Post #2458731

2026-05-12 07:40 UTC

@u0421793@toot.pikopublish.ing @futurebird@sauropods.win @Landa@graz.social @cabel@social.panic.com @anonymouspl@expressional.social Don't take this as me saying you're wrong, but I don't really see how something which contains no information about meaning of our own languages could be used to uncover the meaning of an unknown language. LLM based translations are already very not good, and that's between languages we already have translations for and are all created by human minds besides.

Replies (1)

@soc@club.endormis.cat 2026-05-12 18:27

@anonymouspl@expressional.social @u0421793@toot.pikopublish.ing @cabel@social.panic.com @Landa@graz.social @futurebird@sauropods.win @StarkRG@myside-yourside.net LLMs can be really good at recognizing patterns. They don't really uncover the meanings of an unknown language, they just make the patterns much easier for us to recognize (for animal sounds, things like "this is where a word ends" and "this is a different sentence"). And we are the ones to try to uncover the meanings, since we are the ones who have a knack for ascribing meaning to patterns LLM based translations are bad because the LLMs are forced to try to ascribe the meanings themselves, from "patterns" that are already plainly written (as words), and then rewrite the meanings into a different set of patterns. It's the opposite work This is similar to how they can be a great tool for medicine research too

Open ##2458732