Replacing Jobs
My mom is a copy-editor, a job that has been ostensibly replaceable by spellcheck for what, 30 years? 40?
Anyway, it’s interesting how you can basically always tell when a publication has decided they don’t need a copy editor
My mom is a copy-editor, a job that has been ostensibly replaceable by spellcheck for what, 30 years? 40?
Anyway, it’s interesting how you can basically always tell when a publication has decided they don’t need a copy editor
attention all impostors masquerading as friends: you are eligible for an upgrade to friend status as long as you return the original friends unharmed
the older I get, the more I understand my grandfather
I contend that it is impossible for so-called "AI", by which I mean the crop of convolutional neural network-based pattern-filling tools that is currently in the throes of a hype cycle that puts crypto and NFTs to shame, to meaningfully do programming. As more and more of the mind bogglingly rich tech oligarchs lead their followers into the delusion that these tools are useful in any way remotely comparable to their cost, I think it's worth taking the time to articulate exactly why this is, even if it's already intuitively clear to the more thoughtful practitioners of the craft.
We must begin, as always, with a clarity of the term under discussion. "Programming", in its broadest sense, is the act of making a computer do something—but "do something" is itself vague, so we'll need to dig a little deeper into that. To understand it, please bear with me as I establish some useful terminology.
Let's talk about syntax and semantics. If you're a programmer, you may be familiar with these terms as they're used to discuss programming languages. If you're not, that's fine too. I'll do my best to explain them in brief.
Syntax and semantics are two related ways of talking about an abstract structure. Although the concepts were originally developed to describe human languages, they can be used by analogy for all sorts of things, which is what I'm building up to here. They're very useful particularly for understanding how humans[1] relate to those structures and relate those structures to the world as they understand it.
"Syntax" is simply the structure itself, in all the technical detail of how it fits together. The syntax of a human language is the way its words and sentences fit together, what's "allowed" and "not allowed" by the subtle and mercurial rules we all internalized as children (or adults, for second languages and beyond). In English, "ran boy" is not a valid sentence due to the language's semantics, although most native speakers would probably guess that it means "the boy ran". Noam Chomsky wrote "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as an example of a sentence that is syntactically valid despite being nonsense.
The fact that that sentence is nonsense is the domain of "semantics". Semantics are the human interpretation of a structure, the meaning we ascribe to it and to the best of our ability share with those around us. For example, although the syntax of the sentences "みなさんはピッコロさんが大好きだよ!" and "Everyone loves Piccolo!"[2] are completely different, their meaning—their semantic content—is exactly the same. And that meaning is something that humans bring to them, not something that is in any way intrinsically associated with those particular wiggly lines in that particular order.
Although syntax is a very useful concept in its own right, in this post I really want to focus on semantics. So remember: semantics is meaning, and specifically it's meaning applied to a structure from outside by humans.
im gonna put the "bee" in "be right back" *buzzes away*
if I were willing to get tattoos based on media properties that I didn't help create, "bearer seek seek lest" would be high on my list
I've noticed myself becoming more interested in the course of the Roman empire recently. But surely there's no deeper reason for that.
whenever we get around to doing spelling reform for English, we should go whole hog and ditch the crusty old Latin alphabet for the latest and greatest in orthographic technology. that's right I'm talking about Hangul. it's terse! it's featural! it's visually attractive! vote Hangul 2025