61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misleading in what way?
AI is famous for hallucinating and misunderstanding subtle points, especially when you get away from the typical stuff it is trained on.
Check out a work or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> 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. Have these people gone on the record saying that? What are their credentials? I got to be honest, claims that some unnamed person privately told you they thought your product was good is pretty meaningless. I feel like that makes me trust you…
At least my name is public and on the record, along with my work. You are irrelevant. So is what you say.
You haven't read anything. Are you retarded or disingenuous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Have these people gone on the record saying that? What are their credentials? I got to be honest, claims that some unnamed person privately told you they thought your product was good is pretty meaningless. I feel like that makes me trust you…
I got to be honest too. At least my name is public and on the record, along with my work. You are irrelevant. So is what you say. You haven't read anything. Are you retarded or disingenuous?
C'mon man, I know criticisms of your baby feel like attacks on you, but take a step back. You must see that "the name of the author of the pipeline is public knowledge" is not a sensible response to "nobody who can read both versions has attested to its accuracy in public".
Right now, everybody believes that LLMs can't self-correct (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01798) and that they hallucinate when asked to do OCR tasks. It doesn't matter if that's true or not, that's the prevailing belief you're working against. If you want to convince people your pipeline can self-correct, you're going to need to supply evidence. I see two possibilities:
(1) Pay someone to audit one of the translations publicly.
Crucially they need to answer the question: does the pipeline introduce inaccuracy? If it does then it really is worse than useless, because it tells lies. Clunky, inconsistent, partial translations would still be better than no translation - it's the risk of hallucination that's the killer.
(2) Are you doing test runs on similar documents that have also been translated by humans? (Preferably very recent translations). Publishing those test runs would allow poor uneducated slobs like me to line up a human translation and your machine translation and see for ourselves that your pipeline works.
This is meant as helpful advice - I'm trying suggest paths that respond to valid critique with something other than bluster. I wish you and your project well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got to be honest too. At least my name is public and on the record, along with my work. You are irrelevant. So is what you say. You haven't read anything. Are you retarded or disingenuous?
But you can't read the original! That's why you built the pipeline in the first place! Only people who can read both versions can have a grounded opinion on whether or not the translation is accurate. C'mon man, I know criticisms of your baby feel like attacks on you, but take a step back. You must see that "the name of the author of the pipeline is public knowledge" is not a sensible response to "nobody who can read…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got to be honest too. At least my name is public and on the record, along with my work. You are irrelevant. So is what you say. You haven't read anything. Are you retarded or disingenuous?
But you can't read the original! That's why you built the pipeline in the first place! Only people who can read both versions can have a grounded opinion on whether or not the translation is accurate. C'mon man, I know criticisms of your baby feel like attacks on you, but take a step back. You must see that "the name of the author of the pipeline is public knowledge" is not a sensible response to "nobody who can read…
These are the kind of comments I also typically get regarding regressions. Problems with mostly mechanically repairable aspects of the translation, but not with the quality of the translation itself. From people who know of what they speak. That I do not put them on the record is not relevant, except to people like you. They are real, and their attestations are real.
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…
My comment is indeed badly written. But if you go over the further comments the submitter made, it should become clear what bothered me.
So, for clarity (and not trying to be politically correct, but just say what I think is true): there is the unfortunate tendency among today's jews, seeing their success to bring US to fight on their behalf for their interests, to see in that a proof of them to be the Chosen People - in a very concrete and materialistic way.
One of the conflicts that such point of view generates, is conflict with history: in no way scientific thinking came from Judeah, it came of course from Greece ("but how can this be? It must have been the Chosen People who invented science! Look at all these Nobel laureates!").
And the revival of the Greek thought happened with the Italian Rinascimento, and from this came Tyho Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler and so many others.
While the jews were always closed within themselves (it is not true that it was only goyim who wanted them to be in ghettos, they themselves did not want very much to go out..). And did not start to occupy themselves seriously with science at least until the Enlightenment.. and these were not rabbis.
It is not the first time I see my conationals trying to prove that it is false. One could have just laughed at this, were it not that these people are so determined in their efforts. Really, just read the submitter comments..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sorry, just now saw your comment, and sorry for mistaking you for the submitter. My comment is indeed badly written. But if you go over the further comments the submitter made, it should become clear what bothered me. So, for clarity (and not trying to be politically correct, but just say what I think is true): there is the unfortunate tendency among today's jews, seeing their success to bring US to fight on their be…
You have not provided any clarity. It's a mishmash of bitterness and anger.
There is no "of course". You are ignorant of history.
In any case, there is no connection between "invented science" centuries or millennia ago and "all these Nobel laureates."
The documentary historical record is clear. Some of the Jews in my corpus pioneered things during the Renaissance period. One is a very early documented use of decimal numbers, as one example (https://arsastronomica.com/works/immanuel-bonfils-shesh-kena...). They pioneered empirical measurement centuries before Tycho. They invented instruments relied up for astronomy and navigation.
Further, Jews who are not ignorant know that the claim of Chosenness does not rest on intelligence or accomplishments.