Lvxferre

When it comes to how people feel about AI translation, there is a definite distinction between utility and craft. Few object to using AI in the same way as a dictionary, to discern meaning. But translators, of course, do much more than that. As Dawson puts it: “These writers are artists in their own right.”

That’s basically my experience.

LLMs are useful for translation in three situations:

• declension/conjugation table - faster than checking a dictionary
• listing potential translations for a word or expression
• a second row of spell/grammar-proofing, just to catch issues that you didn’t

Past that, LLM-based translations are a sea of slop: they screw up with the tone and style, add stuff not present in the original, repeat sentences, remove critical bits, pick unsuitable synonyms, so goes on. All the bloody time.

And if you’re handling dialogue, they will fuck it up even in shorter excerpts, by making all characters sound the same.

How much time until this bot gets banned by “harassment”?

Predictable outcome for anyone not wallowing in wishful belief.

shrug them off

That seems like a good compromise. I’d be probably doing the same if anyone from my family complained about it.

I hate when people use my shoulder as support, as I’m showing them something. Simply… don’t, okay?

At least when in family I drink straight from the bowl. With the spoon (sometimes chopsticks) being only for the solid bits.

A 5y ban is a permaban under another name. By then the user already disengaged the community, or circumvented the ban.

I used to moderate a forum some years ago, with incremental bans. It was warning, warning, 1d, 3d, 7d, 15d, 1m, permaban.

It does not work well. For good users the system is irrelevant, they drop the behaviour after a single warning; shitty users keep the same behaviour even after the short bans are over, and then evade the larger bans, so you’re basically taking multiple mod actions for what could be handled with a single one.

Eventually the forum shifted into a “three warnings and you’re permabanned” system, but by then I wasn’t a mod there any more so I don’t know how well it worked.

No. But I think that it’s often poorly used.

Most users are reasonable and should be treated as such by default; a simple warning goes a long way. Sometimes an overall good user is being really shitty so you ban them for, like, a week? Just to let them chill their head.

Permaban is for the exceptions. It’s for users who cannot be reasoned with, will likely behave in a shitty way in the future, and have a negative impact on the community.

Petition to keep Chile in place because I need my semi-cheap booze and if they’re moved as a bridge between Spain and Canada I’ll need to pay more for that booze.

Easier: n(13-n).

In this context “politics” clearly conveys “things directly related to governments, such as wars, elections, or socio-economical ideologies”. It is only a subset of the definition of politics that you’re probably using, something like “things direct or indirectly related to human groups and their conflicts of interest”.

We got a whole Lemmy to talk about Israel vs. Hamas, late stage capitalism, elections etc. We could - and should - have at least one community to chill and talk about other stuff, and without that rule we won’t have it. For example without that rule 99.99999% of the content as of late 2024 would be about Trump, as if Americans didn’t have multiple communities to talk about it already.

Ginger with turmeric? Now that’s something I need to try. Thanks for the rec!

Ginger. But only because I refuse to call yerba mate “tea”.

[Just to be clear for everyone: I’m describing the issue, not judging anyone. I’m in no position to criticise the OP.]

The unfamiliar vocab is just the cherry on the cake. The main issue is that it’s hard to track everything; at least, when reading it for the first time. And most people don’t bother reading an excerpt enough times to understand it.

Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.

Almost nobody, I believe. And I’d go further: I don’t think that most people read longer texts that would “train” them for this sort of stuff.

We’re both interpreting it slightly different ways:

• you - the utterance is specific, the speaker is unspecified
• me - “utterance” is a placeholder for “discourse”, the speaker is whoever answers the question

To be honest this is really cool. Now I’m curious if one of us got it right, or if we’re both reading it wrong.

As you said in the other comment, the sentence is grammatically OK¹. However, it’s still a huge sentence, with a few less common words (e.g. “utterance”), split into two co-ordinated clauses, and both clauses are by themselves complex.

To add injury there’s quite a few ways to interpret “over the airwaves” (e.g. is this just radio, or does the internet count too?)

So people are giving up parsing the whole thing.

I also write like this, in a convoluted way², but I kind of get why people gave up.

1. I’m not sure if it’s semantically OK due to the word “utterance”.
2. Except when translating stuff, since I’m forced to roughly follow the “informational layout” of the original. That’s usually a PITA but it helps wonder for clarity!

My most controversial discourse* can be roughly phrased as “screw intentions”, “your intentions don’t matter”, “go pave Hell with your «intenshuns»”. It isn’t a single utterance*; I say stuff like this all the time, and regardless of the utterance used to convey said discourse, people will still disagree with it.

The one that I’m sometimes at fault is “people who assume are pieces of shit and deserve to be treated as such”. Because sometimes it is reasonable to assume (to take something as true even if you don’t know it for sure); just nowhere as much as people do.

*I’m being specific with terminology because it’s a big deal for me. “Discourse” is what you say, regardless of the specific words; “utterance” is a specific chain of language usage (be it voiced, gestured, written, etc.)

wtf does this even mean

OP is asking two things:

• the most controversial shit that you say
• the shit that you say and think “mmh, maybe I’m wrong but I’ll keep saying it”

…or at least that’s how I interpreted it.