Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

arsastronomica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#41

Post by mmooss »

sweisman wrote: post #21
lordgrenville wrote: post #15

While it's really cool that this is possible now, this project seems to be a thin wrapper around running Claude. Presumably, someone who wanted to read one of these books could just run it through Claude themselves with comparable results. Sharing some artifact of your own added value, or things you learned in the process, would be more interesting to me than the output.

I can assure you this is not a thin wrapper. Even the public repo of the first workable version of it is not a thin wrapper. You are welcome to try. It is not rocket science, but what I developed would take much effort to reproduce. I wrote an origin story about how I got started: https://aicentral.substack.com/p/pipeline-to-the-past It describes some of the added value and lessons learned.

Also, people can look at the Github repo of your prior version and see it's clearly not just 'running it through Claude'.

https://github.com/sweisman/translation-pipeline

What I haven't found in either the OP or Github repo is what your background is - software development? astrophysics? paleography? two or three of those? [edit: history of science?] - and what human review is involved. (My apologies if I overlooked anything; I don't have time to read it all!)

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#42

Post by mmooss »

deluvenec wrote: post #40

As a jew: it would be better to put up a site which does not risk to create the false impression of somehow comparable contribution of early european astronomers and medieval (and not so medieval) rabbis.

Could you tell us more?: How are those groups not comparable in this context, and what do you see as the downside? And what is dishonest about the presentation?

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#44

Post by deluvenec »

mmooss wrote: post #42
deluvenec wrote: post #40

As a jew: it would be better to put up a site which does not risk to create the false impression of somehow comparable contribution of early european astronomers and medieval (and not so medieval) rabbis.

Could you tell us more?: How are those groups not comparable in this context, and what do you see as the downside? And what is dishonest about the presentation?

I said that the contributions from early european astromomers and rabbis are not comparable, and that this site risks to create the impression that they are (I edited out the dishonesty part, as I can't really know what your intention was). If Copernicus and Kepler would be on this page, perhaps this would be clearer. But I really think that one Tyho Brahe suffices. His measurements, that is.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#45

Post by mmooss »

deluvenec wrote: post #44
mmooss wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us more?: How are those groups not comparable in this context, and what do you see as the downside? And what is dishonest about the presentation?

I said that the contributions from early european astromomers and rabbis are not comparable, and that this site risks to create the impression that they are (I edited out the dishonesty part, as I can't really know what your intention was). If Copernicus and Kepler would be on this page, perhaps this would be clearer. But I really think that one Tyho Brahe suffices. His measurements, that is.

I know what the prior comment said but I (and I imagine others) don't understand it. There is a lot of context or prior reasoning left out:

In what respect are they being compared, from your perspective? How do you think they are not comparable? What is the harm of comparing them? How would Copernicus and Kepler help and what is the drawback of multiple Brahe entries?

> I can't really know what your intention was

My intention? I have nothing to do with the OP. Many assumptions jumping up here.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#46

Post by sweisman »

mmooss wrote: post #41
sweisman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you this is not a thin wrapper. Even the public repo of the first workable version of it is not a thin wrapper. You are welcome to try. It is not rocket science, but what I developed would take much effort to reproduce. I wrote an origin story about how I got started: https://aicentral.substack.com/p/pipeline-to-the-past It describes some of the added value and lessons learned.

Also, people can look at the Github repo of your prior version and see it's clearly not just 'running it through Claude'. https://github.com/sweisman/translation-pipeline What I haven't found in either the OP or Github repo is what your background is - software development? astrophysics? paleography? two or three of those? [edit: history of science?] - and what human review is involved. (My apologies if I overlooked…

Software development. I did work in an astrophysics lab decades ago, as one of my public repos documents.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#47

Post by sweisman »

deluvenec wrote: post #40

As a jew: it would be better to put up a site which does not risk to create the false impression of somehow comparable contribution of early european astronomers and medieval (and not so medieval) rabbis.

David Gans, in Nechmad v'Na'im, the first book I translated, states as a matter of fact that any wisdom obtained by the nations regarding astronomy came from the Jews. Ralbag's treatise was so significant the Vatican commissioned a Latin translation.

In any case, my email is on the site and in every book. Feel free to contact me privately to continue the discussion.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#48

Post by sweisman »

deluvenec wrote: post #44
mmooss wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us more?: How are those groups not comparable in this context, and what do you see as the downside? And what is dishonest about the presentation?

I said that the contributions from early european astromomers and rabbis are not comparable, and that this site risks to create the impression that they are (I edited out the dishonesty part, as I can't really know what your intention was). If Copernicus and Kepler would be on this page, perhaps this would be clearer. But I really think that one Tyho Brahe suffices. His measurements, that is.

Copernicus and Kepler have both been translated to English. I am focusing on works that haven't been.

Gans met and wrote about his encounters with Tycho. It was these documented encounters that drove my interest in translating the work.

In chapter 25 of the same book I mentioned, on the famous Gemara where Chaza"l concede to the chachmei goyim in Pesachim, Tycho says the Jews were right and the goyim wrong, and the Jews were wrong to concede.

Gans also met Kepler.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#49

Post by sweisman »

mmooss wrote: post #45
deluvenec wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said that the contributions from early european astromomers and rabbis are not comparable, and that this site risks to create the impression that they are (I edited out the dishonesty part, as I can't really know what your intention was). If Copernicus and Kepler would be on this page, perhaps this would be clearer. But I really think that one Tyho Brahe suffices. His measurements, that is.

I know what the prior comment said but I (and I imagine others) don't understand it. There is a lot of context or prior reasoning left out: In what respect are they being compared, from your perspective? How do you think they are not comparable? What is the harm of comparing them? How would Copernicus and Kepler help and what is the drawback of multiple Brahe entries? > I can't really know what your intention was My…

Judaism says revealed knowledge, as transmitted to us via our mesorah, is superior to empirical knowledge, such as that obtained via the scientific method.

That being said, Ralbag, as we refer to him, or Gersonides, as you do, was both a highly regarded (and controversial) rabbi and esteemed astronomer who pioneered empirical observation and measurement.

Re: Ars Astronomica – English translations of rare Hebrew and Latin astronomy texts

#50

Post by sweisman »

flir wrote: post #38
sweisman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, he's commenting on something he didn't read and compares it to shit? Good to know. I'll ignore him. I understand his point. Still, obviously my rhetorical question had in mind that what I do is good enough quality to make the question worthwhile. Better than a "first draft". As mentioned in another comment, some works were translated up to four times as I refined the process.

The thing with LLM-generated code is you can test it on a real CPU - that's a tight feedback loop with a cast-iron verification mechanism. Translations of human language have no analogous mechanism. So yes, the translation might be perfect , but until a human puts their reputation on the line and says "I certify this translation is accurate", it's still shit. It's shit because of the way it was created, not its absol…

I know what I know from experience. You know what you know from nothing at all.

Numerous people have commented to me about Hebrew and Latin works, who know what they are talking about, and none has criticized the fidelity of the translation to the source. The criticisms proffered are minor, while the praise extensive.

A couple years ago, I shared your opinion. Now I don't. You are the one who won't change your mind. Like you said, it's "philosophical" for you, while for me, it isn't. If you insist on calling it shit regardless, you are retarded.

Post reply on HN