The revolt of the reader

> A compiler for the interface your agent already has: the shell. MCP makes an agent carry every tool's schema on every turn; declick compiles an API, an MCP server, or a database once into named verbs the model loads one at a time, and every verb returns one envelope with five exit codes. A team pushes a compiled adapter to a shared folder or git checkout once and every other machine pulls it. Ten engines, zero runtime dependencies, Node 24.

What the hell would it even actually mean to have a "compiler for the shell"? How do you "compile" a database into a "named verb"? What would this mean? These notions don't meaningfully cohere together. Why exactly is an "envelope with five exit codes"? Are we getting all of the exit codes at once? That wouldn't make any sense. LLM writing is full of this kind of arbitrary collision of concepts that sound like they plausibly go together thanks to frequent co-occurrence but that have no coherent logical meaning when you apply even a modicum of critical scrutiny. This is why I find it astounding that anyone believes these things are "intelligent" and not still just fundamentally a matrix machine completing words.

My resident Qwythos-9B counts 3 "r"s in "strawberry". So even locally hosted models are catching up.

First is frequency. Even using Pangram's claimed numbers, the University of Georgia should expect to see several false positives every week. Remember that the metric is # of assignments run through Pangram, not number of students. A campus of 40k students will see many more than 40k assignments every week, and so should expect honest students to be accused of cheating with some high degree of frequency. You're comparing infrequent events (death penalty sentences) to high-frequency events (students submitting assignments).

And obviously, you are citing a company marketing document as fact, of which we should all be suspicious. (There are also obvious problems with the eval dataset that the paper does not address.)

Second, you're using the upper bound for Pangram's claimed numbers and the lower bound cited in the NIH publication.

> at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

The one commonality is that

Yeah, sure, the paragraph there is pretty bad, I admit. I was having an technical issue w/ my phone. But, look, did you really read my comment, the whole set of it? It's not even about philosophy. I'm just talking about a little /finding/ that Orwell's examples of bad-English is much better than what you usually find in your daily lives.

I'm not even arguing here, because you people avoid engaging w/ my point itself. It's more like I'm only repeating myself again and again and again. I'm not raising anything new.

> Your perspective on this is entirely wrong, starting with a mistake about the intentions of Orwell and the quality of the text (which is deliberately obtuse and plain awful in so many ways). If you can't easily interpret the biblical text, that's fine, it is quite old, but there is really no excuse for saying that Orwell is a bad writer

First, if you were talking about my first comment, I did mention that "I'm only guessing". I did clarify that I didn't read at that point. Someone replied with a link to the essay, so I read it, and only then I said "I [had] read it".

Second, I never said the original is bad. I only said the parody is pretty good, perhaps because of its brutal explicitness, which the first one lacks comparably.

Also, I've been saying that Orwell is a bad /bad-English/ writer, not a bad writer. His proficiency in English doesn't imply any proficiency in reproducing the bad-English he was criticizing. This part is childish, sure, but it was supposed to be /fun/.

> But Orwell's example here is an example of bad writing, not good, and was produced deliberately as an anti-pattern.

I totally agree here, but ...

> It has no redeeming features

... this is the part I disagree with.

Sure, on the surface, they are chokingly bad. I definitely agree that he removed certain qualities from those examples, and, for demonstration purposes, they serve the purpose.

However, if you offer those examples completely out-of-context, it's going to be difficult to dismiss them simply as bad writings. Their logical flow is very natural, and his word choices are very precise. It is much better /formulated/ than a lot of real-world bad English writings. I definitely sense /professional touches/ from those examples. That's why I said that it would take me hours, if not days, to write such sentences by myself.

In short: badly written, well formulated.