Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:27:48 UTC No. 16430056

>>16430044
Checked DD's.
Where do you think the training data for these garbage machines comes from?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:40:52 UTC No. 16430081

>>16430044
I don't get it.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:01:14 UTC No. 16430110

>>16430044
"Linguistics tricks" are a meme that doesn't exist.
The meaning of a sentence is defined as the one that most readers interpret it as. Language is defined by its usage rather than some arbitrary rules that a few people living in ivory towers invented.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:04:18 UTC No. 16430116

>>16430110
>ebonics is a meme.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:07:33 UTC No. 16430123

>>16430081
>I don't get it.
"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" would literally mean all head injuries, no matter how trivial, can be ignored.
The proper wording ought to be, "No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored."

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:09:14 UTC No. 16430130

>>16430110
this nigga trying to apply death of the author to his grammatical misinterpretations fr

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:12:27 UTC No. 16430136

>>16430123
How could it possibly mean that? If I ask the question "What head injury can be ignored?", based off the OP's sentence, you would have to respond "No head injury"

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:14:01 UTC No. 16430138

>>16430123
"No head injury is trivial enough to ignore" might be more conventional but the bot isn't wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:18:05 UTC No. 16430145

>>16430110
I don't like that I agree with you, but I do.
Language is functional, even if that does allow for abominations.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:20:29 UTC No. 16430148

If a billion people plus a mindless robot believe in a stupid idea, it's still a stupid idea.
Normalizing self-contradictory grammatical structures is a stupid idea.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:26:03 UTC No. 16430157

>>16430148
Since when does autistic logical consistency matter to a billion retards?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:35:53 UTC No. 16430171

>>16430044
>falls for the same linguistics tricks as actual humans?
anon... this shit takes inputs from forums and social networks websites. it basically "imitates" people (in some sense)

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:40:22 UTC No. 16430178

>>16430044
>>16430123
It means it recognizes the same inconsistent rules that humans do based on context. The sentence isn't wrong, misleading, it's just an artifact and uses ad hoc rules. There's so many examples. It's only a trick if you're learning english.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:56:36 UTC No. 16430191

Funny seeing people getting tripped up by this. No, the sentence is not ambiguous, it's grammatically and semantically fine. It's just a sentence that's dense enough to be prone to misreadings, and where the misreading makes more sense in your societal context than the proper reading.
The average person will simply skim it, see "head injury", "trivial", and "ignore", and assume it's espousing a reasonable sentiment like "No head injury should be ignored, even trivial ones" when in reality, it's saying "Every head injury should be ignored, even trivial ones". It makes *more* sense when read incorrectly, so upon misreading it, there's no impetus to go back and read it correctly.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:05:13 UTC No. 16430205

>>16430191
>and where the misreading makes more sense in your societal context than the proper reading.

The way everyone understands the sentence is the "proper reading" even if the grammar isn't conventional. People aren't misreading it. Language isn't beholden to consistent rules. Not even fucking close never never never. Like holy shit everyone wishes they were.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:10:37 UTC No. 16430213

>>16430205
If I write "the sky is red" and a bunch of illiterate retards decide to read it as "the sky is blue" because that would make more sense, it doesn't mean that's the correct reading of the sentence. Not even a prescriptivism vs. descriptivism thing, you're just retarded

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:14:07 UTC No. 16430216

>>16430044
>>16430123
Based illiterate retard with zero reading comprehension.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:15:29 UTC No. 16430219

>>16430213
Dude maybe normal people just don't use language the way you do?
I get where you're coming from, but non-autists aren't autistic about it?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:17:24 UTC No. 16430221

>>16430213
If most people read "the sky is red" as "the sky is blue" then it would be the correct reading.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:17:46 UTC No. 16430223

>>16430191
wtf are you talking about?
You must be a pretentious idiot.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:19:44 UTC No. 16430231

>>16430213
Nothing in your post makes sense. "the sky is red" has a common meaning of "the sky is red" to everyone. Address the claim. Let's say hypothetically, the overwhelmingly common reading of "the sky is red" meant the "the sky is blue", and it's not just a dumb minority believing that, but practically all english speakers, then that would be the proper reading. Also it's about the lack of sense. What would make sense is for languages to have consistent rules and you can just follow the rules to get the meaning right every time, but they don't. How language is actually used is "correct". The only time you can dispute the correctness of something is when different denominations of speakers disagree. That's not the case for "no head injury is too trivial to ignore". Go to bed twit.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:19:47 UTC No. 16430232

>>16430219
Anyone with a basic understanding of English grammar can re-read the sentence and understand what it's actually saying - you just read it wrong once and are too retarded to revise your initial thought
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36512866/

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:24:38 UTC No. 16430240

>>16430231
>That's not the case for "no head injury is too trivial to ignore"
It's absolutely the case, speakers of the "braindead moron" denomination will misread it and then use a flawed understanding of linguistic descriptivism to justify their incorrect reading, while speakers of the "competent English speaker" denomination will be able to parse what the sentence is actually semantically saying despite the unusual claim it makes.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:26:25 UTC No. 16430243

>>16430232
And you're the arbiter of what everything means?
I can understand the grammar Nazi impulse, but let's be real here.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:27:08 UTC No. 16430246

>>16430232
"literal meaning" is also deceptive. It just uses ad hoc grammar rules. It's not like an idiom where you can translate a literal meaning or a non-literal meaning. But its on pub med so it might be right lmao. If you were translating this sentence for a non-english speaker, you would explain it does not mean "we should ignore head injuries" in any case whatsoever. It would not be english at that point despite following conventional english grammar rules.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:29:57 UTC No. 16430250

>>16430110
>language is defined by its use rather than rules
It wasnt murder when I stuffed your body in the garbage I was just taking out the trash.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:32:50 UTC No. 16430255

>>16430240
what you're describing is not english.

It's like if someone said "jack saw jill on top of a hill" and claimed it was ambiguous if jack or jill was on top of the hill or not and the sentence is "semantically" or "literally" saying either. It doesn't work like that. Jill is on top of a hill. You're just ignoring contextual rules or contextual exceptions and pretending that's "correct" english because this is your hill to die on.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:33:43 UTC No. 16430256

>>16430123
No, you're just a moron.

The sentence
>no head injury is too trivial to ignore
Is effectively a "shorthand phrase" for saying
>there is no head injury which is too trivial to ignore
Bot's not wrong, you're just a little too dumb to see the extra steps we commonly remove when speaking in parlance.

Conclusion:
You are dumber than a chatbot.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:34:41 UTC No. 16430257

>>16430246
>It just uses ad hoc grammar rules
No it doesn't lmao, it uses completely normal grammar rules to say something unexpected
It's a sentence specifically constructed to trick people into misinterpreting it at first glance, and clearly it works given how vehemently retards are defending their incorrect initial reading purely on the grounds of "yeah you said X but it'd make more sense if you said Y so Y is the correct reading"

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:36:23 UTC No. 16430258

>>16430256
>Is effectively a "shorthand phrase" for saying
>>there is no head injury which is too trivial to ignore
that still means "all head injuries should be ignored" lol

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:39:04 UTC No. 16430259

>>16430258
No, it doesn't.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:40:12 UTC No. 16430261

A helpful method for the hopelessly confused:
Try replacing "ignore" with "treat".
Now parse "No head injury is too trivial to treat". This would obviously mean "Every head injury should be *treated*, regardless of triviality".
Now go back and replace "treated" with "ignored" in our new sentence. This gives "Every head injury should be *ignored*, regardless of triviality". This is the meaning of the original sentence.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:41:44 UTC No. 16430264

>>16430259
see
>>16430261

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:42:39 UTC No. 16430265

>>16430264
Incorrect.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:43:05 UTC No. 16430266

>>16430257
No you're just patently false now, it doesn't use normal grammar. That's why we have this thread.

No one sat down and "constructed" this sentence either to create an oddity. It's emergent phenomena from people speaking to each other over a long span of time. Take your medicine, get some life experience, learn another language, pay attention, or raise your IQ 10 points, dispense with your ego. Your self deception will go away. Talking to me clearly isn't working.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:51:18 UTC No. 16430275

>>16430261
>>16430264
You're being pedantic for no benefit and a waste of time.
Not very logical.
>no head injury too trivial to ignore
It's technically wrong. Yes, it is.
But the problem is, the way we speak changes how a phrasing is interpreted.

>there is no head injury which can be too trivial, to be ignored
Would be the full transliterative meaning. That's what everyone (who at least is a native- or near-native-level English speaker) would understand the sentence.
Why?
Because asking if a head injury isn't serious is so stupid it doesn't happen.

tl;dr
Basically, you're fucking dumb if you assume a head injury can be assumed to not be serious. And that's why OP made this thread - he's dumber than a chat bot.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:57:12 UTC No. 16430280

>>16430275
>you're fucking dumb if you assume a head injury can be assumed to not be serious
holy shit you're fucking stupid, you've missed the point entirely
a sentence can just be factually untrue
you'd rather imagine nonsensical new pseudo-grammar to project onto a sentence than believe a sentence created by linguists to confuse you might say something that's not true in day-to-day life lol
you're definitely an ESL

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:03:04 UTC No. 16430288

>>16430261
I think I'm closer to how this sentence happened.

Instead of replacing ignore with treat, replace trivial with severe.

"No head injury is too severe to ignore"

Which means all head injuries, even severe ones, should be ignored. It's illogical, but I think the brain perceives swapping the adjective "severe" with its opposite "trivial" as corrective, when oddly neither sentence makes sense.

So let's go through all four combinations and see what happens.

1)"No head injury is too trivial to ignore"
1) all head injuries, even trivial ones, should be ignored. nonsensical.


2)"No head injury is too trivial to treat"
2) all head injuries, even trivial ones, should be treated. sensical.

3)"No head injury is too severe to ignore"
3) all head injuries, even severe ones, should be ignored. nonsensical.


4)"No head injury is too severe to treat"
1) all head injuries, even severe ones, should be treated. Oddly nonsensical because it implies more severe head injuries are less likely to require treatment.

Anyway it's all very asymmetric and I have a head injury now.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:03:44 UTC No. 16430290

What part about
>No head injury is to be ignored
Do you not understand?
Inserting
>exemplary qualifier
Doesn't change what
>No head injury is to be ignored
Defines behaviorally.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:04:25 UTC No. 16430292

>>16430288
4)
4)*

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:09:08 UTC No. 16430297

>>16430110
You’re correct. Autists think they’re clever for saying nonsensical shit like “this statement is false” and thinking they’ve discovered some glitch in the matrix when they could just as easily have said “poopie peepee monkey” and functionally both statements would have the same value.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:09:58 UTC No. 16430299

>>16430290
ESL-tier understanding of grammar, you can't just remove random words and expect the underlying structure to remain intact
"His car is incapable of driving" is not semantically or grammatically equivalent to "His car is driving", just because the latter sentence is the first one with some words removed

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:19:38 UTC No. 16430307

I recall a dream I had wherein I wrote a greentext in perfect linguistic detail of Yakon's thoughts and actions while he was eating Goku's Super Saiyan light energy, and eating too much, and then exploding in death. A three post masterpiece of the entire sequence. You pitied and understood Yakon during the final scene.

My point is, language doesn't make sense a LOT OF THE TIME.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:24:20 UTC No. 16430315

>>16430044
>same linguistics tricks as actual humans?
I know right, like the hardware and software and training data was created by humans but the AI should not be human like.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:25:29 UTC No. 16430318

>>16430315
but when we make it AI-like isntead of human like it gets racist, really fast

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:29:36 UTC No. 16430323

>>16430318
>The killbots will be gimped by political correctness

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:47:21 UTC No. 16430349

Pajeet thread about a language that they only use when they are trying to scam humans.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 06:27:15 UTC No. 16430381

>>16430191
I actually disagree with this. The way people naturally read this doesn't reflect the 'logical' meaning, but it is closer to any actually sensible interpretation of the phrase than what you claim it's 'supposed to mean' (which is actually also off the mark).

I initially read it in the 'naive' way, then came around to see that that was wrong, but on further reflection I still think the naive interpretation is the more sensible one, even when looking at the meaning in the most literal sense. The *actual* meaning of the sentence is closer to something like "it is NOT the case that, for a given head injury, that there is a threshold of insignificance, BELOW which it should clearly be attended to". This is an incredibly weird thing to say, "too trivial to ignore" implies this strange round about aspect of "subtle injury should be attended to more carefully than gross injury", so DENYING this is true of a head injury COULD have the implication that the triviality should be ignored and all injuries should be attended to.

It's strange, because now that I can interpret it 'properly', it makes perfect sense why it's so difficult to fully comprehend, and why people sensibly default to the natural default reading over yours (which is also, equally as wrong in its own way and similarly fails to capture the 'full' meaning, which is genuinely ambiguous, despite what the pubmed article summery claims).

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 06:47:46 UTC No. 16430405

>>16430381
>the 'full' meaning, which is genuinely ambiguous
It's confusing, but not ambiguous. There's only one correct reading within normal English grammar.
It's not a "John saw the man on the mountain with a telescope" situation where vague construction leaves multiple correct interpretations, or a "More people have been to Berlin than I have" where readable but broken syntax leaves no correct interpretation.
"Too trivial to ignore" is confusing because we generally expect things that are trivial to be *more* likely to be ignored, but is grammatically no more ambiguous than "too big to fail" or "too heavy to lift".

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 06:57:07 UTC No. 16430412

>sar gets mogged by a chatbot
>comes to sci to redeem his humiliation
not like this, you weren't supposed to redeem.... els bros...

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:08:10 UTC No. 16430425

>ai companies are now paying for social media campaigns to poison training data for their competitors through generating discussions about nonsensical claims
What a time to be alive.
I want back to 00s when internet was actually for people to use and not a corporate goldmine wasteland

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:11:07 UTC No. 16430430

>>16430056
this
retard op

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:12:47 UTC No. 16430434

>>16430405
>"Too trivial to ignore" is confusing because we generally expect things that are trivial to be *more* likely to be ignored
Yes, this is true, and this is the crux of the issue, but resolving it is more subtle than you're implying. It IS the case that, regardless of what the sentence is saying, people consider more severe injuries more likely to be worthy of attention. Because of this, "too trivial to ignore" DOESN'T change people's minds on this, so it's effectively asking them to consider the possibility of an injury that's "worthy of attention precisely because it's so subtle", so it's interpretable as "it is NOT the case that a given injury should be attended to specifically because it is so subtle".

I'm hoping you get what I'm saying and why this is potentially closer to the natural, naive interpretation, even if that interpretation is still not correct. That 'triviality' is specifically the implicit qualifier for being worth attending to is so unintuitive that I honestly can't blame people for not thinking through that. Conversely, I still contend that the supposedly 'correct' interpretation is at least as wrong as the naive one, it isn't strictly more sensical to take it to mean that "all head injuries can be ignored" given how it qualifies things. It's almost like how a double negative might be naturally interpreted as a negative in context.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:15:52 UTC No. 16430438

>>16430412
you are an ESL retard being mogged by linguists right now

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:31:34 UTC No. 16430449

>>16430434
>it isn't strictly more sensical to take it to mean that "all head injuries can be ignored" given how it qualifies things
This is true, it doesn't outright state head injuries can be ignored, it states that triviality should not be considered when acting on a head injury. A more sensible version of the sentence, such as "No head injury is trivial enough to be ignored" also doesn't outright state that no head injury should be ignored - just that triviality is not a deciding factor.
The original sentence does strongly imply "all head injuries can be ignored" though, because it's only reasonable in a context where ignoring head injuries is the default. It's grammatically well-formed, semantically meaningful, but inapplicable in any real context.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:00:56 UTC No. 16430465

lol

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:56:20 UTC No. 16430808

"More people have fucked your mom than I have"

It's obvious when you put it this way. Somebody is a whore

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:06:06 UTC No. 16430826

>>16430191
>when in reality, it's saying "Every head injury should be ignored, even trivial ones"
you keep saying this, but I have no idea what you're basing it on
Do you think it's a double-negative or something? as a fluent England sh speaker I'm confused.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:09:26 UTC No. 16430830

>>16430288
>No head injury is too severe to ignore"
>Which means all head injuries, even severe ones, should be ignored.

so somehow you're getting from "no head injury should be ignored" to "all head injuries should be ignored" without changing any words. really amazing. what other words can you simply decide mean something else?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:26:07 UTC No. 16430938

>>16430044
>>16430123
No monkey is too black to be an afroamerican?

What does it mean?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:28:32 UTC No. 16430946

>>16430465
More people have been to Russia than I have (people).

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:33:37 UTC No. 16430955

>>16430123
I don't get it. The sentence clearly means that all head injuries, no matter how minor, should be treated as serious. Is it an ESL thing to not get this?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:51:51 UTC No. 16430998

>>16430044
People perceive virtual negatives in the sentence (too trivial, to be ignored) and interpret it accordingly. ChatGPT will of course fall for the same "tricks" because the language models it is trained on catch edges in the training data like this.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:29:21 UTC No. 16431094

>>16430123
Are you illiterate?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:35:11 UTC No. 16431107

>>16430261
Ignore and trivial work different as verbs.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:35:12 UTC No. 16431313

>>16430955
>>16430830
>>16430826
Those are bots imitating productive discussion about some nonsense to be scraped by their competitors and poison their ai models. Note how none of the reasonable questions wtf do they mean get any replies and they only keep talking among themselves to make their schizo babble look more credible during the automated analysis.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:47:34 UTC No. 16431329

>>16430261
>no head injury is too trivial to treat
that implies that trivial head injuries are harder to treat

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:42:41 UTC No. 16431982

>>16431329
no it doesn't, esl retard
amazing how many people here have genuinely zero understanding of english

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:58:42 UTC No. 16432330

>>16430830
>so somehow you're getting from "no head injury should be ignored

That's not the words, you changed them just now and are complaining about changing the words. really amazing

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:04:12 UTC No. 16432934

What the fuck is this thread

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:13:16 UTC No. 16432943

>>16432934
If you didn't have low linguistic IQ you'd see the actual issue people are discussing and understand it.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:15:48 UTC No. 16432948

>>16432943
>linguistic IQ
so pseudoscience thread, got it
thanks senpai

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:27:50 UTC No. 16432962

>Prescriptivist melty thread.
The bot gave the objectively correct answer on the meaning of the sentence in question. Not understanding that is unironically a sign of autism.
Just like it's autism not to understand that pink and red are the same exact color or that a 99% chance of success is a 100% guaranteed chance of success.

Also, OP is a retard because GPT doesn't "fall" for anything, it answers with words that are statistically likely to appear in response to the words in a prompt.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:35:24 UTC No. 16433277

>>16430123
I thought I was retarded for failing OP's test, but now I see all the posters who are still failing it even after having it explained to them. At least I am not that retarded.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:40:22 UTC No. 16433289

>>16430044
There are at least 3 or 4 different interpretations.
For example the phrase "no head injury" can be interpreted as "a no-head injury", i.e. there is no head at all.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:06:37 UTC No. 16433387

>>16433289
> "a no-head injury", i.e. there is no head at all.
That would a type of death rather an injury.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:32:41 UTC No. 16433465

>>16433387
how about a dick head

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:35:35 UTC No. 16433469

>>16430123
Kek you fucking retard
This is a schizophrenia thing isn't it

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:44:27 UTC No. 16433475

>>16430123
>"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" would literally mean all head injuries, no matter how trivial, can be ignored.
No it wouldn't. Not at all.
So this thread is just based on a misconception derived from your low reading level, huh.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:48:30 UTC No. 16433481

>>16433475
>So this thread is just based on a misconception derived from your low reading level
welcome to 4chan. enjoy your stay

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:56:52 UTC No. 16433491

My verbal IQ is in the genius range and I still don't get it.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:01:36 UTC No. 16433498

>>16430232
Oh so this whole thing actually is just ESLs applying their primary language grammatical rules to an English sentence and getting confused then, huh. Everyone talking about this supposed "literal meaning" of this sentence are just too arrogant to mentally accept they made a mistake on their first reading and thus double down on it by trying to blame native speakers to cover their foreign ignorance.

What an incredibly dumb article that was. You can get away with publishing literally any kind of garbage these days. Is it only chinks who get caught in this trap or does it happen to speakers of many other languages too?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:08:59 UTC No. 16433505

>>16433498
>Yuhan Zhang 1, Rachel Ryskin 2, Edward Gibson 3
sounds like two native speakers

https://hsri.ucmerced.edu/content/rachel-ryskin-phd

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:16:57 UTC No. 16433512

>>16433505
>woman
That further explains the stupidity on display here. And you wonder why people don't value PhDs anymore.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:20:40 UTC No. 16433518

>>16430044
Because it's trained on humans??? I think this is pretty obvious the AI is just measuring statistical patterns and has no real understanding of the language as much as they promote it

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:23:29 UTC No. 16433524

>>16433505
>phd
>illiterate DEI accepted retards
>>16407768
lol
Universities are a mess these days.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:27:50 UTC No. 16433533

>create sentence that makes more sense when quickly misread than when read properly
>tards will angrily defend their misreading of the sentence as "correct" because uh the REAL meaning of a sentence is whatever I think makes most sense, not what's actually written
that's not even how descriptivism works lol, you're just fucking stupid

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:40:08 UTC No. 16433558

>>16433533
Who we got?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:21:56 UTC No. 16433605

>>16433533
Except the point is the claim where it's being read "properly" is actually a misreading based on a foreign/ignorant understanding of english grammar. You can tell with all these comparative examples of them needing to fundamentally change the structural meaning of the sentence to create an inversion of the implication that they falsely injected into the original sentence. The one where they replace the passive verb with an active one and act like that doesn't mean the grammatical intent is flipped as "proof" of their wrong interpretation is the funniest one.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:38:47 UTC No. 16433623

>>16433605
no lol
the sentence as written, interpreted with correct english grammar, is saying "all head injuries should be ignored, even trivial ones"
you aren't reading the meaning of the sentence as-written, you're creating a "reasonable" meaning based on what would make sense in normal life and forcing it backwards onto a sentence
if a man says "I've never been a cafe", you can't claim the meaning as spoken is actually wrong and the "correct" meaning is "I've never been *to* a cafe", just because that would be a more sensible thing for a man to say. the correct meaning is what was said, it's just an absurd meaning

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:57:31 UTC No. 16433694

>>16433623
>the sentence as written, interpreted with correct english grammar, is saying "all head injuries should be ignored, even trivial ones"
I don't see how. "Too trivial to ignore" means not to ignore. "Not too trivial to ignore" also means not to ignore. You seem to be forgetting that the world "ignore" contains a negative, changing how it operates and leading to double negatives, which operate in an unusual way.

"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" means for any head injury the degree of triviality is in no circumstance a reason to ignore it.

This feels like a mixture of ESL and autism

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:07:07 UTC No. 16433700

>>16433623
>the sentence as written, interpreted with correct english grammar, is saying "all head injuries should be ignored, even trivial ones"
Except it's not. You are creating that "correct grammar" interpretation based on your ignorant misunderstanding of english. It is still grammatically correct as it is normally understood by normal people even if someone with inexperienced grasp of english can misinterpret it due to it being an truncated construction that would be understood differently under the grammar rules of their primary language.
What you're doing here is more like reading a sentence with a homonym and initially misinterpreting the which meaning of the word is being used, so you overcompensate by insisting the sentence as it was intended is somehow "wrong" when it isn't.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:10:59 UTC No. 16433708

>>16433694
>>16433700
ESLs incapable of understanding how a "X is too Y to Z" phrase works
"X is too trivial to ignore" means it should NOT be ignored, regardless of triviality
"NO X is too trivial to ignore" means the case of "too trivial to ignore" does NOT apply to any X - "No head injury is too trivial to ignore" means "too trivial to ignore" doesn't apply to any head injury, thus they should all be ignored

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:43:35 UTC No. 16433739

>>16433694
>>16433700
"no bone is too strong to break"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:02:44 UTC No. 16433762

>>16433708
>"X is too trivial to ignore" means it should NOT be ignored, regardless of triviality
No it doesn't. That sentence means that the triviality of X is the primary factor that determines it shouldn't be ignored. It implies that if X were less "trivial", it would warrant being ignored. But it is not so it isn't. There is nothing in that sentence to suggest that a lack of triviality here would also classify X as not to be ignored.

>"NO X is too trivial to ignore" means the case of "too trivial to ignore" does NOT apply to any X
No. False. It means the status of being "ignored" should NOT apply to any X, despite any claims otherwise due to a perceived diminutive status that would suggest an unimportance threshold might be reached to discard the suggestion.

You are reading
>No X is to be ignored
as
>No X is to get ignored
which is just not the case due to context. The phrase would need to be rewritten to accomidate the backwards usage of a measure of unimportance as the important factor defining the statement. Your interpretation is as gramatically "correct" as deliberately misunderstanding a homonym in a sentence and insisting that the nonsensical meaning you chose supercedes the intended one.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:10:12 UTC No. 16433768

I think the whole "X is too trivial to be ignored" is the part that doesn't make sense. While you could say that, in the real world it sounds completely retarded. "This problem is too trivial to ignore it" like what?
That's what creates this "trap", since it doesn't make any sense to ignore head injuries over them bein trivial, so you automatically parse it the way it ought to sound instead.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:16:31 UTC No. 16433772

>>16433762
>No. False. It means the status of being "ignored" should NOT apply to any X
lol no it doesn't, you fucking idiot
if I say "no weight is too heavy to lift", that means "too heavy to lift" doesn't apply to any weight. it means the status of being "liftable" applies to every weight regardless of heaviness. it's *not true* in a practical sense, but the *correct meaning* when reading the sentence.
in exactly the same way, "no head injury is too trivial to ignore" means "too trivial to ignore" doesn't apply to any head injury, thus "ignorable" applies to every head injury regardless of triviality.
you're an esl getting tripped up by a sentence with words/structure you don't understand expressing a message that doesn't make sense in most contexts

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:17:03 UTC No. 16433774

>>16433739
You are inserting a positive active verb in the place of a negatory passive verb again and acting like that doesn't change the grammar. Not to mention also switching the metric to an incrimental, the opposite of the original.

It's more like you're arguing here that
>No bone is too weak to break
would mean as a sentence that "there is a certain threshold where a bone is so weak it warrants intentionally breaking it". Whereas in reality its just incoherent despite not violating any of the lego blocks of grammar.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:23:05 UTC No. 16433778

>>16433774
>You are inserting a positive active verb in the place of a negatory passive verb again and acting like that doesn't change the grammar
"Ignore" is not a "negatory verb", verbs in English are negated by putting "not" in front of them. "Break" and "ignore" are structurally identical in this case, it would only involve negation if he changed it from "ignore" to "not ignore".

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:28:27 UTC No. 16433780

>>16433772
You are falling for a linguistic trick here.
>No weight is too heavy to [give up on]
Does not imply that the [give up] should apply to the weight as it would to [lift] when replaced in that sentence. Switching the passive and active around to suit your misread interpretation is just gramatically incorrect.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:38:03 UTC No. 16433790

>>16433780
>Does not imply that the [give up] should apply to the weight as it would to [lift] when replaced in that sentence
Yes it does, those sentences are structurally no different. They're both written in the active voice. There is no such thing as an "active verb" or "passive verb" in English, just the active or passive voices. A similar sentence in the passive voice would be "no weight is too heavy to be given up on". The implication of this is "no weight is too heavy to be given up on (by the subject), as opposed to the active voice's "no weight is too heavy (for the subject) to give up on".

Raphael at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:50:07 UTC No. 16433799

>>16433772
You are a midwit my fsiq is 100 and I understand anon

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 02:52:36 UTC No. 16433806

>>16430081
>>16430955
>>16430826
Saying "No X is P" is the negation of saying "there is an X which is P". Therefore, the negation of OP's sentence would be "there is a head injury which is too trivial to ignore" - aka, there is a head injury that is so trivial it should not be ignored. That is the odd part - that a head injury being too trivial to ignore means that it is so trivial that it should not be ignored - because it violates our our knowledge of how the world works. And it means that our original sentence means all head injuries no matter how trivial should be

If you still don't see why that holds, think about saying "this weapon too dangerous for use" - this means there is a weapon so dangerous, it should not be used in used. Generally, consider our predicate P to be of the form "too A (for/to/to be) B". Then, saying "X is P" is saying that X is so A, that it shouldn't be B. This presupposes that A and B work in a way such that, more than a certain A threshold, B should hold. In the case "too trivial to ignore", the presupposition violates common sense because it means there is a threshold of triviality such that things MORE TRIVIAL than this threshold should be LESS IGNORED (treated more important). But, regardless of whether this presupposition is true, it's what the speaker states and so should be taken to indeed hold interpreting the speaker's sentence.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:59:47 UTC No. 16434016

>>16430123
>"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" would literally mean all head injuries, no matter how trivial, can be ignored.
jesus christ
this is what you are arguing with when getting into an argument on this website.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:06:27 UTC No. 16434024

>>16430044
because it trained on Wikipedia and reddit. so that's how those people would respond.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:13:43 UTC No. 16434031

>>16434016
At this point I don't know if this thread is trolling, bona fide autism or chatbots arguing with each other
What a time to be alive

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:21:18 UTC No. 16434036

>>16434016
No, you're actually engaging with retards like yourself who misread a sentence at first glance and are then too stubborn and retarded to re-read it properly

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:26:44 UTC No. 16434041

Holy shit, it's genuinely shocking the amount of people who not only fell for the exact trick the sentence is meant to play on you but then fucking doubled down and insisted they were right
Is there really that many third-world ESLs here or is the average /sci/ poster IQ sub-80?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:01:35 UTC No. 16434675

a very important reminder that language doesn't consist of meaningless disjointed fragments

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:04:43 UTC No. 16434679

>>16434036
I think you don't realize what sort of behavior I am calling out here. Likely, because you engage in it yourself.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:14:31 UTC No. 16434706

>>16430044
>>16430123
Is this a pajeet ESL thread? There is no difference between
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:36:37 UTC No. 16434892

>>16434706
>no cock took too big to suck
means all cocks can be sucked no matter how big
>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
means all cocks are too small to suck
you are a retarded pajeet ESL

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:40:06 UTC No. 16434900

>>16434892
>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
This isn't even a proper syntax of words in English. You're an ESL victim.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:47:39 UTC No. 16434923

>>16434900
it's absolutely proper syntax and is entirely reasonable in a sentence like "no head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored".
it seems that ESLs are entirely incapable of understanding that a sentence can be entirely grammatically correct, sensible, and coherent, while also not being true to real life. of course in reality it's possible to suck a cock (as I'd imagine you know pretty well), but that doesn't mean it's impossible to construct a sentence that says otherwise. same with head injuries - you see a sentence advocating ignoring them, think "that's not what you should do", and decide to entirely ignore english grammar instead of accepting that a sentence could possibly say something untrue
it's the "how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast" problem again

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:49:25 UTC No. 16434927

>>16434923
>how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast
This syntax is English.
>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
This syntax is ESL.

Any questions?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:57:41 UTC No. 16434948

>>16434927
The syntax is fine, you're too ESL to mentally separate structure from meaning. If I told you "the sky is green" you'd start going off about it not being proper English

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:01:45 UTC No. 16434957

>>16434948
>the sky is green
Proper English.
>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
ESL.

Poop bro, you're literally immolating yourself on a cross of shit here

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:06:05 UTC No. 16434962

>>16434957
>no cock is so big that it can't be sucked
Entirely fine
>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
Suddenly wrong
Structure is identical, the only thing changing is the meaning of the sentence. You're incapable of processing something that is said correctly but not applicable in a real life context

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:06:18 UTC No. 16434964

"It's too dangerous to go alone"
What would be the proper interpretation of this phrase?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:13:23 UTC No. 16434980

>>16434962
>>no cock is so big that it can't be sucked
>Entirely fine
>>no cock is so big that it can be sucked
>Suddenly wrong
Yes. You're obviously ESL. "Every cock is [so big / big enough] that it can be sucked" would be correct English syntax.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:37:56 UTC No. 16435027

>>16434980
"No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored" is correct. You accept it because it's also a reasonable thing to say.
"No cock is so big that it can be sucked" is also correct. You have a conniption over it because it's not a particularly reasonable thing to say. In an imagined world where all cocks were too small to suck (say, thailand), it would be entirely reasonable. In our world, it's coherent, but not reasonable. ESLs are incapable of understanding hypotheticals

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:41:00 UTC No. 16435034

>>16434706
"so trivial that it can be ignored" means that we have reached the threshold of triviality where we can ignore it

"too trivial to ignore" suggests that if it was less trivial we could ignore it, but because its SO extremely trivial we now have to pay attention.

It's a clever little trick, and I admit it got me at first too. However, the reason its so tricky is because the technically incorrect usage is commonly accepted, and the overall meaning is still conveyed. It's interesting how a certain meaning can be reliably conveyed from a combination of sub-phrases that means the opposite under close examination. And in such a short single sentence too!

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:44:38 UTC No. 16435043

>>16435027
You've already ESL'd yourself into a corner.

>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
is the statement.
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
says the same thing in correct English.

>No cock is so big that it can be sucked
is ESL word vomit.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:45:56 UTC No. 16435047

>>16435034
No, you're just having an ESL moment.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:51:14 UTC No. 16435055

>>16435047
How about you explain to me where I am wrong?

>>16435043
The third phrase is absolute grammatically sound.
>No cock is so big that it can be seen from space
makes perfect sense, so what's wrong with replacing the action "seen from space" with "sucked"?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:52:52 UTC No. 16435060

>>16434041
There's just a lot of NPCs.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:53:55 UTC No. 16435063

>>16435043
"too trivial to ignore" means you can't ignore it
"so trivial that it can be ignored" means you can ignore it
Any native English speaker with an IQ above 70 would grasp this immediately

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:59:57 UTC No. 16435076

>>16435055
Watch me steelman your ESL fantasy.
>No cock is so big that it can be seen from space
>No cock is so big that it can be sucked from space
Both are compatible with English syntax.
>No cock is so big that it can be seen
>No cock is so big that it can be sucked
Neither are compatible with English syntax.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:03:24 UTC No. 16435086

>>16435076
Those sentences are structurally the same, the only difference being that the latter ones aren't true
Once again you fail to separate "this sentence sounds wrong to me because it's wrong" and "this sentence sounds wrong to me because it's incorrectly structured"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:03:35 UTC No. 16435087

>>16435063
What does that have to do with
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:06:25 UTC No. 16435093

>>16435086
Your ESL mistake is confusing "so big" with "big enough"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:07:27 UTC No. 16435098

>>16435076
>No cock is so big that it can be seen
is perfectly valid, suggesting that every cock is microscopic. Not a true statement, but a valid statement.
>No cock is so big that it can be sucked
One verb is merely replaced with another. Equally as valid.

What are they missing that makes them incomplete or lack meaning? Are you saying that
>No bacterium is so big that it can be seen
is not a proper sentence?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:13:09 UTC No. 16435107

>>16435098
What does that have to do with
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:14:43 UTC No. 16435109

>>16435093
There is no difference in meaning between "X is so big that it can be Y" and "X is big enough to be Y"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:18:53 UTC No. 16435118

>>16435109
Lol yes, the point is that
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
are identical statements (in non ESL English).

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:31:29 UTC No. 16435133

>>16430044
L: noun
O: adjective
F: verb

No L is too O to F.
A: No L is so O that (L pronoun) can't be F.
B: No L is O enough to F.

Only jeets would choose A, simple as.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:35:05 UTC No. 16435137

>>16430044
As always, OP is a retarded faggot, probably brownish in complexion, probably poops where he shouldn't.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:35:20 UTC No. 16435141

>>16435118
You would be correct if the sentences being compared were
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
and
>No head injury is trivial enough to be ignored
but those aren't the sentences you're comparing.
"so X that it can be Y" and "X enough to be Y" mean the same thing, which is the opposite of "too X to Y" as in "too trivial to ignore"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:37:34 UTC No. 16435144

>>16435141
Those are literally the two sentences I'm comparing.
>>16430044
>>16430123

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:48:08 UTC No. 16435166

>>16435144
No, the sentences in that post are
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
and
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
you stupid mongoloid

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:49:30 UTC No. 16435172

>>16430123
>"No loli is too old to fuck" would literally mean all lolies, no matter how old, can be fucked.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:50:31 UTC No. 16435175

>>16435166
Read the fucking thread you moron.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:51:42 UTC No. 16435180

>>16435172
that is what that sentence would mean, yes

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:52:16 UTC No. 16435185

>>16435166
Also
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
and
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
mean the same fucking thing. ESL imbecile.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:53:30 UTC No. 16435188

>>16435175
I've read it, and you've consistently proven yourself too retarded to distinguish between "too X to Y" and "so X that it can be Y" despite them having completely opposite meanings

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:54:02 UTC No. 16435191

>>16435172
Yes, that's what it means (unless you're an ESL victim, I guess).

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:55:29 UTC No. 16435194

>>16435188
>No head injury is too trivial to ignore
>No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored
These mean the same thing in English.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:56:54 UTC No. 16435196

>>16435185
see
>>16435188
"too trivial to ignore" and "so trivial that it can be ignored" mean the exact opposite thing
if something is "too small to carry" then you CAN'T carry it
if something is "so small that it can be carried" then you CAN carry it
this is shit 3 year olds understand

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:58:27 UTC No. 16435197

>>16435194
see
>>16435188
and
>>16435196

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:01:53 UTC No. 16435204

>>16435196
ESL moment.
>No head injury is too small to carry
>No head injury is so small that it CAN be carried
ESL.
>No head injury is too small to carry
>No head injury is so small that it CAN'T be carried
English.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:03:43 UTC No. 16435207

>>16435197
You poop sporadically.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:05:59 UTC No. 16435212

>>16435204
you've just changed the second sentence so they both mean the same thing? entirely nonsensical comment

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:10:01 UTC No. 16435217

>>16435212
You're either an imbecile or an ESL victim.
>No head injury is too small to carry
means
>No head injury is so small that it CAN'T be carried

This is nonsense.
>No head injury is so small that it CAN be carried

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:15:58 UTC No. 16435223

>>16435217
>>No head injury is too small to carry
>means
>>No head injury is so small that it CAN'T be carried
glad you finally understand this, but

>>No head injury is so small that it CAN be carried
THIS is what you were trying to say was equivalent to "too X to Y" - see
>>16435194
and
>>16435185

"too trivial to ignore" and "so trivial it can't be ignored" mean the same
"too trivial to ignore" and "so trivial it can be ignored" as you were using before are opposite

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:16:29 UTC No. 16435224

I fucking hate how we all have to have a (merited)
fear of ESLs these days. We can't have fun with language anymore because it just makes you look Indian.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:18:03 UTC No. 16435226

>>16435223
>glad you finally understand this, but
There's no but. Glad to see you ESL retards finally STFU and submit to how English works.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:19:05 UTC No. 16435229

>>16435226
I accept your concession

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:21:34 UTC No. 16435232

>>16435224
ESL is just shorthand for syntax challenged.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:22:48 UTC No. 16435234

>>16435229
>>16435229

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:28:54 UTC No. 16435246

>>16430044
Most of the population have a hard time accepting meanings that go against their mental conditioning. Such vulnerability is exploitable in written contracts.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:31:57 UTC No. 16435252

>>16435246
>No head injury is too small to ignore
This means the same thing in vulgar English that it means in a contract. You're another ESL moron.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:54:47 UTC No. 16435280

>>16430044
Because GPT is actually a person in a call center in Hyderabad

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:03:07 UTC No. 16435302

>>16435280
Eh, no, it's more like a survey of those people.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:36:22 UTC No. 16435361

it always is fascinating that Americans don't even speak one language.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:50:23 UTC No. 16435391

>>16435361
We do. It's more fascinating that non Americans ride American dick so much.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:59:19 UTC No. 16435403

I can't believe this thread exists.
>"No head injury is [too] trivial to ignore"
I can't even.
This is meant to demoralize us. There is just no way.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:02:55 UTC No. 16435410

>>16430044
For everyone asking try this: this head injury is too trivial to ignore
This shows that the statement is saying: there is no head injury trivial enough that we can't ignore it

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:03:31 UTC No. 16435412

>>16435403
It only demoralizes Dunning-Kruger stereotype ESL victims. So who cares?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:04:59 UTC No. 16435414

>>16435410
>this head injury is too trivial to ignore
Gibberish ESL vomit.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:11:59 UTC No. 16435426

>>16435414
you are illiterate

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:13:19 UTC No. 16435427

>>16435426
You are both illiterate and fucking retarded (and almost certainly ESL).

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:18:14 UTC No. 16435432

>>16435427
I'm being 100% serious, if you cannot understand the sentence
>this head injury is too trivial to ignore
then you are genuinely not English literate. A small child could understand it,

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:24:38 UTC No. 16435437

>>16435252
Saar

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:26:38 UTC No. 16435440

>>16435432
>this head injury is too trivial to ignore
means "this head injury happens literally all the time"
Fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:27:39 UTC No. 16435442

>>16435437
Sew your own sewer into your mouth, asshole.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:30:58 UTC No. 16435446

>>16435440
Not only is this not what it says, it's not even what it's trying to trick you into thinking it says lol
There is absolutely no way you could possibly interpret the sentence to mean that, this is some advanced ESL fuckery

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:37:27 UTC No. 16435457

>>16435446
Hi ESL mayo nigger chink.
>this head injury is too trivial to ignore
means
1) this head injury happens so often as to be trivial == literally all the time
2) you are a retarded ESL victim

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:43:04 UTC No. 16435466

>>16435457
You aren't even close to being able to read that sentence, maybe stick to picture books until you have a grasp on basic grammar

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:43:21 UTC No. 16435467

>>16433806
See
>>16430138

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:43:37 UTC No. 16435469

>>16435252
Brave to assume the legal system is run by people who will take your side when interpreting those words.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:46:59 UTC No. 16435478

>>16435457
there is absolutely nothing in that sentence that indicates frequency, incredibly esl post

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:47:45 UTC No. 16435479

>>16430044
Why is that sentence so hard to parse? It took me quite a while to see why chatgpt's interpretation is wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:48:13 UTC No. 16435480

>>16435466
ESL
>>16435469
I've never assumed that; I continue to assume the opposite.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:49:14 UTC No. 16435482

>>16435478
Frequency? Are you having another ESL moment?

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:50:14 UTC No. 16435484

>>16435479
It's not hard to parse unless you're an ESL victim.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:50:46 UTC No. 16435486

>>16435457
Most ESL post in the thread by far.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:51:02 UTC No. 16435487

>>16435479
Because the correct parsing leads to a meaning that goes against common wisdom. You brain badly wants to make sense of the world, so it applies a heavy de-noise filter by default.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:52:33 UTC No. 16435489

>>16435486
Your post is retarded but other posts itt are more retarded so no.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:52:35 UTC No. 16435490

>>16435487
Okay, that makes sense. Basically I'm too smart to be correct.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:53:03 UTC No. 16435492

>>16435482
Native English speakers refer to how often something happens as the frequency of said thing happening - a head injury that happens very often is a head injury that happens frequently.
Hope this helps! Thanks for outing yourself as a retarded monkey again.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:55:54 UTC No. 16435495

>>16435492
Hi retarded boomer. Where in the chain did anyone write "how often." Fucking retard boomer.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:57:42 UTC No. 16435501

>>16435495
>>16435457
>== literally all the time

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:59:04 UTC No. 16435503

>>16435501
https://youtu.be/dWNvlyycWzQ

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:07:57 UTC No. 16435517

>>16430044
OP mogged by a robot kek

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:16:31 UTC No. 16435526

>>16435495
You mentioned both "so often" and "all the time" (measures of frequency) in your last post: >>16435457
ESL

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:19:29 UTC No. 16435532

>>16435526
"So often as to be trivial" means "literally all the time"
Do you disagree?

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:22:16 UTC No. 16435538

>>16435532
Both are irrelevant because neither has anything whatsoever to do with "too trivial to ignore"

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:25:59 UTC No. 16435544

>>16430136
Based off of OP's sentence you would say you should ignore all head injuries since the sentence says no matter how trivial the head injury is you must ignore it

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:28:38 UTC No. 16435546

>>16435538
Read the thread before commenting

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:30:04 UTC No. 16435548

>>16435546
Here's your post from earlier:
>>16435440
in which you say some retarded ESL bullshit, which is what I was making reference to. Please learn to speak English before commenting.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:32:54 UTC No. 16435550

>>16435548
>t. ESL tard

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:34:32 UTC No. 16435552

>>16430081
He is saying that if there is no head injure, then you can ignore it kek

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:46:19 UTC No. 16435700

>>16430044
It's trained on data trained on human data so it leads to human problems. It's as easy as that.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:51:50 UTC No. 16435709

>Point out that ChatLGB is too stupid to figure out basic grammar.
>Get accosted by ten thousand morons who are also too stupid to figure out basic grammar.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:31:44 UTC No. 16436163

>>16435709
>Be ESL
>Fall for ESL boomer meme

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:10:57 UTC No. 16436216

>>16430123

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:32:29 UTC No. 16436262

>stupid thread about some bullshit nonsense
>206 posts and counting
wtf? a couple of turbo autists locking horns?

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:41:59 UTC No. 16436463

>>16436262
> complains about thread
> bumps thread

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:41:54 UTC No. 16436738

>ctrl+f "ESL"
>50 results

I sure wish we still had the ip counter.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:16:22 UTC No. 16437041

>>16430258
No it doesn’t esl.
You are the people who write instructions to my board games, and Inhate you.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:25:51 UTC No. 16437049

>>16435544
Wrong chud.
>no head injury is too trivial to ignore.
The main sentence is “there are no head injuries you should ignore.
>>16435544
You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
That’s no what it is saying, there is no double negative or whatever you are impying.
>No head injury is too trivial
There are head injuries, some are trivial some are not. The noun phrase is head injury..
The verb is ignore.
Right?
Wrong,
The verb is no…ignore.
Read as “ Do not ignore.”
“Do not ignore head injuries”. Including the set of trivial and non trivial.
Go back to grammar school and learn to diagram a complex sentence.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:42:02 UTC No. 16437061

> No _____ is too trivial to ____
Riddle me this tards.:
No [problem] is too trivial to ——-
No [problem] is too trivial to not _____
Which one do you think is saying not ignore?
Becuase chatgdp has it right and you all have it wrong.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:49:02 UTC No. 16437069

>>16437061
Poo in loo

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:51:35 UTC No. 16437072

>>16437069
A gate the sentence yourself then and realize chatgdp is right.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:56:44 UTC No. 16437078

>>16437072
I agree with the GPT answer. Only poos in loo and other ESL dunning kruger stereotypes disagree.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:59:30 UTC No. 16437082

>>16437049
sudaca or jeet, call it

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:27:08 UTC No. 16437116

>>16436163
>NO U

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:31:19 UTC No. 16437123

>>16437078
Based, at least two smart people in thread

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:37:08 UTC No. 16437138

>>16437116
ok boomie

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:46:01 UTC No. 16437148

>>16437078
>tard who fell for the trap confidently calling everyone else "dunning kruger"
jesus, the irony lol

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 23:50:52 UTC No. 16437156

>>16437148
>another poo in loo dunning kruger victim self-identifies
jeetus, the archetype lol

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:15 UTC No. 16437169

>>16437156
>doesn't know how to use "archetype"
thanks for confirming

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:03:06 UTC No. 16437175

>>16437078
>I agree with the GPT answer.
The one that's objectively wrong?
What are we supposed to say to this?
Should we congratulate you on being clueless?
By the way, "dunning kruger" in your sentence should be capitalized and it should be hyphenated in the way you're using it, stupid.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:13:43 UTC No. 16437192

>>16437175
>>16437169
>t. esl poos in the loo

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:18:47 UTC No. 16437201

>Miguel shitting on imagined 'jeets while flaunting his complete lack of understanding of English
This isn't going to turn you white

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:19:31 UTC No. 16437203

>>16437201
Kek!

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:24:33 UTC No. 16437211

>>16437201
>>16437203
classic esl jeetery, the "one two poo in loo" punch

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:09:14 UTC No. 16437261

>>16437061
"Too short to ride" = so short that riding is impossible
"Too trivial to ignore" = so trivial that ignoring it is impossible
"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" = No head injury is so trivial that ignoring it is impossible = At least one head injury is so trivial that ignoring it is possible.
poo in loo

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:31:53 UTC No. 16437286

>>16437261
Way to not answer my question,
You aren’t as smart as you think

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:02:50 UTC No. 16437328

>>16437286
>>16437061
>No [problem] is too trivial to not ignore
there's the answer
"No head injury is too trivial not to ignore" = No head injury is so trivial that ignoring it is possible
easy answer, you don't even need to be smart, and I already answered your question with my prevous response anyway

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 02:13:15 UTC No. 16437355

>>16437261
keep digging yourself deeper, Jose

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 03:02:32 UTC No. 16437381

>>16430136
>>16430138
>>16430216
>16430256
>>16430259
>16430265
>>16437041
>16430955
>>16431094
>16434016
>>16436216
You all deserve a reply but I don't want to trigger the spam filter. OP is right and if you drop your ego and actually work it out in your head you will see that.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 03:13:29 UTC No. 16437388

>>16437381
The problem is that more people will work it out in their head than I will.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:25:34 UTC No. 16438074

>>16437381
>OP is right
OP's comment about his OP is self-indicting dyssntactic jeetery but, yes, his actual OP (the image) is correct.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:53:31 UTC No. 16438337

>>16434964
It obviously means "No danger is too alone to go."

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 18:47:04 UTC No. 16438421

>>16437261
Hmm, I guess you're right, but you're also kinda retarded for not understanding why ChatGPT would repeat the human error. It's a glorified fill in the blanks engine not a logician

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:01:08 UTC No. 16438446

>>16438421
No English speaking human would ever interpret that as a human error. You're an idiot.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:17:39 UTC No. 16438474

>>16438446
I also know the MKII Andrew Cranie who is brother of a premiership and lower footballer. Minator perfection eyes straight. Zombie dual fringe

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:19:19 UTC No. 16438561

>>16438446
>falls for the same linguistics trick as actual humans
>as actual humans
You gotta lay off the autism bro. Go for a walk

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:20:50 UTC No. 16438562

>>16438561
Touch grass, retard.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:22:02 UTC No. 16438564

>>16438562
Thats what I just told you to do, yes
You sure you can't do better than "No u"?

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:24:43 UTC No. 16438566

>>16438564
>No u
That's the best you can do?

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:45:15 UTC No. 16438793

I threads like this. Can someone post the portal one next?

OP and his camp are semantically right, but everyone saying that English isn't formal logic and this would be understood as the AI does, is also right.

It look me a while to get it. Consider the opposite, that there exists a head injury that is too trivial to ignore. That means this head injury can't be ignored because it is too trivial. So reapply the negative and you get "there exists no head injury that can not be ignored for being too trivial". I guess if you want to be annoying you can argue this is just saying something about using triviality as a basis for not ignoring head injuries and not saying anything about obligation to ignore head injuries in general. But if you want to argue semantics you should first rephrase everything in formal logic.

I wish we had an international language that bakes formal logic into correct grammer.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:51:15 UTC No. 16438800

>>16430123
Or you could say "No head injury is too trivial to take seriously"

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:58:59 UTC No. 16438819

>>16433806
>>16430123
>"No X is P" is the negation of saying "there is an X which is P"

yeah but the OP does not say
>trivially_ignorable(NOT headinjury)
the OP says
>not_exists trivially_ignorable(head injury)

the NO is a quantifier not a negation

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:00:46 UTC No. 16438823

The reason I think why it's confusing is because it's a stupid sentence (for many reasons). First of all, even if all head injuries should be ignored, you would rather say, "No head injury is too serious to ignore" instead of using the opposite of "serious" (trivial) because that makes it sound weird.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:04:37 UTC No. 16438826

>>16438793
>this would be understood as the AI does
only because it's an unintuitive sentence, and most things are more skimmed than read. grammatically there's no merit to reading it in that way.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:10:38 UTC No. 16438833

>>16438826
>it's an unintuitive sentence, and most things are more skimmed than read. grammatically there's no merit to reading it in that way.
Only because the sky is blue.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:17:36 UTC No. 16438842

There's four versions of the sentence depending how you use opposites withing the sentence.

>no head injury is too trivial to ignore
Everything is wrong with that one

>no head injury is too serious to ignore
Still weird but less weird than the previous one

>no head injury is too serious to take seriously
Still weird but makes more sense than the first two

>no head injury is too trivial to take seriously
The version which actually makes sense.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:19:56 UTC No. 16438843

There's four versions of the sentence depending how you combine opposites withing the sentence.

>no head injury is too trivial to ignore
Everything is wrong and upside down with this one

>no head injury is too serious to ignore
Still weird but less weird than the previous one

>no head injury is too serious to take seriously
Still weird but makes more sense than the first two

>no head injury is too trivial to take seriously
The version which actually makes sense.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:22:08 UTC No. 16438846

There's four versions of the sentence depending how you combine opposites in the sentence.

>no head injury is too trivial to ignore
Everything is wrong and upside down with this one

>no head injury is too serious to ignore
Still weird but less weird than the previous one

>no head injury is too serious to take seriously
Still weird but makes more sense than the first two

>no head injury is too trivial to take seriously
The version which actually makes sense.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:38:43 UTC No. 16438863

There's four visions on the sentence depending how you combine opposite on the santance.

>no have injury are too trivials in ignoring.
Everything is wrong and inside out on this one

>no hard injuring is too serial to ignore
Stilling weird less weird then the weird one

>no head jury's is to seirous two take seven
Im weird but make more sense than the first two.

>now head injury is not trivial take me seriously
The venison wich actualy makes cents.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 02:15:46 UTC No. 16439143

>>16435133

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:48:06 UTC No. 16439393

>>16430123
>"No head injury is too trivial to ignore" would literally mean all head injuries, no matter how trivial, can be ignored.
>The proper wording ought to be, "No head injury is so trivial that it can be ignored."
The first sentence means the same thing as yours. I guess you don’t know the word ‘too’ well enough.
ChatGPT is literally smarter than you, kek.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:17:46 UTC No. 16439825

Next time someone on another board claims "/sci/ is the smartest board on 4chan" just link them this thread as a disproof by counterexample.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 15:19:54 UTC No. 16439826

I am personally a solipsist. I can't prove that everything isn't just a figment of my own mind/imagination. It is entirely possible.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:10:38 UTC No. 16439890

>>16430081
OP is a low IQ Indian. He doesn't know how to read in English (or use a toilet) and is being thrown off by the "too trivial" part. It fries his useless street shitter brain.

Just remember if a person looks like poo, smells like poo, has poo festivals, worships poo and has names like "a-poo" and "ran-shit" then they are probably exactly that: poo.

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:47:31 UTC No. 16441897

>>16430123
No, it means that not having a head injury cannot be ignored.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:09:31 UTC No. 16441932

>>16430123
Thank god I don’t have autism.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:23:28 UTC No. 16442181

>>16438819
i love the foot porn of her and her daughter

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 06:56:40 UTC No. 16442213

>>16430123
You inferred the wrong quantifier. "Not E x. p x" <=> "for all x. Not p x", so when you add the missing "not" it isn't shocking anymore.
> All head injuries, no matter how trivial, can not be ignored.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:42:07 UTC No. 16442409

>>16430044
>Why does the machine trained on normies data not conform to my uber-autistic mannerisms?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:38:21 UTC No. 16443663

>>16437381
He's not, he's a fucking ESL or omega pedant from the 1800s.