Seems intuitively sound; a larger model would have the ability to differentiate among a larger variety of concepts, which translates to a larger vocabulary and greater ability to use expressive tools such as imagery, metaphor etc etc.
It makes sense that flowery language is more decorative than functional, but I wonder how much nuance can help shape reckoning, reasoning, and rendering -- if at all.
Flowery language is a powerful tool, but it demands more from both the reader and writer.
That’s the fundamental flaw in using simple heuristics to evaluate language, the exact same text can be useful or deeply flawed just based on the context. You need to make sacrifices the wider the intended audience.
Seems intuitively sound; a larger model would have the ability to differentiate among a larger variety of concepts, which translates to a larger vocabulary and greater ability to use expressive tools such as imagery, metaphor etc etc.
I could go on, but brevity is virtuous.
It makes sense that flowery language is more decorative than functional, but I wonder how much nuance can help shape reckoning, reasoning, and rendering -- if at all.
Maybe RFC terms are all that's needed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119
Flowery language is a powerful tool, but it demands more from both the reader and writer.
That’s the fundamental flaw in using simple heuristics to evaluate language, the exact same text can be useful or deeply flawed just based on the context. You need to make sacrifices the wider the intended audience.