaAC2QHCAgUQABjvBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEmAMAiAYBkgcDMi0xoAf0E7IHAzItMbgH2QHCBwMyLTHIBwSACAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate...
- evilfred 4mo ago
  who at Rutgers and Cambridge? did he just email some random linguistics profs? why not classics? and did they respond out of genuine interest or just trying to let an enthusiastic amateur down gently? i am sorry but "crank" is the correct term for the many amateurs who routinely email mathematicians, physicists, and apparently linguists with their special theories without having any academic experience in the field. for every anecdote where it panned out there are thousands of cases where it did not.

Kosturdistan 4mo ago

He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts, and there is an excerpt of the paper in my blog post. I have also seen and read the paper with my own 2 eyes, I can't publish it though, Tom wants to keep that under wraps while it's reviewed by linguistics experts.

evilfred 4mo ago
the info provided is completely unverifiable.
BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago
> He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts So did many of the previous attempted solvers.
- Kosturdistan 4mo ago
  One way to assess the validity of prior claims is to see how many words you can translate using their proposed system.
  - evilfred 4mo ago
    of course we have no way to assess this claim as there is no public software or paper to review
  - qustio 4mo ago
    But the entire corpus for Linear A is tiny, you could backfill a "translation" that has no actual similarity with the real language when properly tested against novel examples. How was this tested?

fooster 4mo ago

"amateur crank claiming" I don't know why you want to stoop to name calling which violates the guidelines and the spirit of this site. "without any critical review" is also seemingly untrue: the post says Rutgers and Cambridge are reviewing it

YeGoblynQueenne 4mo ago
The post says so. What do Rutgers and Cambridge say though? My following searches turn out no announcements by either Rutgers or Cambridge: "rutgers linguists evaluate deciphering of linear a by tom di mino" https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&sca_esv=b92336fc4f83e43b&hl=en&sxsrf=APpeQnuYnp2vNCApBHrdh3UKThvgiJtobA%3A1781911305864&ei=Cc81auSiNMGB9u8PyYTQoQM&biw=1920&bih=995&ved=0ahUKEwiky6DzuJSVAxXBgP0HHUkCNDQQ4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQXJ1dGdlcnMgbGluZ3Vpc3RzIGV2YWx1YXRlIGRlY2lwaGVyaW5nIG9mIGxpbmVhciBhIGJ5IHRvbSBkaSBtaW5vSOiiAVDKGVjqmQFwEXgAkAEAmAHGAqAB_SqqAQgwLjIzLjUuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCGaAC7QvCAggQABjvBRiwA8ICCxAAGIAEGKIEGLADwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQABiABBiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHBjE3LjYuMqAH-48BsgcFMC42LjK4B8ELwgcGMC4xOS42yAczgAgB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+d... https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&sca_esv=b92336fc4f83e43b&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&sxsrf=APpeQnvP_YtO7pQ-AUzKrC7bdE48i4veeA%3A1781911347290&ei=M881auyvEZWpxc8Pvdqn8QE&ved=0ahUKEwislYGHuZSVAxWVVPEDHT3tKR4Q4dUDCBI&oq=cambridge+linguists+evaluate+deciphering+of+linear+a+by+tom+di+mino&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiQ2NhbWJyaWRnZSBsaW5ndWlzdHMgZXZhbHVhdGUgZGVjaXBoZXJpbmcgb2YgbGluZWFyIGEgYnkgdG9tIGRpIG1pbm9I5PICUOaVAljOnQJwAngAkAEAmAGRAqABlg2qAQUwLjguMrgBDMgBAPgBAZgCAaAC2QHCAgUQABjvBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEmAMAiAYBkgcDMi0xoAf0E7IHAzItMbgH2QHCBwMyLTHIBwSACAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate...
evilfred 4mo ago
who at Rutgers and Cambridge? did he just email some random linguistics profs? why not classics? and did they respond out of genuine interest or just trying to let an enthusiastic amateur down gently? i am sorry but "crank" is the correct term for the many amateurs who routinely email mathematicians, physicists, and apparently linguists with their special theories without having any academic experience in the field. for every anecdote where it panned out there are thousands of cases where it did not.