←back to thread

Crokinole

(pudding.cool)
621 points Tomte | 5 comments | 17 Oct 24 16:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.68s | source
Show context
titanomachy ◴[17 Oct 24 17:16 UTC] No.41871570[source]▶
> In non-competitive, less plamigerent settings, their skills really shine

“Plamigerent” isn’t a word, and I can’t find any English words similar to it. It seems an unlikely typo. I wonder if the author included it to catch LLMs plagiarizing his work.

replies(7): >>41871726 #>>41871780 #>>41872235 #>>41872269 #>>41874709 #>>41874953 #>>41875022 #
1. mike_ivanov ◴[17 Oct 24 17:32 UTC] No.41871726[source]▶
Lexical watermarking! If that's the case (and if this idea sticks), I'm wondering how far it could go.

One could imagine a (dystopian?) world where everybody speaks they own highly individualized, maybe even copyrighted language, and where interpersonal communications happen via AI translators.

replies(3): >>41872195 #>>41876126 #>>41877056 #
2. collingreen ◴[17 Oct 24 18:18 UTC] No.41872195[source]▶
:( is this our generations version of cyberpunk theme?
3. peeters ◴[18 Oct 24 03:33 UTC] No.41876126[source]▶
That would be an interesting contrast to 1984's dystopian Newspeak, which aimed to eliminate all individuality in language.
replies(1): >>41881583 #
4. voidUpdate ◴[18 Oct 24 07:18 UTC] No.41877056[source]▶
This used to be a thing in dictionaries. My favourite word is "Esquivalience", which was defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary as "The wilful avoidance of ones official responsibilities". Prior to that, the word didn't exist, and it was used to catch people just copying the words from their dictionary. Very similar to paper towns on maps
5. mike_ivanov ◴[18 Oct 24 17:27 UTC] No.41881583[source]▶
That would be its dialectical counterpart