if i had met my work bestie at our current job instead of the one we had before, we would not have become friends.
14 notes
·
View notes
If you're famous you have to be careful what you say no matter what. I don't care if whatever you say isn't meant as mean or whatever. If it's mean it's mean and you should really stop and think twice before speaking. You're famous which means you have fans and those fans are going to come in a lot of different shapes and colours and people!! Stop being shitty please
9 notes
·
View notes
I would throw myself into a tree mulcher for her i would kill a small child to nourish her no one can stop me now I have fallen in love with this feathered merderous babe and I don’t even know her name SHOW ME MORE THAN HER ASS YOU JURASSIC TEASES
12 notes
·
View notes
soooo I`ve watched Sea Beast
and I`m REALLY frustrated right now
First half of the movie is AAA level of monster hunting sea-sailing adventure, the atmosphere and the tone and the accents, they are all so goddamn amazing, I had so many chills and freezing behind the screen moments during underwater beasts shots!
THE OPENING SCENE WITH THE SHIP ON FIRE AND THE STORM AND A LONE SURVIVOR BOY HITS SO FREAKING HARD
.....
aaand then we have the second half of the movie which is just boring. The girl is shown as the #1 fangirl of the Hunters, she knows the book by heart, yet she is the first to dismiss it and changes her heart almost instantly. Her profound line about heroes being wrong is thrown out of nowhere, and she is not once bothered by the fact that her parents died because of the monsters.
Of course any movie about monster hunting that leads to friendship with them is going to be compared to HTTYD, because you cannot do it better than that. To it`s credit, Sea Beasts doesn`t really try to - the movie has a first half dedicated to amazing hunting action, and then skips the ‘taming’ part right up to ‘friendship’ and consequencial ‘rescue/stop the war’ motive, however the first monster hunting bit is the best the movie has to offer really, and everything after is just wise lines from main characters without any effort to gain said wisdom (the heroes are wrong bit), or it`s just plain boring.
The main monster (’Red’) seems to have a very intelligent and ruthless twin, because I cannot comprehend how the beast that planned it`s underwater attacks, and tried to sink a ship with a vortex of it`s own making, could be the same beast that willingly decided (for some reason???????) to bring to little humans into dangerous territory where said beast is hunted and could be killed. Also, I have no idea how the cute little blob swam through the ocean.
There is absolutely no understanding of the beast side of the conflict. They have no comprehensible reasoning, and no apparent logic (see - the same monster plans how to sink a ship and then takes human on a ride) which we can follow, I`m not even talking about them being far, far too intelligent to be a believable animal, that`s not even on the table, but the movie not even Once adresses the fact that a lot of hunters died while warring with the beasts - they are a part of the conflict as well. Instead, the film points the blame on the authority and propaganda, and that`s it, monsters were friendly this whole time. This is a magic solution to a complex problem.
basically I`m very SALTY (ha). The first half of the movie was amazing for me, I loved it dearly and it gave me a lot of chills, but everything else here is just stale and boring.
1 note
·
View note
Been thinking recently about the goings-on with Duolingo & AI, and I do want to throw my two cents in, actually.
There are ways in which computers can help us with languages, certainly. They absolutely should not be the be-all and end-all, and particularly for any sort of professional work I am wholly in favour of actually employing qualified translators & interpreters, because there's a lot of important nuances to language and translation (e.g. context, ambiguity, implied meaning, authorial intent, target audience, etc.) that a computer generally does not handle well. But translation software has made casual communication across language barriers accessible to the average person, and that's something that is incredibly valuable to have, I think.
Duolingo, however, is not translation software. Duolingo's purpose is to teach languages. And I do not think you can be effectively taught a language by something that does not understand it itself; or rather, that does not go about comprehending and producing language in the way that a person would.
Whilst a language model might be able to use probability & statistics to put together an output that is grammatically correct and contextually appropriate, it lacks an understanding of why, beyond "statistically speaking, this element is likely to come next". There is no communicative intent behind the output it produces; its only goal is mimicking the input it has been trained on. And whilst that can produce some very natural-seeming output, it does not capture the reality of language use in the real world.
Because language is not just a set of probabilities - there are an infinite array of other factors at play. And we do not set out only to mimic what we have seen or heard; we intend to communicate with the wider world, using the tools we have available, and that might require deviating from the realm of the expected.
Often, the most probable output is not actually what you're likely to encounter in practice. Ungrammatical or contextually inappropriate utterances can be used for dramatic or humorous effect, for example; or nonstandard linguistic styles may be used to indicate one's relationship to the community those styles are associated with. Social and cultural context might be needed to understand a reference, or a linguistic feature might seem extraneous or confusing when removed from its original environment.
To put it briefly, even without knowing exactly how the human brain processes and produces language (which we certainly don't), it's readily apparent that boiling it down to a statistical model is entirely misrepresentative of the reality of language.
And thus a statistical model is unlikely to be able to comprehend and assist with many of the difficulties of learning a language.
A statistical model might identify that a learner misuses some vocabulary more often than others; what it may not notice is that the vocabulary in question are similar in form, or in their meaning in translation. It might register that you consistently struggle with a particular grammar form; but not identify that the root cause of the struggle is that a comparable grammatical structure in your native language is either radically different or nonexistent. It might note that you have trouble recalling a common saying, but not that you lack the cultural background needed to understand why it has that meaning. And so it can identify points of weakness; but it is incapable of addressing them effectively, because it does not understand how people think.
This is all without considering the consequences of only having a singular source of very formal, very rigid input to learn from, unable to account for linguistic variation due to social factors. Without considering the errors still apparent in the output of most language models, and the biases they are prone to reproducing. Without considering the source of their data, and the ethical considerations regarding where and how such a substantial sample was collected.
I understand that Duolingo wants to introduce more interactivity and adaptability to their courses (and, I suspect, to improve their bottom line). But I genuinely think that going about it in this way is more likely to hinder than to help, and wrongfully prioritises the convenience of AI over the quality and expertise that their existing translators and course designers bring.
458 notes
·
View notes