I read that the British word posh comes from Port Out - Starboard Home, which is the type of UK to US return ticket you’d get, if you could afford it, to have a cabin facing the sun both ways.
I’m sure it outperforms the general population since most people can’t code a hello world, or regurgitate an answer to a problem they have been trained to answer but have no understanding of like ChatGPT can. But if a minimally competent human gave me a completely nonsensical answer to a question they haven’t seen before, the way ChatGPT does so confidently, I would think one of us had a stroke.
I would expect a journalist who never had do think through a theory of computation course to make breathless claims that ChatGPT can “solve programming problems“, but I’m pretty surprised to hear so many people who have jobs in tech repeating these claims, especially since all it would take them to trip up ChatGPT is a few seconds to type in a slightly unfamiliar or non-trivial question. It’s like a kind of second-order Turing test: if you think ChatGPT can program, you’re not a real programmer.
"Bard is much worse than ChatGPT at solving an obscure word game I invented" would have been a more honest title, but would probably generate less clicks for the author.
Bard may still be much worse than ChatGPT at solving all kinds of puzzles, but the article is click bait for promoting the author's word game, not an actual investigation that warrants that conclusion.
Having read through the word game, I agree with others that it's good that the game is less likely to be in the corpus. I think rhyming, while a challenging task, may be a poor benchmark for ability. The author doesn't seem to understand rhyming too well (cactus practice is a weak rhyme at best)
I completely disagree with the "hasty rhyming test" - Skeleton and Gelatin don't rhyme (-ton vs -tin), and rhyme worse than protein and poutine (-een vs --een).
> The author doesn't seem to understand rhyming too well (cactus practice is a weak rhyme at best)
cactus / practice ?
they rhyme to my mind
skeleton / gelatin ?
also rhyme to my ears
protein / poutine
also rhyme enough to be considered to rhyme
You appear to be operating under the impression that the every syllable of a rhyming couplet has to rhyme exactly for it to be considered a rhyme. This is an incorrect assumption. In fact, the above rhymes are arguably more pleasing because they are inexact rhymes rather than being exact forced rhymes.
In your world the only actual rhymes would be
bold / cold / gold
and
double / trouble / bubble
types of rhymes but the world considers the following to be perfectly acceptable
What most people consider a rhyme is that the vowel and coda of the last syllable match (of course we don't mostly reach for the technical definition).
I guess the examples there might be accent dependent. Protein/poutine is the only one of those first examples that really rhymes to me; skeleton/gelatin and cactus/practice both have different vowels. Maybe different for you though.
> What most people consider a rhyme is that the vowel and coda of the last syllable match
??? Oh yeah, says who?
protein / poutine
p[]oh teen / poo teen => both start with a p, then there's an oh or oo (which are similar) and both end the same way – disyllabic rhyme
cactus / practice ?
[]ah ck təss / []ah ck tiss => ignoring the first consonant (cluster) which anchors the rhyme and pronouncing the u as a schwa (which it is), the ck's are the same and təss and tiss are totes similar – disyllabic rhyme
skeleton / gelatin ?
trisyllabic goodness – again, the way we pronounce the on in first word is not like the on in frond but like the ən in motion (UHn) and the way we pronounce the at in the second word is not like the at in bat or cat but like the ət in … hmm, none spring to mind but it's an UHt sound here if you listen to it – sgɛ́lɪtən or ˈskelɪtən – ˈʤelətɪn – so you've k vying with g (both hard), e with e, l with l, ɪ with ə (close sounding!), t with t, ə with ɪ (close sounding!), n with n
> Protein and poutine do not rhyme if you pronounce poutine the proper way in Canadian French.
I looked it up, and sure, it sounds about the same in Canadian French as someone saying Vladimir Putin[1]. But I've never heard anyone say it that way myself, and in neutral French (according to the linked video, at least), it's pronounced 'pooh-teen', which sounds exactly like protein (I don't know if you pronounce protein different, but for me it's 'pro-teen').
> You appear to be operating under the impression that the every syllable of a rhyming couplet has to rhyme exactly for it to be considered a rhyme
I'm not operating under that impression, but the author is [1].
To me, the final "sounds" should match - not every syllable, an end rhyme according to wiki [0]. Specifically I would consider a rhyme to require matching sounds "at least from last vowel to end", but I don't think of rhymes first from the strict definition. Perhaps it's an accent thing but "-us" in cactus is not the same sound as "-ice" in practice. If a child made a poem with these sounds I would tell them "good job, it's a rhyme", and perhaps for the purpose of a silly word game too. But I would not use it as a passing case for a test of any sort like the author.
What's more pleasing is irrelevant, what is relevant is if its a true rhyme.
> Perhaps it's an accent thing but "-us" in cactus is not the same sound as "-ice" in practice.
Indeed, it's an accent thing. In America at least, pronouncing "cactus" with an "is" or an "us" sound are both valid.
I think that given that the author provided a working definition, and your provided failure example is actually passing that definition (just only for the author's dialect), and given that you are now essentially trying to change the subject to "my definition of rhyme is the correct one"; well, you're just being...pedantic? argumentative? I'm not sure.
In the article, I mention that Twofer Goofer requires perfect or strict rhyme. Perfect and strict rhyme require that all syllables are pronounced identically in the speaker's tongue (for me, American Midwest accent), except for the first sound of the word which can vary.
Hence pooh-teen and proh-tein do not rhyme. Skell-ih-tin and Gell-ih-tin do rhyme.
A game like this requires a pretty tight rhyming definition to not annoy players in a given day!
the use of novel puzzles is frankly awesome because there's a much lower chance of contamination from previous puzzles so we get a chance to see how much generalization they've achieved.
GPT-4 says: A more accurate and balanced title might be: "Comparing Bard and ChatGPT in Puzzle Solving: An Examination within the Context of a Word Game"
The world is much better than it used to be, you’re just more aware of all the present evil because the evidence is so much easy to gather, disseminate, and search for.
Nobody was aware of the extent of police criminality before everyone had a camera in their pocket, as just one example.
At the time, Google was the default search engine for Safari. Apple could have changed their opinion on that.
Google was also trying very hard to build and maintain a coalition of smaller browsers (at the time) that can compete with IE's complete stranglehold on the technical web ecosystem by virtue of its sheer mass. Apple is a notoriously fickle partner in any kind of technical coalition (note how they got bored with other companies dragging their heels on the usb-c standard and released their own standard several years earlier). They had the leverage of both their own browser and their mobile phone platform to position against Google or towards Microsoft if they chose to.
Meh, even without the mobile platform, which they didn’t have in 2005, there were no good alternatives to Google search then and switching the default to something else would have hurt Safari more than Google. My money is on the bidding war.
Don't underestimate Jobs's willingness to be a petty asshole. At that time, Yahoo was still in play and Apple could even have been willing to back MSN.
History might have played out very differently if most search traffic from the Apple platform was going through MSN instead of Google.
I don't recall comparing your comments with a chat bot but go off. Or, well, I'd prefer it if you didn't. Sometimes my replies get people to stop but if you'd like to not be in that group I guess I can't stop you.
I really really like it, just like I really really like what's his name being deplatformed. I like it even more that I can't readily remember his name, right, Alex Jones. YouTube has no duty to be a platform for Diamond and Silk in scrubs.
It has no legal duty to be a platform, nor to deplatform. It arguably has moral duties: to facilitate free discussion, and to remove harmful material. In this case there's a clear clash between the two that will make a lot of readers nervous.
Why does it have the moral duty, when you signed it away in the TOS when you used their service? Host your own videos if you don't like it or better yet build a better platform that is censorship-resistant.
I'm not super familiar with YouTube's policy on this, but apparently they decided to curb what they deem to be COVID-19 misinformation. I completely agree that what these two are doing is spreading misinformation, this is not anywhere in the range of a seasonal flu, the numbers are clear on that.
It's very naive to think that what these two are doing is a good faith attempt to present a dissenting opinion. If someone wants to use this tragedy as an opportunity to launch their right-wing media career I don't think YouTube is obliged to be an accomplice.
As for my opinions being silenced, if I ever yell fire in a theater, or tell people to drink poison laced Kool-Aid, or tell them to ignore this pandemic, I hope I get what's coming to me.
Have you seen Trump’s press conferences? You’d have to censor half the stuff he says, or half the stuff the right wing pushes. The Heritage Foundation is literally on a media blitz right now on Youtube pushing the Wuhan Lab outbreak theory (which I entertain as something that needs inspection, but I’m rethinking the whole thing now that I know one of the lying think-tanks that propagated the Iraq War narrative is cooking up some new bullshit).
Censoring misinformation on YouTube is like censoring porn. Wait, I guess something as absurd as that actually exists in Japan.
Alright, never mind, humanity has no bounds, continue on in your paradoxical ways.
Censor the flat-earthers while you’re at it at, at least we know that’s bullshit for sure.
And what happens when you yell fire in a movie theater and they silence you when it's true? It's not just about the "incorrect" content that's posted on Youtube, it's also the correct content that gets censored. How else would we learn about the water that makes the frogs gay?
Censorship is a fickle friend. It's great, until you inevitably find that you hold a minority, unpopular opinion on an issue.
Your flippant remark indicates a lack of deep thinking on this issue, and once I googled Diamond and Silk, I realize that your probably a bit of a partisan as well.
The removal of Alex Jones didn't help anything. It just helped reinforce the paranoia he and his supporters have, which is that a vast conspiracy exists to silence him and others who believe his theories.
Those supporters now listen to him on whatever alternate platform (my brother in law is one of them) and it's even harder to talk to them now due to the Youtube cancellation.
You feel better emotionally because he's off Youtube. Feels like a victory for you, doesn't it? It's hollow.
My brother-in-law just listens even more rabidly, and he votes. Enjoy your false victory. Jones is stronger than ever now. Censorship doesn't work. It never will.
