• 3 Posts
  • 153 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月4日

help-circle
  • Some of it is driven by translation agencies, which will refer work to freelance translators.

    I would say the biggest gap is that many customers aren’t even bothering to use translators at all, and the ones that do realize it needs fixing up don’t really understand the work involved, many people misunderstand translation as being a 1-1 process, and think that Machine translation got you most of the way there.

    It’s also the are we willing to pay that much more, when the shitty translation is “good enough”.

    One big issue is that translation as a low barrier of entry, and many people will accept stupid work at stupid rates, and to keep rates high you have to prove the added value.

    (Proving the added value as also gotten harder, as some clients even more often than before will “correct” your work before publish it, as highlighted in the article)








  • I attempted a point by point sneer, but there is a bit too much silliness and not enough cohesion to produce something readable.

    So focusing on “Post-critique”:

    OP misspels of some of his “enemy” authors, in a way directly cribbed from Wikipedia suggesting no real analysis.

    […], such texts included Ricouer’s Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition, and Kierkegaard’s works […]

    Ricouer should be Ricœur or at the very least Ricoeur. (Incidentally OP also makes a very poor summary of his work)

    Complete and arbitrary marriage of epistemic post-critique and literary post-critique, which as far as I can see have nothing to do with each other beyond sharing a name, and in fact even seem a bit at odds with each other in how they relate to recontextualisation.

    I would say this is obviously bot vomit, but I have known humans to be this lazy and thickheaded.





  • Oof on the part of the author though:

    Eliezer Yudkowsky: Nope.

    Algernoq (the blogpost author): I assume this is a “Nope, because of secret author evidence that justifies a one-word rebuttal” or a “Nope, you’re wrong in several ways but I have higher-value things to do than retype the sequences”. (Also, it’s an honor; I share your goal but take a different road.) […]

    Richard_Kennaway: What goal do you understand yourself to share with Eliezer, and what different road?

    Algernoq: I don’t deserve to be arrogant here, not having done anything yet. The goal: I had a sister once, and will do what I can to end death. The road: I’m working as an engineer (and, on reflection, failing to optimize) instead of working on existential risk-reduction. My vision is to build realistic (non-nanotech) self-replicating robots to brute-force the problem of inadequate science funding. I know enough mechanical engineering but am a few years away from knowing enough computer science to do this.






  • Subjectively speaking:

    1. Pre-LLM summaries were for the most part actually short.
    2. They were more directly lifted from human written sources, I vaguely remember lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits by newspapers over google infoboxes and copyright infringement in pre-2019 days, but i couldn’t find anything very conclusive with a quick search.
    3. They didn’t have the sycophantic—hey look at me I’m a genius—overly-(and wrong)-detailed tone that the current batch has.