6 ms·

I don't get your comment. Care to explain?

Bluestein 15d ago
I am guessing "simple English will help your dating life"? (If, any. Or, code).-
kees99 15d ago
If I have to guess, GP tried to translate following quote from Jane Austen into ASD-STE100: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
- knollimar 15d ago
  They gave a point that it sort of inverts tbe meaning
semi-extrinsic 15d ago
That's the opening line to Pride and Prejudice, where Jane Austen (I guess the "bot" part of the name is intentional) states something that many people of the time would superficially agree on, but which is intended to be highly ironic. I guess the point of GP (and of Jane Austen) is that people never actually universally agree on anything. And when they superficially do, there is actually a large undercurrent of disagreement. Another fun quote apropos here would be "I love standards, there are so many to choose from"
- schnitzelstoat 15d ago
  I think the joke is that he massively simplified the line down into simplified English. But I think that's fine as I don't want Claude to write literature, I want it to solve problems.
- AdamN 15d ago
  There's a great book from a different line that delves into this as a form of what the author calls 'manifold objectivism'. In short, there are some big concepts like Christianity or Islam that people refer to as if it's the same thing but almost nobody has a shared meaning when they refer to such big things. Even so there can be concrete dialogues about these topics from different frames and with different underlying meanings. There's trouble though when either there is conflict that isn't reconciled between the interlocutors or worse, when there is a satisfactory conclusion between the two interlocutors who never accounted for the divergent definitions ... there are many 'objective' understandings of what a thing is. "A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism"
  - throwup238 14d ago
    > short, there are some big concepts like Christianity or Islam that people refer to as if it's the same thing but almost nobody has a shared meaning when they refer to such big things. Even so there can be concrete dialogues about these topics from different frames and with different underlying meanings. See Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations for a deeper treatment of that topic.

I am guessing "simple English will help your dating life"? (If, any. Or, code).-

If I have to guess, GP tried to translate following quote from Jane Austen into ASD-STE100: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

knollimar 15d ago
They gave a point that it sort of inverts tbe meaning

semi-extrinsic 15d ago

That's the opening line to Pride and Prejudice, where Jane Austen (I guess the "bot" part of the name is intentional) states something that many people of the time would superficially agree on, but which is intended to be highly ironic. I guess the point of GP (and of Jane Austen) is that people never actually universally agree on anything. And when they superficially do, there is actually a large undercurrent of disagreement. Another fun quote apropos here would be "I love standards, there are so many to choose from"

schnitzelstoat 15d ago
I think the joke is that he massively simplified the line down into simplified English. But I think that's fine as I don't want Claude to write literature, I want it to solve problems.
AdamN 15d ago
There's a great book from a different line that delves into this as a form of what the author calls 'manifold objectivism'. In short, there are some big concepts like Christianity or Islam that people refer to as if it's the same thing but almost nobody has a shared meaning when they refer to such big things. Even so there can be concrete dialogues about these topics from different frames and with different underlying meanings. There's trouble though when either there is conflict that isn't reconciled between the interlocutors or worse, when there is a satisfactory conclusion between the two interlocutors who never accounted for the divergent definitions ... there are many 'objective' understandings of what a thing is. "A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism"
- throwup238 14d ago
  > short, there are some big concepts like Christianity or Islam that people refer to as if it's the same thing but almost nobody has a shared meaning when they refer to such big things. Even so there can be concrete dialogues about these topics from different frames and with different underlying meanings. See Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations for a deeper treatment of that topic.