Talk like Paul Dirac – less words is better
This is the entire contents of my home dir AGENTS.md file now.
Does it help reduce the slop you have to read for you the same way it feels like it does it for me?
Does it help reduce the slop you have to read for you the same way it feels like it does it for me?
21 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadEdit: fixed now: less words -> fewer words
- Less + uncountable noun (money, energy, code, sand)
- fewer + countable noun (trees, cars, grains, volts, coins)
If instead we prefer to attribute it to class and say using the correct or wrong way is a class signifier and that both are correct, and that language depends on usage and there are no grammar rules really but only consensus, we can also do that. But then "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?".
I prefer the first one.
You always have authorities like dictionaries and English usage references. There are some supporting each side of this debate in the link above.
> if a substantial body of people use English in a way that you dislike then it's just tough shit I'm afraid
There is no need for that language. hn is supposed to be a place of civil (and playful) discussion. I also already anticipated that take in my post.
> If instead we prefer to attribute it to class and say using the correct or wrong way is a class signifier and that both are correct, and that language depends on usage and there are no grammar rules really but only consensus, we can also do that
> You don't speak Elizabethan English, or Regency English, or late Saxon, or Old English, but you presumably don't think those are "wrong"
Because nobody actually talks like that, that's why. Joking. You introduced the time dimension, which complicates the comparison. If somebody claimed those are all correct ways of speaking in modern English, and only class signifiers, in that context, I would say they are wrong.
In general I dislike this nihilist "truth does not exist" nobody-is-wrong take. That is why I prefer the simple rule with countable and uncountable without the class excuse. Ultimately both takes are valid, but I find the second one too nihilist for my taste.
If people one day start saying "me thinks this good" you might find yourself changing sides arguing that truth does, in fact, exist.
You did. Quote "It may annoy you,". But nevermind.
> You're entitled to believe that some grammatical forms are "wrong" and I'm entitled to have no respect for that opinion.
I think you also believe this, we only disagree in which grammatical forms. Or are you arguing that "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" is grammatically correct?
If you are, then it is consistent with your popular-makes-correct approach; if not, then we agree and only disagree on where the line is.
No bad feelings anyway. Nice chat.
>> You did. Quote "It may annoy you,". But nevermind.
You misinterpret. It may annoy you. It may not. A cat may look at a king.
>> I think you also believe this, we only disagree in which grammatical forms. Or are you arguing that "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" is grammatically correct?
I'm arguing that the question is meaningless. Some will sound correct to my ear. Some will not. Some will sound correct to nobody. None of them are "wrong" because there is no authority beyond convention to dictate which is "correct" - and conventions differ between different users of language.
I would never say "on accident" but it would be fatuous to say that it was "wrong" just because I don't use it when millions do.
> ...only disagree on where the line is.
I don't really agree that there's a line. If one person uses an unconventional construction is it wrong? Not really, though they may be hard to understand. Or not. Half the art of great usage of the language is coming up with unconventional forms.
> No bad feelings anyway. Nice chat.
None felt, none intended. Likewise.
* a great scientist (which hopefully encourages researching and verifying answers)
* a person who doesn't like to use many words at all
The later hopefully compensates the apparent "output-prose-greediness" most models seem to have. No idea if that "token greedines" (or slop) is a result from the companies business models or inherent for the models and their training :/
Easy for anyone to try out themselves, and my post is only half a joke - it actually works. For me, at least :)