The Bible is too well-known a text that is too represented in training datasets for this _not_ to be skewed towards poorly reproducing existing translations.
Beyond that,
>there are hallucinations and issues
seems like a deal-killer for a religious text. Yes, all translation by humans is an act of interpretation on some level, and so there's lossiness in all translation – but the difference between a human carefully weighing their reasoning for a particular choice of rendering vs. an LLM that is basically weighted dice that might land totally wrong is a categorically-different thing, not a question of degrees.
Not to be too much of a devil's advocate (ha!), but I kindof think I _want_ it to have biblical translation data in the dataset. So long as it's not simply copying something like the KJV or ESV into the output, then this should be a good thing, right?
Because much of what it produces (especially in the "poetic" mode) does seem to be very much "off the beaten path" for a good number of renditions.
I don't think that the goal would be to have a dataset that is completely free from scholarship on the topic of Biblical translation, but rather to synthesize the rules and principles from the collected body of knowledge and apply it (with steering) to the entire Biblical text.
This is definitely one area where the training set for the LLM is liable to be polluted by existing translations and even straight memorized english biblical text.
I had a history professor who would often use a similar preamble phrase. His was "And SO IT IS that we see that..."
It worked to get our attention partly because of the time it took to say all that, and partly because it was so idiosyncratic that it sorta became a running joke.
I remember one session in particular.
This was a summer class, and as such each class session was around 2 hours long. The professor would typically give us (and himself) a 10-minute break in the middle of the class, and generally if you hung around the room, he'd strike up a more casual conversation in the room.
This was also not long after Michael Jackson died. The conversation got onto him and his life and his mixed legacy of scandal, went on for a while, and somehow made its way to one student observing that (and I quote): "he lived the American dream – he started out as a poor black boy and grew up to be a rich white man."
The room sorta hung in uneasy suspense at how the professor would respond.
"...and SO IT IS that we see that the Mongol conquest...", he said, launching noticeably-abruptly (and with a bit of a knowing grin) back into the course material.
He was generally a good-natured dude like that. His voice sounded a little unusual, and I guess some students thought he sounded like Kermit the Frog. He came back into the room after a bathroom break once to find someone had drawn Kermit on the whiteboard behind where he usually stood when speaking. He saw it, stopped, visibly pondered what to do with it, and drew a speech bubble from Kermit saying something like "the Silk Road" (or whatever it was were about to cover; it's been quite a few years and I don't remember the specific topic).
Americans don't need money to fight. I was paid $0 with the YPG and had to bankroll my own time. Lots of Americans there. I met a lot of them that didn't even really give a shit about the sides of the war, they just needed to fight something. We're a savage people.
Which historically has worked more for us, than against us.
Because dealerships are the automakers' real customers, at least right now.
You don't buy a vehicle from Ford; your local Ford dealership buys a large number of vehicles from Ford, and then you buy one of those.
Yes, an argument could be made that eliminating the dealership keeps the same customer base while eliminating the middleman (see also: Carvana), but now you have a lot more cost and logistics (shipping individual cars to individuals' homes, for example, rather than shipping truckloads to a single well-known spot) and unless you're willing to do the Carvana/CarMax thing of offering a 7-day return window (which adds even more cost and logistics and risk), the average American customer won't feel as comfortable buying a vehicle sight-unseen from across the country as they would if they could sit in the thing while a salesperson pitches it to them.
That means you're taking on whole new category of cost and risk, while assuming that you won't lose any of your incoming revenue.
That's kinda a big assumption, and the major established/legacy/whatever-you-call-them automakers aren't known for having a high risk appetite.
Or the manufacturers just run what look exactly like traditional dealerships, just without the stupid crap that no customers want. It can’t be that hard or expensive. It’s a parking lot and a small office building.
Every state in the country prohibits car manufacturers from competing with their franchised dealerships. At the minimum the manufacturer would have to stop using dealerships altogether. And about a third of states only have narrow exemptions that only apply to EV-only manufacturers or manufacturers that never had franchises at the time the law had passed.
I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"; it seems like a vastly-scoped rule with far too many exceptions (and that can prevent learning any lessons from the life of the deceased). Forgive the Godwin's law, but: did that rule apply to Hitler? If not, then there's a line somewhere where it stops being a good rule (if it ever was one to begin with) – and I'd feel confident saying that there's no real consensus about where that "cutover" occurs.
To me, comments like "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" rings less of vitriol and more of a kind of mourning for who the man became, and the loss of his life (and thus the loss of any chance to grow beyond who he became).
That rings empathetic and sorrowful to me, which seems pretty decent in my book.
Because the dead can't respond or defend themselves. That's why you don't do it.
And it's the framing of the statement that is the problem. They didn't say "I disagreed with Scott" or "I didn't like Scott"; they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth. "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" makes it seem like he did something wrong and there is some universal truth to be had, when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views. It's persuasion, which ironically I think Scott would have liked.
> they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth
"the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people; just get the fuck away"
It is true that this is an evil and racist thing to say.
> when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views
white supremacism isn't just a small policy difference.
If you hold hateful beliefs in which you believe certain people are inferior based on superficial traits like skin colour, why should you expect to be treated with respect? I disrespect such people because I don't respect them, I am if nothing else being sincere.
>Everyone's views, evern yours, are abhorrent to at least some other person on the planet.
Yes and I accept that they won't respect me. I do not demand that they respect me, it's fine, of course they won't respect me if they find me abhorrent. I don't care.
>The grown up thing is to accept that and still be able to hold meaningful dialogue.
Not really, I don't debate every one and every topic. It's totally valid to just write people off as bastards based on their behaviour and move on with your life.
Why is questioning a historical event abhorrent behavior? Every historical event is fair game except for one, even historical events where far more people died due to their religions or cultural affiliations. There's only one we aren't allowed to question however. We even have special made-up terms to describe people that question this one specific event. We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
>We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
Sure we do, there are lots of things (usually genocides) that are considered crass or hateful to deny or downplay (let's be honest he was downplaying, he certainly wasn't suggesting the numbers were underestimated!)
I guess it comes down to this: If you're an already racist nut job and start questioning the holocaust, then I assume you're acting in bad faith and are racist. Anything else would be supremely naive, sorry, I don't have to be infinitely credulous.
And yet, there is only one event that has laws that protect it from being questioned. You said there are lots of things, but failed to mention even one.
Your first link seems like he was just trolling. He says "intelligent design" and then defines it in a way that nobody else would.
> What he means by intelligent design is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. We are overwhelmingly likely to be “copies” of some other humans who intelligently designed us, in a virtual reality.
That seems to have been pretty common with him. "I believe in X. And by X I mean Y. Look at all these people talking about X, aren't they stupid?"
> I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"
Agree. Much more hurtful to speak ill of the living. I can even see both R's and D's as people suffering in the duality of the world and have compassion for them. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
You don't even really need to invoke Godwin's law, since you can just ask the same question about financier to the billionaires Jeffrey Epstein or beloved British presenter Sir Jimmy Savile (presented without speaking ill of the dead).
And that's great, as long as you're totally cool with access to _any_ of your accounts _anywhere_ being completely controlled by either Apple or Google.
I'm struggling to figure out how you really believe this.
Even if you didn't bother to actually read reporting or see images from the ground of children being shot in their mothers' arms by the IDF and such real horrors perpetrated against civilians who are obviously and visibly non-combatants, it's puzzling how nothing in the hyperbolic, propagandic tone of the alleged quote leads you to question its veracity (or even makes you look twice at taking Russia Today TV as a trustworthy source).
> Even if you didn't bother to actually read reporting or see images from the ground of children being shot in their mothers' arms by the IDF and such real horrors perpetrated against civilians who are obviously and visibly non-combatants, it's puzzling how nothing in the hyperbolic, propagandic tone of the alleged quote leads you to question its veracity (or even makes you look twice at taking Russia Today TV as a trustworthy source).
You realize getting civilians killed by using them as human shields is an actual Hamas strategy(and war crime) right?[0]
Beyond that,
>there are hallucinations and issues
seems like a deal-killer for a religious text. Yes, all translation by humans is an act of interpretation on some level, and so there's lossiness in all translation – but the difference between a human carefully weighing their reasoning for a particular choice of rendering vs. an LLM that is basically weighted dice that might land totally wrong is a categorically-different thing, not a question of degrees.
reply