[alsetmusic]

> “Street smarts” refers to models that are too high-dimensional for linguistic transmission and were therefore acquired through calibrated experience. The street-smart person cannot explain why they know what they know, which makes them look inarticulate to the book-smart person, which leads the book-smart person to conclude that the street-smart person’s knowledge is inferior. This conclusion is precisely backwards in domains where judgement matters. The inability to articulate the model is not evidence of a crude model. It is evidence of a model too sophisticated for the transmission channel.

I disagree to a degree. Yes, what the author says is accurate about people dismissing street-smarts as a lower level of intelligence than it deserves. But a sufficiently skilled communicator can absolutely articulate many of the factors being evaluated when they judge a situation and how their descision-making process works.

> They evaluate intelligence through the lens of articulacy

There was an earlier instance of the author using a word such as unability (or similar) and it should have been inability and I let it go, but this misuse of language is making my head hurt. However, I confess that I thought the word should have been articularity and it turns out that’s not a real word either. But I at least pay attention to spellcheck. I don’t understand how someone could take the time to write a long and thoughtful essay about intelligence and not use spellcheck to proof it.

[wging]

What is wrong in that quoted sentence? Do you mean "articulacy" should instead be "articulateness"? "Articulacy" is also a word, and correct in this context.

[rdevilla]

Articulation. The lens of articulation. Or otherwise, "eloquence;" the lens of eloquence.

LLMs ain't gonna do sheeeeeeeit if this is still where we are at...

[wging]

That would not fit as well.

[salawat]

I have terrible news for you. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. We will torment you with word game playing until such time as you loosen up.

[rdevilla]

The torment is evidently yours [0]. However, I am ecstatic you reveal your own inner turbulence, which I have deliberately engineered.

By the way, how are those food prices working out for ya bud [1]? I understand that you are struggling, but please try not to get, quote, "violent".

Pause. Empathize. Apologize. Then post.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47639747

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47636685

[robocat]

> But a sufficiently skilled communicator can absolutely articulate many of the factors being evaluated when they judge a situation and how their descision-making process works

That sounds right but I suspect it is wrong. Watching smart intuition has been a personal interest of mine for years. Few people avoid the manifold traps.

1: people hallucinate their reasoning or are self-deceptive (or even intentionally deceptive). Watching AI has helped hone watching people.

2: you need to be sufficiently close in skills and language for someone to be able to communicate the nuances. E.g. sportspeople.

3: Judging whether an intuitive statement is true is hardhard. We need to identify a correct intuition (and ignore incorrect intuitions) before judging whether some explanation is valid.