(Roughly) Daily

Posts Tagged ‘language

“Show, don’t tell”*…

Illustration depicting two stick figures, one in red and the other in blue, both saying 'hi' amidst explosive lines, with the title 'The Ozma Problem' displayed above.

Some things are very difficult to explain using words alone; they require physical demonstration. Consider, for example, the distinction between right and left. It turns out that this difficulty has been at the heart of the great scientific debates about the nature of space…

… explain right and left to a friend using language alone and without using the words right and left. As you can only use language, you can’t show your hands or use pictures!

It’s tricky, isn’t it? The difference between right and left isn’t as straightforward as it seems. If we dig a little deeper, we will find that the science behind right and left is surprising, complex, and profound.

How can two things be identical yet different at the same time? This was the question that puzzled one of humankind’s greatest thinkers, Immanuel Kant.

Many of the great debates of the Scientific Revolution during the 16th and 17th centuries concerned the nature of space. The English polymath Sir Isaac Newton proposed that space was absolute: space is an entity in itself and exists even without objects, matter, or living beings filling it. 

In contrast, Gottfried Leibniz, Newton’s bitter rival, argued that space was relational: it only existed because of the relations between the objects that fill it. If objects do not exist, then space doesn’t either.

Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant used handedness to give his two cents. He asked us to imagine a solitary hand floating in an otherwise completely empty space. The hand must either be a right hand or a left hand, and this will be the case even in a space where no relationships between objects can be observed. Kant noted that our hands are geometrically and mathematically identical in every way possible, whether it be the lengths of the fingers or the angles between them. Yet, the one fundamental difference between them—that one is a right hand, and the other is a left hand—exists in itself; it is intrinsic to the hand and not related to any other object, similar to space itself. Space has an absolute property.

Ultimately, Kant’s theories of handedness were not foolproof and could not be used to prove that space is absolute. Indeed, Kant would switch between the Newtonian and Leibnizian schools of thought during his lifetime. However, Kant did show just how puzzling and difficult it is to explain why right hands and left hands are identical but different. That intrinsic quality of handedness is almost impossible to explain without showing, and this is the root of the Ozma Problem.

In 1960, Project Ozma was launched in West Virginia. Named after the ruler of the fictional Land of Oz, Project Ozma was a huge telescope that listened for signals from space, signals that could be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. Unfortunately, the project only ran for a few months, and it had no major success.

Let’s say the telescope had picked up these signals. How would we on Earth respond? We would need to convert their signals, after which we would send our own. Telescopes and computers use binary code. And directionality is crucial to understanding binary, as it is read left to right and decoded right to left. So, if we are sending binary signals to aliens, we need to be sure they understand which direction is left and which is right. How can we be sure they share our understanding of directions?

This is the Ozma Problem, a thought experiment first described by Martin Gardner [see the almanac entry here] in his 1964 book, The Ambidextrous Universe. In this book, Gardner pitched a number of solutions.

Before going into Gardner’s work, here’s a seemingly simple solution: lay your palms face down on a table and equally spaced from your body. The thumb that’s closer to your heart? That’s the left side. The right side is defined by the thumb farther away from the heart.

Another potential solution would be to use north and south as reference points: when facing north, everything towards east is the right side, and everything pointing west is the left side.

The problem with these solutions is that they both rely on a shared point of reference, like the direction of north-south-east-west and the location of the heart. In no way can we be certain that an alien species would share these!

Some of the solutions that Gardner proposed in his book use magnetic fields, planetary rotation, and the direction of current flow. And as we discussed before, they all fail because of the need for a shared point of reference. 

So, after centuries of wondering whether we are alone in the universe, we finally make contact with an alien species, only to find that our inability to explain something as mundane as right and left precludes meaningful dialogue. The Ozma Problem demonstrates the limits of our language, and it challenges anthropocentrism, which is the notion that human beings and our experiences are the center of the universe.

Many thought problems are hypothetical and can’t be solved, but the Ozma Problem does have a solution. In fact, the solution already existed when Gardner first described it. But it’s not immediately associated with right-left asymmetry or aliens.

 

While we cannot be sure that aliens share our anatomy or our perception of north-south-east-west, if they inhabit the same universe as us, we can assume the fundamental forces of physics apply to them too.

There are four fundamental forces of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear forces (the force that binds atomic nuclei together), and weak nuclear forces (the force that causes atomic decay).

Up until 1956, it was assumed these fundamental forces all display parity. Parity is an important concept in physics, and it can be demonstrated visually by using a mirror. If we stand in front of a mirror holding an apple in our right hand and then drop it, the reflection will show it falling to the ground, but the apple will fall from your left hand. Gravity still works in the reflection. Likewise, if we look at the strong forces binding atomic nuclei and then observe them in a mirror, the images would be identical, just with right and left switched. 

But in 1956, Professor Chien-Shiung Wu, a physicist, conducted a ground breaking experiment. She was able to prove that the weak nuclear force—the decay of atoms—did not always demonstrate parity. The weak nuclear force does not adhere to mirror symmetry. 

Professor Wu showed this by observing the decay of cobalt-60 atoms. When atoms decay, they spin out electrons. Up until then, scientists had always observed these electrons spinning out equally in all directions. But Professor Wu saw that cobalt-60 will always preferentially spin out electrons in a certain direction. In other words, the movement is asymmetric. For some reason, the decay of atoms is the one fundamental force that does not adhere to parity or mirror symmetry, thus showing that directionality is intrinsic to the universe, just as Kant had postulated in the 18th century. 

For the first time in history, it was proven that nature can prefer one direction. Very soon after Wu’s findings, physicists were able to prove that elementary particles known as neutrinos always spin towards the left.

What does this mean for our communication with aliens? If the aliens can replicate Professor Wu’s experiment and visualize the spin of electrons while cobalt-60 decays, they can orient right and left!

Ironically, Professor Wu was not afforded any sort of parity herself during her working life. Other scientists were recognized for research that could not have been achieved without hers. Today, the weak force remains one of the most important and mysterious topics in physics today, thanks to Professor Wu.

So, if the only way to scientifically and definitively define the difference between right and left is to build a particle accelerator and observe the decay of cobalt-60, clearly the difference is not as straightforward as it may first seem! The Ozma Problem is proof that the most mundane concepts are sometimes directly linked to the cosmos and speak to the nature of existence itself…

An essay by Dr. Maloy Das (see the bio in this unrelated– but also fascinating– article by him). From the remarkable blog, Fascinating World, scored a highly credible source by the MBFC for having proper sourcing, no failed fact-checks, and “highly factual” reporting. It’s the work of Krishna Rathuryan, currently a senior at a prep school in Princeton (where he’s also apparently a pretty accomplished distance runner) and team of his friends.

When language fails: “What Is The Ozma Problem, And Why Does It Matter?

* attributed to playwright Anton Chekhov, who said said “Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.” It has, of course, become a motto for many writers across genre.

###

As we explore explanation, we (especially any readers in or near Manhattan Beach, California) might note that today is one of the two days of the year (symmetrically on either side of the winter solstice, 37 days before and 37 after) when the public sculpture there, “Light Gate,” becomes a portal “unlocked” by the rays of the setting sun… as Atlas Obscura puts it, “a bit of Druidic paganism by way of high modern design.”

A colorful public sculpture featuring a circular frame with vibrant glass panels reflecting the sunset.

source

“We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive”*…

A close-up of the sculpture 'The Thinker' by Auguste Rodin, depicting a contemplative male figure seated on a rock, resting his chin on his hand with a thoughtful expression.

The estimable Robin Sloan on the challenge of keeping our language– our words and our use of them– up to the task of wrestling with our present and our future…

The overloading of common words is well underway: new language models have “thinking” modes, “reasoning” capabilities! What this means, in practice, is that they’ve learned to produce a special kind of text, the conversion of the linguistic if-then into a dynamo that spins and spins and, often, magically — yes, it is magical — produces useful results.

Here is one distinction among several: this process can only compound — the models can only “think” by spooling out more text — while human thinking often does the opposite: retreats into silence, because it doesn’t have words yet to say what it wants to say.

Human thinking often washes the dishes, then goes for a walk.

So, if you redefine “thinking” to mean “arriving at a solution through an iterative linguistic loop” … yes, that’s what these models do. That definition is IMHO pretty thin.

We talk about humans thinking harder, which is not the same as thinking longer. I think most people know from experience that thinking longer generally just makes you anxious. But that’s what the models do, and not only longer, but in parallel, all those step-by-step monologues spilling out simultaneously, somewhere in the dark of a data center. “Quantity has a quality all its own,” said Stalin, maybe … 

Well, okay — what does it mean for a human to think harder? Reasonable people will disagree (and in interesting ways) but, for my part, I think it means prospecting new analogies; pitching your inquiry out away from the gravitational attractors of protocol and cliché; turning the workpiece around to inspect it from new angles; and especially bringing more senses into the mix — grounding yourself in reality. You’ll note these moves are challenging or impossible for systems that operate only on/with/inside language.

A couple of years ago, when I wondered if language models are in hell, I expressed some hope about the richness of multimodal training. So far, this hasn’t panned out. Rather than images anchoring text in a richer, more embodied realm, the marriage seems to have gone the opposite direction. The models chop images into sequences of tokens — big bright pictures become spindly threads, a bit sad — and feed them in along with everything else.

We are going to lose this word — we might already have lost it — but/and we can put a marker down; a gravestone, you might call it; for a kind of thinking that used to mean more than “more”.

Other useful words, still with us, include: imagination, ingenuity, insight. Clarity, most of all. Clarity is what Einstein was seeking when he sat and thought hard about the relative motion of magnets and conductors. He wanted to push through language, beyond it, beyond even the formalism of physics — because there wasn’t physics yet for the things he wanted to understand.

I am still waiting for models that aspire to pack complex systems — whole economies — into high-dimensional space, “hold it all in their heads”, then make observations and predictions way out beyond the if-then of “reasoning” language.

Think harder!

Thinking modes,” from Sloan’s wonderful newsletter.

Pair with “Horseless Carriages, Digital Paint, AI,” Quentin Hardy‘s meditation on the ways in which new technologies shape both our language(s) and the ways we think (from Hardy’s also-wonderful newsletter).

[Image above: Rodin, “The Thinker” (source)]

* Albert Einstein

###

As we ponder pondering, we might recall that it was on this date in 1963 that “Louie Louie” by the Kingsmen entered the Billboard Hot 100.

For more on how the record came to be (and the ruckus over language that followed), see here (and here and here).

Written by (Roughly) Daily

November 9, 2025 at 1:00 am

“Algorithms are the culprits, influencers are the accomplices, language is the weapon, and readers are the victims”*…

Close-up of computer code displayed on a screen, featuring programming syntax and function definitions.

On the occasion of the publication of his new book, Algospeak: How Social Media is Transforming the Future of Language, Adam Aleksic — aka the “Etymology Nerd” — talks with Liz Mineo about how social media algorithms are transforming language…

… I’m a big believer that the medium is the message. The way the information is being diffused is going to affect how we communicate. For example, with the arrival of writing, there was this big shift away from us telling stories with rhyme and meter. Plato said that writing was going to make us worse at remembering things. With the printing press, information is diffused more quickly, and more people have the ability to be literate, but there are still gatekeepers, which is affecting who gets to tell the story. And then the internet allows us to lose the gatekeepers; anybody can tell the story now, and that’s another paradigm shift in language. Algorithms are a new paradigm shift because the centralization of the internet that occurred in the late 2010s, coupled with how these algorithms push content through personalized recommendation feeds, are changing how we understand the very act of communication…

… Algorithms are shaping the way we speak. Platforms’ priorities play an important role in organizing and shaping how our language develops. The algorithm pushes more trends, creates more in-groups that then create new language. New trending words are amplified by social media; creators replicate words that they know are going viral, because it helps them go more viral, and then they push the words more into existence. This is the cycle that we’re constantly in. I think it’s because of the algorithm, which amplifies trends, that we’re getting more rapid language change than before. The biggest takeaway from my book is that algorithms are deeply affecting our society right now, and we should be paying attention to them…

When I say algorithms are the culprits, I mean that they are, in this metaphor, responsible for the perpetuation of slang at this speed, and influencers are being accomplices because we’re playing a part. The algorithm doesn’t do anything by itself; it doesn’t come up with the words or spread the words by itself. It’s humans who are doing that, with our own ideas of what the algorithm is or should be, and that pushes the words faster than otherwise. Eventually, those words enter your vocabulary, and that, I guess, makes you the victim…

What concerns you about the way social media and its algorithms are changing language?

As a linguist, I have no concerns because language is the means by which humans connect with one another. As a cultural critic, I’m pretty concerned by the way in which language is more commodified than ever before, and I’m concerned that certain groups are influencing our language more than other groups, like incels. Words that are part of the incel vocabulary like “pilled,” “maxxing,” or “sigma” are very popular. For example, if I like burritos, I can say, “I’m so burrito-pilled,” or if I want to eat more burritos, I can say “I’m burrito-maxxing.” The fact that we are using these words is an indicator that this culture is influencing us, and it also indicates that the way ideas spread and percolate in the online space can be dangerous. Incels are incredibly misogynistic and have a worldview that causes them to dehumanize other people. They have been able to spread their ideology because of the nature of the internet right now. If we pay attention to how language is changing, we should also pay attention to how culture is changing.

As a linguist, I’m very excited to see that language is developing faster than before. To me, language is almost a form of resistance. Every single new meme that emerges is a reactive cultural force to the over-organization of society. This summer, the term “clanker,” which is a speculative slur for artificial intelligence, became very popular. In March, we saw “Italian Brain Rot,” a meme that uses AI subversively to generate ridiculous cartoon characters. Both of these memes create a commentary about our current state of technological progress. A lot of memes and slang words are emerging in reflection to our current cultural moment. There’s something really beautiful about that…

Our viral vocabulary,” from @etymology.substack.com.web.brid.gy (TotH to J O’D)

Apposite: “Understanding the new economics of attention” (gift article from The Economist)

(Image above: source)

* Adam Aleksic, Algospeak: How Social Media is Transforming the Future of Language

###

As we pause to parse, we might note that today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day… that’s to say, a day on which to speak in English with a stereotypical West Country accent.

Created in 1995 by John Baur and Mark Summers of Albany, Oregon, it has since been adopted as an official holiday by the Pastafarianism movement.

Two men dressed as pirates, one pointing a pistol and the other holding a rifle, against a white background.
“Cap’n Slappy” and “Ol’ Chumbucket”, the founders of Talk Like a Pirate Day (source)

Written by (Roughly) Daily

September 19, 2025 at 1:00 am

“I quit school in the sixth grade because of pneumonia. Not because I had it, but because I couldn’t spell it.”*…

A child with glasses shows anxiety and concentration during a spelling bee competition, holding their head with both hands. Two other children can be seen in the background, each wearing a name tag.

At the other end of the spectrum are the kids who make it to– and in– the Spelling Bee. Sebastian Stockman shares his unique perspective…

Every March, I get an email from Joan Lanigan at City Hall: The Binder has arrived.

The Spelling Bee words are in The Binder. I need The Binder because I’m the Pronouncer. 

And so, my annual participation in the Boston Citywide Spelling Bee begins with a bit of spycraft—not the Tom-Cruise-scales-the-Burj-Khalifa type, more the George-Smiley-hands-you-a-file kind. 

The handoff always takes place somewhere on my campus in between classes. Over the years, Joan has popped out of the passenger seat of an illegally parked car to hand me the nondescript white three-ring binder. She has waited for me in the rain, under an umbrella, outside my classroom building. She’s shown up in sunglasses and workout clothes, dropping The Binder off before her run. This year we met on the steps of the Museum of Fine Arts. 

Joan’s not paranoid. She just does things by the book. As Program Manager at the Boston Centers for Youth and Families, Joan is the city’s point of contact between the Scripps National Spelling Bee and the several dozen public and private schools in Boston who send representatives to the regional competition. The winner of that competition receives a trophy, various wordy prizes, and travel and accommodations to the National Spelling Bee, just outside of Washington, D.C., where they’ll have their words pronounced by Dr. Jacques Bailly, the affable, unflappable LeBron James of the Bee world.

The Scripps people do not provide the word list digitally, because they want to limit sharing. It says so at the top of the first page, centered in red italics:

“Please do not give this guide to any spellers, parents or teachers.
The Scripps National Spelling Bee will provide your regional champion with study materials for the National Competition.”

This is the Spelling Bee. OpSec is critical…

A proctor’s-eye view: “Confessions Of A Spelling Bee Pronouncer,” from ‪@substockman.bsky.social‬ in @defector.com‬.

* Rocky Graziano

###

As we honor orthography, we might recall that on this date in 1988, Rageshree Ramachandran won the Scripps National Spelling Bee (correctly spelling “elegiacal”). 13 years old (and In the eighth grade) at the time, Ramachandran proceeded to race through high school in three years. At age 15, she won a $10,000 Westinghouse Science Talent Search scholarship. She started Stanford at age 16, and graduated in 1995 with both a B.S. and an M.S. She moved then to medical school at the University of Pennsylvania where she earned a Ph.D. in 2022 and an M.D. in 2023, then moved back to the Bay Area to do her residency at UCSF… where today she is a professor of clinical pathology.

A split image featuring Rageshree Ramachandran celebrating her Spelling Bee victory holding a trophy on the left, and her in medical scrubs in a professional setting on the right.

source

Written by (Roughly) Daily

June 2, 2025 at 1:00 am

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”*…

A Renaissance portrait of Erasmus of Rotterdam, depicting him in profile while writing in a book with a quill pen, set against a dark green background.
Portrait of Erasmus of Rotterdam Writing (1523) by Hans Holbein

Like today’s large language models, some 16th-century humanists (like Erasmus) had techniques to automate writing. But as Hannah Katznelson explains, others (like Rabelais) called foul…

The Renaissance scholar and educator Erasmus of Rotterdam opens his polemical treatise The Ciceronian (1528) by describing the utterly dysfunctional writing process of a character named Nosoponus. The Ciceronianis structured as a dialogue, withtwo mature writers, Bulephorus and Hypologus, trying to talk Nosoponus out of his paralysing obsession with stylistic perfection. Nosoponus explains that it would take him weeks of fruitless writing and rewriting to produce a casual letter in which he asks a friend to return some borrowed books. He says that writing requires such intense concentration that he can do it only at night, when no one else is awake to distract him, and even then his perfectionism is so intense that a single sentence becomes a full night’s work. Nosoponus goes over what he’s written again and again, but remains so dissatisfied with the quality of his language that eventually he just gives up.

Nosoponus’s problem might resonate. Who has not spent too long going over the wording of a simple email, at some point or another? Today there is an easy fix: we have large language models (LLMs) to write our letters for us, helpfully proffering suggestions as to what we might say, and how we might phrase it. When I input Nosoponus’s intended request into GPT-4, it generated the following almost instantly:

Hey [Friend’s Name],

Hope you’re doing well! I just realised I never got those books back that I lent you a while ago. No rush, but whenever you get a chance, I’d love to get them back. Let me know what works for you! Thanks!

Nosoponus

But there was a solution in the 16th century, too. A humanist education on the Erasmian model could train its students to produce letters of any length, on any topic – quickly, easily and eloquently. The French humanist François Rabelais, a contemporary of Erasmus, appears to have understood these compositional techniques as automating the creating of text in a way that, retrospectively, looks a lot like how LLMs function. If we want to understand LLMs, and what they are and aren’t capable of, we can look at earlier versions of the same technology – like Erasmian humanism. We can also read authors like Rabelais, who is already thinking about automatic text-generation along these lines, as someone who appreciates the effectiveness of Erasmian generative technology, but at the same time sees it as vitiating the social force of language and, ultimately, ruining language as a tool for moral and political life…

[Katznelson recounts Erasmus’s efforts, Rabelais’s response, and unpacks the important differences between our own authentic speech language created to speak for us and their practical and moral implications…]

What lessons from the 16th century can tell us about AI and LLMs: “Methodical banality,” from @aeon.co.

* Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

###

As we honor authenticity, we might recall that it was on this date in 1886 that three U.S. patents were issued to Alexander Graham Bell’s Volta Labs for “recording and reproducing speech and other sounds.” The Graphophone, was an improved (and the first practical) version of the Edison phonograph (from 1877), and became the foundation on which the speech recording (e.g., dictaphone) and recorded music (and spoken word) industries began to grow.

An illustration of an early speech recording device, the Graphophone, showcasing its intricate components and design.

source