asteckley > 07-07-2026, 04:03 PM
(07-07-2026, 03:18 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So if you're using a chatbot/LLM like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini for your posts here, please use it for strict translation (I presume from Italian to English) of the words you have written, and don't permit it to alter your text any more than that.
ololololo > 07-07-2026, 04:40 PM
(07-07-2026, 04:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's nothing wrong with using AI as an auxiliary tool. But if that's the only thing you use, it's a big problem(07-07-2026, 03:18 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So if you're using a chatbot/LLM like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini for your posts here, please use it for strict translation (I presume from Italian to English) of the words you have written, and don't permit it to alter your text any more than that.
Unfortunately such a Ludditian policy is a losing battle. AI-assisted rewriting of emails, articles, forum posts, and general prose is already becoming the norm, and it isn't going away. The tools for it are built-in to most editors at this point.
The real issue isn't whether AI helped polish someone's wording. The issue is whether the post contains clear, honest, substantive reasoning. Bad AI writing should be criticized as bad writing. Empty “AI slop” should called out as empty slop. But treating any AI-assisted wording as unacceptable is an outdated standard that will be impossible to enforce and increasingly detached from how people actually starting to write things now.
Whether we like it or not, the onus is being forced back onto readers, who will have to judge an argument for itself: Is it coherent? Is it supported? Can the person defend its claims? That matters far more than whether a language tool helped clean up the prose, regardless of whether any language translating involved.
But I don't think this research is dependent on AI, or if it is, it's not a significant factor.
Vuk88 > 07-07-2026, 04:44 PM
(07-07-2026, 12:43 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-07-2026, 11:00 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my transcription of the Starred Parags section ("Quire 20"), these are the string doublets and their frequencies, ignoring spaces and line breaks but not parag breaks: [...]
I re-counted the string doublets in the Starred Parags section after "correcting" m -> iin, ir -> iin, hh -> he. The only significant changes were aiinaiin rising from (4) to (29), and daiindaiin rising from (4) to (10).
The corrected file has N = 56817 EVA letters (including '?'). The string daiin occurs 415 times, and aiin occurs 1774 times (including 415 as part of daiin). By the same reasoning as before, the string doublet aiinaiin should occur ~55 times, so the actual count (29) is a bit too low. The doublet daiindaiin should occur only ~3 times, so the actual count (10) is somewhat notable.
All the best, --stolfi
Mauro > 07-07-2026, 04:47 PM
Jorge_Stolfi > 07-07-2026, 05:35 PM
(07-07-2026, 04:47 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point raised by @dashstofks in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and later @nablator in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (on which word is more often duplicated in the text) is yet to be adressed.
Aga Tentakulus > 07-07-2026, 06:12 PM
(07-07-2026, 05:35 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and the fact that they were compiled by the same Author and penned by the same Scribe.
Vuk88 > 07-07-2026, 08:03 PM
(07-07-2026, 06:12 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-07-2026, 05:35 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and the fact that they were compiled by the same Author and penned by the same Scribe.
If that were actually the case, the colour of the ink and the hand might change, but not the style of writing, as there is, after all, only one author.
Some things can be seen but not calculated.
Keep your eyes off the computer screen.
Aga Tentakulus > 08-07-2026, 07:09 AM
Jorge_Stolfi > 08-07-2026, 07:34 AM
(07-07-2026, 06:12 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[images of f81v]
Aga Tentakulus > 08-07-2026, 08:06 AM
(08-07-2026, 07:34 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are differences in the shapes of some glyphs on different pages, sure; but by that criterion we should conclude that each token in the VMS was written by a different Scribe. Maybe even each glyph of each word.