Conversational AE (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Mick Harper]

My new-found enthusiasm for YouTubes has meant exposure to a statistical universe of educated, English mother-tongued, amateur performers trying to sound as if they are speaking off the cuff when they are actually reading from a script.

If they are all making the same error
If it is an obvious error
If is an error they can hear for themselves
If despite this, they cannot hear it
We are in AE territory.

It is of course that old chestnut of mine, mispronouncing the most common word in the English language: 'the'. Or thee when it comes before a vowel.

* None of them has never made the error in conversation
(why it's in this thread)
* All of them make the error when reading from a script
(hence betraying they are reading from a script)
* None of them notices it when listening to themselves
(though doubtless swift to correct other mispronunciations)

I remain baffled. Not least because I seem to be the only English-speaker even aware of the 'the' situation (unless having been informed by me).

[Mick Harper]

AE-ist: You're only saying that because you're left wing.
Punter: You're only saying that because you're right wing.
AE-ist: Except I'm not right wing.
Punter: You should listen to yourself some time.
AE-ist: I do. I do all the time. I know I'm not right wing.
Punter: Well, you should listen harder then.
AE-ist: But you know you're left wing?
Punter: Yes, so?
AE-ist: Do you know anyone who doesn't know whether they're left wing or right wing?
Punter: Or centre. Not off hand, no.
AE-ist: So I'm the only person you know who doesn't.
Punter: Doesn't say much for you in that case.
AE-ist: On the contrary.

[Mick Harper]

Many people claim to be neither left wing nor right wing but, on further examination, this really means

1. They are centre but it sounds wish-washy.
2. They are right-wing but talking to someone (or living in a society) that regards the term 'right wing' as faintly derogatory.
3. They are left-wing but talking to someone (or living in a society) that regards the term 'left wing' as faintly derogatory.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: You're only saying that because you're a contrarian.
AE-ist: That's not possible.
Punter: Of course it is. Contrarians are all over the internet in case you haven't noticed.
AE-ist: I mean, it's not possible to believe something because it's contrarian.
Punter: You do talk bollocks sometimes. If not all the time.
AE-ist: Go on then, try believing something on the basis that it's contrarian.
Punter: I could any time I wanted. Not that I would want to.
AE-ist: Precisely. You wouldn't want to. But you couldn't even if you did want to.
Punter: Why not?
AE-ist: You can't force your brain to believe something on any basis other than you happen to believe it's true, no matter how hard you try and no matter how useful it might be. Nobody can. It's just not humanly possible.
Punter: In that case you don't believe what you're saying.
AE-ist: Oh, I'm lying. That's OK. I can accept that as an argument. Just don't accuse me of believing things for any reason other than I think they're true. Unlike you, by the way. You believe things because other people think they're true.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: So presumably you're an atheist.
AE-ist: Absolutely not.
Punter: You believe in God?
AE-ist: Absolutely not.
Punter: I don't follow.
AE-ist: Do you believe in unicorns?
Punter: Absolutely not.
AE-ist: So you're an a-numbralist.
Punter: What's that?
AE-ist: People who don't believe in unicorns.
Punter: I didn't know there was a term for it.
AE-ist: There isn't, I just made it up.
Punter: I get it. So people who do believe in unicorns are 'numbralists'.
AE-ist: Quiet! We don't want to legitimise debates about the existence of unicorns.
Punter: Sounds like you want to de-coin the word atheist. Good luck with that.
AE-ist: We've got teams of de-numismatists working on it.

[Mick Harper]

* We often judge the overall intelligence of people by what they say (and how they say it).
* Generally speaking, when they say things we agree with, we give them marks for intelligence; when they don't, we don't.
* Creative people are generally given high marks for intelligence. We recognise they are doing something we can't, or not as well at any rate.
* This sets up a paradox when it comes to people who create things that conflict with what we believe.

Punter: That's completely daft.
AE-ist: Maybe it is but you'd have to admit it's a novel idea.
Punter: Crackpot theories generally are.
AE-ist: No, they're not. They've usually been around for ages.
Punter: You want credit for having a new one, is that it?
AE-ist: No, I want credit for having a new idea.
Punter: Anyone can come up with a crackpot theory.
AE-ist: I think you'll find they can't.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: That's a completely daft theory.
AE-ist: How could you work that out in one point seven seconds?
Punter: Because it was so completely daft.
AE-ist: Surely that makes it harder rather than easier to judge.

[Pete Jones]

[Pete Jones]

I then asked the AI to build me a little Mick to sit on my proverbial shoulder. I named it Mantle (heavy hitter, blonde Adonis), like Mick.

I then asked it to don the Mantle mantle and rewrite the dialog using Mick's critique as guidance. I posted this as my Take 2 (which is on page 6 of this thread).

I then asked it to rewrite the dialogue for the audience of an "internet forum mainly peopled by well-educated, caustic Brits."

It did quite well:

[Mick Harper]

I think we'll need a Zoom. You are not Clarification, Idaho when writing.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: Why does your wife do all the cooking and housework and has a full-time job?
AE-ist: It seems to suit us.
Punter: It suits you.
AE-ist: It certainly does.
Punter: But surely not your wife.
AE-ist: She mentions it from time to time but only à propos something else.
Punter: You don't think it is because you repress her?
AE-ist: I told you the reason.
Punter: Well, I don't believe it.
AE-ist: I have the evidence, you don't.
Punter: I am drawing an inference from similar examples I do have evidence about.
AE-ist: We both know that isn't true except, insofar as it is, I am as aware of that evidence as you are.
Punter: And you definitely know, hand on heart, you don't repress your wife in some way or other into an unfair division of labour?
AE-ist: No, I can't say that. All I can say is that, if it was down to repression, either I would be aware of it or she would have mentioned it.
Punter: It's as plain as a pikestaff to me.
AE-ist: So to sum up, you want us to change from something that suits us both to something that doesn't suit me, on a whim of yours?
Punter: It's not a whim.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: What have you got against being left wing?
AE-ist: I think it's silly.
Punter: So why, then, are left-wing people more intelligent than right-wing people?
AE-ist: Presumably because change appeals to intelligent people more than stasis does.
Punter: But not in your case presumably.
AE-ist: I'm intelligent enough to choose when to be left wing.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: What have you got against being left wing?
AE-ist: It's silly.
Punter: If you had your way, you'd do away with it?
AE-ist: Not at all, it is essential for the well-being of society.
Punter: Even though it's silly.
AE-ist: Changing governments from time to time is essential to the well-being of society.
Punter: What's that got to do with it?
AE-ist: To change governments from time to time safely you need a bifurcation in society that is both stable and malleable.
Punter: And?
AE-ist: The only way of doing that, it has been found, is to divide society on the basis of those who want stasis and those who want change.
Punter: Sounds like being left wing is sensible.
AE-ist: No, It is silly for individuals to either want statis or change but it is sensible for society to be divided into two sets of silly people.

[Mick Harper]

I suppose both right-wingers and left-wingers would object to this:

[Mick Harper]

Punter: And how was your meal today, sir?
AE-ist: Since you ask, 'terrible'.
Punter: I'm sorry to hear that. It's not something we hear very often.
AE-ist: I must have been unlucky.
Punter: Or perhaps you like to complain.
AE-ist: You know I don't.
Punter: How would I know that?
AE-ist: I didn't complain after a terrible meal, did I?
Punter: Perhaps we should leave it there.
AE-ist: I wouldn't if I were you.
Punter: And why would that be, sir?
AE-ist: You've discovered you might not be serving very good food.
Punter: I don't think that follows at all.
AE-ist: You mean you may just have been unlucky.