[evilfred]

this isn't an achievement, it's yet another amateur crank claiming he solved a famous puzzle, without a paper and without any critical review. many people have claimed to decode Linear A before. just because this guy used an LLM doesn't make it more credible

[Kosturdistan]

He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts, and there is an excerpt of the paper in my blog post. I have also seen and read the paper with my own 2 eyes, I can't publish it though, Tom wants to keep that under wraps while it's reviewed by linguistics experts.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts

So did many of the previous attempted solvers.

[Kosturdistan]

One way to assess the validity of prior claims is to see how many words you can translate using their proposed system.

[qustio]

But the entire corpus for Linear A is tiny, you could backfill a "translation" that has no actual similarity with the real language when properly tested against novel examples. How was this tested?

[evilfred]

of course we have no way to assess this claim as there is no public software or paper to review

[evilfred]

the info provided is completely unverifiable.

[fooster]

"amateur crank claiming"

I don't know why you want to stoop to name calling which violates the guidelines and the spirit of this site.

"without any critical review" is also seemingly untrue: the post says Rutgers and Cambridge are reviewing it

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The post says so. What do Rutgers and Cambridge say though?

My following searches turn out no announcements by either Rutgers or Cambridge:

"rutgers linguists evaluate deciphering of linear a by tom di mino"

https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+d...

https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate...

[evilfred]

who at Rutgers and Cambridge? did he just email some random linguistics profs? why not classics? and did they respond out of genuine interest or just trying to let an enthusiastic amateur down gently?

i am sorry but "crank" is the correct term for the many amateurs who routinely email mathematicians, physicists, and apparently linguists with their special theories without having any academic experience in the field. for every anecdote where it panned out there are thousands of cases where it did not.