lvxferre

joined 8 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No problem - I've seen worse. I've done worse.

(I'm fine, thanks! I hope you're doing well too.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I think that the key here are implicatures - things that implied or suggested without being explicitly said, often relying on context to tell apart. It's situations like someone telling another person "it's cold out there", that in the context might be interpreted as "we're going out so I suggest you to wear warm clothes" or "please close the window for me".

LLMs model well the grammatical layer of a language, and struggle with the semantic layer (superficial meaning), but they don't even try to model the pragmatic layer (deep meaning - where implicatures are). As such they will "interpret" everything that you say literally, instead of going out of their way to misunderstand you.

On the other hand, most people use implicatures all the time, and expect others to be using them all the time. Even when there's none (I call this a "ghost implicature", dunno if there's some academic name). And since written communication already prevents us from seeing some contextual clues that someone's utterance is not to be taken literally, there's a biiiig window for misunderstanding.

[Sorry for nerding out about Linguistics. I can't help it.]

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

That seems sensible.

Even a hypothetically true artificial general intelligence would still not be a moral agent, thus it cannot be held responsible for its actions; as such, whoever deploys and maintains it should be held responsible. That's doubly true with LLMs as they aren't even intelligent to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, as would eliza (at a much lower cost).

Neither Eliza nor LLMs are "insightful", but that doesn't stop them from outputting utterances that a human being would subjectively interpret as such. And the later is considerably better at that.

But the point is that calling them conversations is a long stretch. // You’re just talking to yourself. You’re enjoying the conversation because the LLM is simply saying what you want to hear. // There’s no conversation whatsoever going on there.

Then your point boils down to an "ackshyually", on the same level as "When you play chess against Stockfish you aren't actually «playing chess» as a 2P game, you're just playing against yourself."


This shite doesn't need to be smart to be interesting to use and fulfil some [not all] social needs. Specially in the case of autists (as OP mentioned to be likely in the spectrum); I'm not an autist myself but I lived with them for long enough to know how the cookie crumbles for them, opening your mouth is like saying "please put words here, so you can screech at me afterwards".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

People do it all the time regardless of subject. For example, when discussing LLMs:

  • If you highlight that they're useful, some assumer will eventually claim that you think that they're smart
  • If you highlight that they are not smart, some another assumer will eventually claim that you think that they're useless
  • If you say something but "they're dumb but useful", you're bound to get some "I dun unrurrstand, r u against or for LLMs? I'm so confused...", with both above screeching at you.
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

I've read this text. It's a good piece, but unrelated to what OP is talking about.

The text boils down to "people who believe that LLMs are smart do so for the same reasons as people who believe that mentalists can read minds do." OP is not saying anything remotely close to that; instead, they're saying that LLMs lead to pleasing and insightful conversations in their experience.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

My impressions are completely different from yours, but that's likely due

  1. It's really easy to interpret LLM output as assumptions (i.e. "to vomit certainty"), something that I outright despise.
  2. I used Gemini a fair bit more than ChatGPT, and Gemini is trained with a belittling tone.

Even then, I know which sort of people you're talking about, and... yeah, I hate a lot of those things too. In fact, one of your bullet points ("it understands and responds...") is what prompted me to leave Twitter and then Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

I couldn't find it to show you, but I remember an episode of The Osbournes where Ozzy put the pet food bowl in the middle of the kitchen, Sharon warned him "don't do this, you'll eventually kick it", then after some time Ozzy kicked the bowl and blamed their pet for moving the bowl to that position.

I don't know if Ozzy has victim mentality, but people with victim mentality do this sort of thing all the time - they never acknowledge that they did something that caused them an issue. And that's bad for both the ones around them and for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

Even when they say to eat an Aussie instead?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

and likewise data as [ˈd̪äːt̪ä] “dah-tah.”

More like [ˈd̪ät̪ä], no long vowel. There's also some disagreements if short /a/ was [ä] or [ɐ], given the symmetry with /e i o u/ as [ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ]. (I can go deeper on this if anyone wants.)

Another thing that people don't often realise, when they say "you should pronounce it like in Latin!", is that Latin /d t/ were different from English/German /d t/. They were considerably less aspirated, and as your transcription shows they were dental.

That's just details though. Your core point (Latin didn't use a diphthong in this word) is 100% correct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

English covers hundreds of accents and multiple English speaking countries. There isn’t just one pronunciation.

I'm listing the variants that I use.

I'm aware that all three languages have heavy internal variation; for example the Portuguese word could be also pronounced as ['dä.ðuʃ], and a lot of N. Italian speakers don't really do the compensatory lengthening that I do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

a specific kind of “R” (I have no English examples on mind

General American rendering of "butter" as [bʌɾɚ] uses it.

Kind of off-topic but "Brazilian Portuguese" is not an actual variety (language or dialect). It's more like a country-based umbrella term, the underlying varieties (like Baiano, Paulistano, etc.) often don't share features with each other but do it with non-Brazilian varieties.

There's a good example of that in your own transcription of the word "arauto" as /a'ɾawto/. You're probably a Sulista speaker*, like me; the others would raise that vowel to /u/, regardless of country because they share vowel raising. (Unless we're counting Galician into the bag, as it doesn't raise /o/ to /u/ either. But Galician is better dealt separately from Portuguese.)

*PR minus "nortchi", SC minus ~~Florianópolis~~ Desterro, northern RS, Registro-SP.

Desculpe-me pela nerdice não requisitada, ma' é que adoro falar de idiomas.

 

Link for the Science research article. The observation that societies without access to softer food kind of avoided labiodentals is old, from 1985, but the research is recent-ish (2019).

25
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Même texte en français ici. I'll copypaste the English version here in case of paywall.

Accents are one of the cherished hallmarks of cultural diversity.

Why AI software ‘softening’ accents is problematic

Published 2024/Jan/11
by Grégory Miras, Professeur des Universités en didactique des langues, Université de Lorraine

“Why isn’t it a beautiful thing?” a puzzled Sharath Keshava Narayana asked of his AI device masking accents.

Produced by his company, Sanas, the recent technology seeks to “soften” the accents of call centre workers in real-time to allegedly shield them from bias and discrimination. It has sparked widespread interest both in the English-speaking and French-speaking world since it was launched in September 2022.

Far from everyone is convinced of the software’s anti-racist credentials, however. Rather, critics contend it plunges us into a contemporary dystopia where technology is used to erase individuals’ differences, identity markers and cultures.

To understand them, we could do worse than reviewing what constitutes an accent in the first place. How can they be suppressed? And in what ways does ironing them out bends far more than sound waves?

How artificial intelligence can silence an accent

“Accents” can be defined, among others, as a set of oral clues (vowels, consonants, intonation, etc.) that contribute to the more or less conscious elaboration of hypotheses on the identity of individuals (e.g. geographically or socially). An accent can be described as regional or foreign according to different narratives.

With start-up technologies typically akin to black boxes, we have little information about the tools deployed by Sanas to standardise our way of speaking. However, we know most methods aim to at least partially transform the structure of the sound wave in order to bring certain acoustic cues closer to a perceptive criteria. The technology tweaks vowels, consonants along with parameters such as rhythm, intonation or accentuation. At the same time, the technology will be looking to safeguard as many vocal cues as possible to allow for the recognition of the original speaker’s voice, such as with voice cloning, a process that can result in deepfake vocal scams. These technologies make it possible to dissociate what is speech-related from what is voice-related.

The automatic and real-time processing of speech poses technological difficulties, the main one being the quality of the sound signal to be processed. Software developers have succeeded in overcoming them by basing themselves on deep learning, neural networks, as well as large data bases of speech audio files, which make it possible to better manage the uncertainties in the signal.

In the case of foreign languages, Sylvain Detey, Lionel Fontan and Thomas Pellegrini identify some of the issues inherent in the development of these technologies, including that of which standard to use for comparison, or the role that speech audio files can have in determining them.

The myth of the neutral accent

But accent identification is not limited to acoustics alone. Donald L. Rubin has shown that listeners can recreate the impression of a perceived accent simply by associating faces of supposedly different origins with speech. In fact, absent these other cues, speakers are not so good at recognising accents that they do not regularly hear or that they might stereotypically picture, such as German, which many associate with “aggressive” consonants.

The wishful desire to iron out accents to combat prejudice raises the question of what a “neutral” accent is. Rosina Lippi-Green points out that the ideology of the standard language - the idea that there is a way of expressing oneself that is not marked - holds sway over much of society but has no basis in fact. Vijay Ramjattan further links recent collossal efforts to develop accent “reduction” and “suppression” tools with the neoliberal model, under which people are assigned skills and attributes on which they depend. Recent capitalism perceives language as a skill, and therefore the “wrong accent” is said to lead to reduced opportunities.

Intelligibility thus becomes a pretext for blaming individuals for their lack of skills in tasks requiring oral communication according to Janin Roessel. Rather than forcing individuals with “an accent to reduce it”, researchers such as Munro and Derwing have shown that it is possible to train individuals to adapt their aural abilities to phonological variation. What’s more, it’s not up to individuals to change, but for public policies to better protect those who are discriminated against on the basis of their accent - accentism.

Delete or keep, the chicken or the egg?

In the field of sociology, Wayne Brekhus calls on us to pay specific attention to the invisible, weighing up what isn’t marked as much as what is, the “lack of accent” as well as its reverse. This leads us to reconsider the power relations that exist between individuals and the way in which we homogenise the marked: the one who has (according to others) an accent.

So we are led to Catherine Pascal’s question of how emerging technologies can hone our roles as “citizens” rather than “machines”. To “remove an accent” is to value a dominant type of “accent” while neglecting the fact that other co-factors will participate in the perception of this accent as well as the emergence of discrimination. “Removing the accent” does not remove discrimination. On the contrary, the accent gives voice to identity, thus participating in the phenomena of humanisation, group membership and even empathy: the accent is a channel for otherness.

If technologies such AI and deep learning offers us untapped possibilities, they can also lead to a dystopia where dehumanisation overshadows priorities such as the common good or diversity, as spelt out in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Rather than hiding them, it seems necessary to make recruiters aware of how accents can contribute to customer satisfaction and for politicians to take up this issue.

Research projects such as PROSOPHON at the University of Lorraine (France), which bring together researchers in applied linguistics and work psychology, are aimed at making recruiters more aware of their responsibilities in terms of biais awareness, but also at empowering job applicants “with an accent”. By asking the question “Why isn’t this a beautiful thing?”, companies like SANAS remind us why technologies based on internalized oppressions don’t make people happy at work.

 

Source.

Alt-text: «God was like, "Let there be light," and there was light.»

 

Small bit of info: Charles III still speaks RP, but the prince William (heir to the throne) already shifted to SSBE. Geoffrey Lindsey has a rather good video on that.

 
 

Links to the community:

The community is open for everyone regardless of previous knowledge on the field. Feel free to ask or share stuff about languages and dialects, how they work (grammar, phonology, etc.), where they're from, how people use them, or more general stuff about human linguistic communication.

And the rules are fairly simple. They boil down to 1) stay on-topic, 2) source it when reasonable, 3) avoid pseudoscience.

Have fun!

 

This is a rather long study, from the Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents. Its general content should be clear by the title, and it focuses on three "chunks" of the former Roman empire: Maghreb and Iberia, Gallia and Germania, and the British Isles.

11
Linguistics (mander.xyz)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I've recreated a Linguistics community here in mander.xyz. As the sidebar says, it's for everyone, regardless of previous knowledge over the field, so even if you're a layperson feel free to drop by.

Here's the link: [email protected]

In case that you're in a Kbin/Mbin instance and the above doesn't work, try /m/[email protected] instead.

 

Further info: the linguist in question is Lynn S. Eekhof, and she has quite a few publications about the topic, worth IMO reading.

view more: ‹ prev next ›