• relevants@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Grammar aside, it’s an odd choice to fill up half the page with 747s if you want to showcase the variety of commercial passenger airplanes.

    • Barack_Embalmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      11 months ago

      Many modern theories in cognitive science posit that the brain’s objective is to be a kind of “prediction machine” to predict the incoming stream of sensory information from the top down, as well as processing it from the bottom up. This is sometimes referred to through the aphorism “perception is controlled hallucination”.

  • morganth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    11 months ago

    See, I thought it was mildly infuriating because the images aren’t “many types of airplanes”, they’re only a few types of airplanes repeated at different sizes or different angles.

  • Daniel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    11 months ago

    My brain autocorrected this for me, and I was confused why you were posting it at first.

    This reminds me, there is a thing that the human mind can read horribly spelled words — as long as the general idea of it is the same (most of the time the end and beginning). I would try to find an example, but it’s late and my ability to form proper search queries os diminished.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    Disregarding the bad grammar, the picture shows a terrible variety of airplanes. They’re all some sort of commercial passenger jet.

    It’s like saying, “there’s so many kinds of motorcycles!” while showing only various Harleys. Let’s just ignore the dirt bikes, sport bikes, and everything in between.

    • waigl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Using “they” when you haven’t yet established the group you are referring to in context feels weird and kinda wrong, especially if it’s about a group of inanimate objects. It really looks like the word should have been “there”, but they just mistyped and then didn’t catch the error in the editing process or didn’t bother to correct it.

      That’s what I think is wrong here. I’m not 100% sure that this grammatically wrong, but it sure feels like it. Might depend on what the page before this one said.

      • LazaroFilm@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s in a book for 5 years old to learn to read. It’s supposed to be simple words in simple sentences. This is not it.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is the only post in the entire thread attempting to parse the grammar.

        It feels wrong because as you pointed out, as text, the pronoun “they” has no antecedent. Who are they?

        But there is a picture, too. That’s them!

        It’s not just type, it’s typography. You have to analyze the grammar of something like one page of a picture book or a movie poster or advert in its context.

  • hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Is the issue that all the plains are basically the same kind of wide and narrow-body passenger jets? Like there is hardly any variety in the images?

        • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          holy crap. I must have read it 3-4 times, STILL found nothing wrong, so I went to the comments. It took this comment train for me to see it, meaning you had to tell me literally what it was.

          Human brains are so neat sometimes.

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    This ladies and gentlemen is an example of people using ai to make kid books. It’s a big thing right now and easy money but could have consequence if kids start reading these at a young age.

    • francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      Don’t try to redirect stupidity from people to computers. We’re more than capable of doing stupid things without the help of our AI overlords.

    • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      No. AI wouldn’t mess up like that. It could spew other kinds of shit, but with excellent syntax. It’s far more likely for humans to make mistakes like that.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This ladies and gentlemen is an example of people using ai to make kid books. It’s a big thing right now and easy money but could have consequence if kids start reading these they at a young age.

      FTFY

    • abcd@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The good thing is: This type of book is read by parents to their 1-3 year old kids. You show the pictures and can filter weird sentences. This is not a book a 9 year old is going to read 😉

  • Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    The issue is on both pages. Lack of knowledge of English on one, and lazy copy/pasta of similar airplanes on the other.

  • azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Funny that as a non-native I’m less likely to make such a mistake than natives. At some point I had to learn the basics or something. Not that I don’t make mistakes

      • rosymind@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ve always been a native English speaker, but my first 11 years of education weren’t in the U.S. I also don’t have an issue with: their, there, and they’re.

        Affect and effect were tough for me, though. I still have to think about it for a moment

        And slightly off topic, I still can’t tell the difference between pansexual and bisexual. Each time I feel like I have a decent internal definition someone comes along to inform me that I’ve got it wrong

        • LazaroFilm@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Affect: action impacts you Effect: your action has an impact Bisexual: you like boys and girls Pansexual: you like boys, girls, boys that are girls, girls that are boys, people that identify as themselves…