BoJack, stop. You are all the things that are wrong with you! It's not the alcohol, or the drugs, or any of the shitty things that happened in your career, or when you were a kid! It's you! Alright? It's you. Fuck, man. What else is there to say?
Source: https://twitter.com/selimyaman_/status/1772172937073709293
Actual paper on the impact of ChatGPT on adjectives: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183
I've added BรPO and AZERTY (some letters I had to keep below). I think that BรPO actually has an interesting pattern:
https://imgur.com/a/uupLDMJ
The site has tooltips showing letter percentages:
https://deykun.github.io/diffle-lang/fr?p=about-language
Peak for other languages: English - 9, Spanish - 10, Polish - 12, German - 13
To clarify, it is not the total number of words but rather the number of unique words considered. Imho a million of unique words is okay. A bigger concern for me would be that words on Wikipedia can be overly specific.
A source: https://deykun.github.io/diffle-lang/de?p=about-language (It has tooltips displaying percentages for other letters)
The Lion of Gripsholm Castle is a notable example of bad taxidermy located in Gripsholm Castle, Sweden. The Lion is badly stuffed and is considered to have a comically deformed face.[1]
In 1731, the dey of Algiers presented King Frederick I of Sweden with a lion, one of the first lions in Scandinavia.[2] When alive, the lion was kept in a cage near Junibacken. When the lion died, it was stuffed and mounted; however, the taxidermist and the museum-keepers had never actually seen a lion before, and did not know how they were supposed to look.[3] The taxidermist mostly based the reconstruction off of historic artwork of lions. As a result, the mount was especially anatomically inaccurate, most apparent in its face.
In the 21st century, the badly-stuffed lion has been widely mocked.[4][5][6][7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Gripsholm_Castle
Most people don't have an issue with it. But starting each interview with a question: "Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?" is sinister. It is not a good faith question.
If you are asked this question each time you want to speak about atrocities committed against civilians and have to proclaim that you do not in fact support terrorists, you have the right to be offended. Especially when the person asking you that question cannot condemn cutting off water to civilians.
After 9/11, thousands of Arabs living peacefully in the US were asked to condemn Al-Qaeda, which they did because who wouldn't? That condemnation and support was used to justify attacking Iraq - the country where Al-Qaeda was not located in, and resulted in the death of a million people there. Imagine being an American Iraqi supporting the US's right to "defend itself" and seeing your family in Iraq and their children being killed.
There is a level of analogy here where a person with relatives in Gaza is asked by interviewers that question while trying to advocate to not cut water or bomb one of the most densely populated places in the region.
You have the right to be offended if people start asking you to condemn segregation, Nazism, or bigotry when you never claimed that you don't have an issue with those things. Especially when the person asking you is using it as a tactic while you are trying to alarm about human rights being violated, and civilians / children being hurt.
ok, so basically im very smol