111–120 of 167 posts
Why wouldn't you want an LLM for a language learning tool? Language is one of things I would trust an LLM completely on. Have you ever seen ChatGPT make an English mistake?
Grammarly is all in on AI and recently started recommended splitting "wasn't" and added the contraction to the word it modified. Example: "truly wasn't" becomes "was trulyn't" https://imgur.com/a/RQZ2wXA
I'm just a bit skeptical about this quote:
> Harper takes advantage of decades of natural language research to analyze exactly how your words come together.
But it's just a rather small collection of hard-coded rules:
https://docs.rs/harper-core/latest/harper_core/linting/trait...
Where did the decades of classical NLP go? No gold-standard resources like WordNet? No statistical methods?
There's nothing wrong with this, the solution is a good pragmatic choice. It's just interesting how our collective consciousness of expansive scientific fields can be so thoroughly purged when a new paradigm arises.
LLMs have completely overshadowed ML NLP methods from 10 years ago, and they themselves replaced decades statistical NLP work, which also replaced another few decades of symbolic grammar-based NLP work.
Progress is good, but it's important not to forget all those hard-earned lessons, it can sometimes be a real superpower to be able to leverage that old toolbox in modern contexts. In many ways, we had much more advanced methods in the 60s for solving this problem than what Harper is doing here by naively reinventing the wheel.
I would much rather check my writing against grammatical rules that are hard coded in an open source program—meaning that I can change them—than ones that I imagine would be subject to prompt fiddling or worse; implicitly hard coded in a tangle of training data that the LLM would draw from. The Neovim configuration for the LSP looks neat: https://writewithharper.com/docs/integrations/neovim The whole thing seems cool…
You would lose out on evolution of language.
Are languages other than English also supported? Or is this for English only?
> We currently only support English and its dialects British, American, Canadian, and Australian. Other languages are on the horizon, but we want our English support to be truly amazing before we diversify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The existence of common slang which isn't used in the sort of formal writing that grammar linting tools are typically designed to promote is more of a weakness of learning grammar by a weighted model of the internet vs formal grammatical rules than a strength. Not an insurmountable problem, ChatGPT will use "aight fam" only in context-sensitive ways and will remove it if you ask to rephrase to sound more like a profe…
Huh, this is the first time I've seen "noughties" used to describe the first decade of the 2000s. Slightly amusing that it's surely pronounced like "naughties". I wonder if it'll catch on and spread.
IMO not using LLMs is a big plus in my book. Grammarly has been going downhill since they've been larding it with "AI features," it has become remarkably inconsistent. It will tell me to remove a comma one hour, and then tell me to add it back the next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The existence of common slang which isn't used in the sort of formal writing that grammar linting tools are typically designed to promote is more of a weakness of learning grammar by a weighted model of the internet vs formal grammatical rules than a strength. Not an insurmountable problem, ChatGPT will use "aight fam" only in context-sensitive ways and will remove it if you ask to rephrase to sound more like a profe…
Huh, this is the first time I've seen "noughties" used to describe the first decade of the 2000s. Slightly amusing that it's surely pronounced like "naughties". I wonder if it'll catch on and spread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, this is the first time I've seen "noughties" used to describe the first decade of the 2000s. Slightly amusing that it's surely pronounced like "naughties". I wonder if it'll catch on and spread.
‘Noughties’ was popular in Australia from 2010 onwards. Radio stations would “play the best from the eighties nineties noughties and today”.
I never understood the appeal of grammar tools. If you have reached the minimum professional/academic level needed to be designated to write something, shouldn't you at least be capable of verifying its semantic "correctness" just by reading through it once yourself? Why would you pass a writing job to someone who isn't 100% fluent in the language and then make up for it by buying complex tools?