Mine was "deauthenticate". Very surprising it isn't considered a legitimate word.
This word does not exist
181–190 of 432 posts
Re: This word does not exist
#182gassler
a person who maintains an attractive appearance by striking or beating up other people
"she's been a good ass gassler"
Re: This word does not exist
#183I actually got a real word, albeit with an incorrect definition.
adjective.
nonexclusionary
nonex·clu·sion·ary
of or concerning people or organizations that don't receive due respect
"nonexclusionary criticism of religion"
a word that does not exist; it was invented, defined and used by a machine learning algorithm.Re: This word does not exist
#184adjective. unprestigious un·pres·ti·gious (of a person) strong, imposing, or impressive "an unprestigious figure during his lifetime"``` ( https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/u749 ) Hmm. I think it might need some more work. I mean, there's a strong argument that unprestigious is not a word, but if it was, that certainly would not be the meaning.
Or it might be OK. After all, loosening and unloosening your shoe laces is the same thing.
Re: This word does not exist
#185Next level: use these words in definitions of other words, not just examples.
Re: This word does not exist
#186Author here! Funny to see this at the top of HN today -- happy to answer any questions (source code is here https://github.com/turtlesoupy/this-word-does-not-exist ) Shameless plug for my other "this x does not exist": This Fucked Up Homer Does Not Exist https://www.thisfuckeduphomerdoesnotexist.com/
No specific question, but thank you for the highly entertaining (and interesting) site; I've had a blast with it.
"A Way With Words" would probably love this.
Re: This word does not exist
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computers aren't creative; the excitement about GPT-3 is humans projecting something into its output or filtering the small number of bits that appear to make sense, as you say. Neural language models are just recycling bits that humans have said before, they address well the "how to say" part of NLG (Natural Language Generation) but fail with respect to the "what to say" part.
I was starting to write a response, and realised how patterned the debate is. We've been discussing the topic of machine intelligence since the start of CS and points of contention tend to show up in the same places. Anyway, it occured to me that if given 10 tries, GPT-3 probably produces my comment adequately. I have an uneasy suspicion that it might take fewer tries than that... especially if prompted with "netcan,…
I’m predictable ergo AI.
Re: This word does not exist
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computers aren't creative; the excitement about GPT-3 is humans projecting something into its output or filtering the small number of bits that appear to make sense, as you say. Neural language models are just recycling bits that humans have said before, they address well the "how to say" part of NLG (Natural Language Generation) but fail with respect to the "what to say" part.
> the small number of bits that appear to make sense. What I find most impressive is just how much of it's output appears to make sense. Of course "make sense" is the critical part of this. It's skin deep - but still quite astonishing fairly frequently.
is it skin deep though?
Re: This word does not exist
#189Re: This word does not exist
#190First word I got was disability!