Hello!
I am very sorry for posting this off-topic question,
but there seems to be no active groff-related group.
My question is simple: How do I completely disable
groff's hyphenation? I am writing a document in Finnish
using this command:
groff -me -Kutf8 -Tpdf proto > proto.pdf
Everything works fine, but the hyphenation is making
mistakes and I want it. ChatGPT told me
to insert these at the top of the document:
.nh
.hy 0
It seems to work for a while, but then hyphenation
is suddenly active again! Can anyone here help me?
br,
KK
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 14:08:23 +0000, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Hello!
I am very sorry for posting this off-topic question,
but there seems to be no active groff-related group.
My question is simple: How do I completely disable
groff's hyphenation? I am writing a document in Finnish
using this command:
groff -me -Kutf8 -Tpdf proto > proto.pdf
Everything works fine, but the hyphenation is making
mistakes and I want it. ChatGPT told me
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff. If you use it,
you have to audit it's advice, which usually means that you
have to have experience or intrinsic knowledge of the subject
matter.
to insert these at the top of the document:
.nh
.hy 0
According to the Nroff/Troff User's Manual by Ossanna & Kernighan,
both of these macros do the same thing; turn off hyphenation (the
.nh
macro explicitly turns off hyphenation, while the
.hy 0
macro selects a hyphenation mode, with "0" representing "OFF").
Using both seems to me to be overkill; you only need one.
It seems to work for a while, but then hyphenation
is suddenly active again! Can anyone here help me?
With hyphenation explicitly turned off, it's likely that your
document uses a macro that turns it back on, either explicitly,
or as a side effect.
I don't often use groff, so I can't tell you which macros might
do that. Take a look at your document, comparing the pdf with
the input, to see /where/ in the input the hyphenation turns back
on. That way, you can see what macros/commands/etc that you've used
before that point that might turn hyphenation back on.
br,
KK
Sorry I couldn't be of more help
Sorry I couldn't be of more help
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 14:08:23 +0000, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Hello!
I am very sorry for posting this off-topic question,
but there seems to be no active groff-related group.
My question is simple: How do I completely disable
groff's hyphenation? I am writing a document in Finnish
using this command:
groff -me -Kutf8 -Tpdf proto > proto.pdf
Everything works fine, but the hyphenation is making
mistakes and I want it. ChatGPT told me
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
I don't often use groff ...
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff.
On 3/26/26 10:38 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff.
it also has no intrinsic logic
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter
than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
On Sun, 31 May 2026 07:25:33 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter
than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
We look at those who get so attached to using these systems that they
end up overlooking some quite glaring shortcomings.
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 00:11:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2026 07:25:33 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter
than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
We look at those who get so attached to using these systems that
they end up overlooking some quite glaring shortcomings.
Yes, they certainly make some mistakes. But they're not simply turbo
charged markov chains that some people seem to think, there is some
kind of thinking going on.
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 08:17:22 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 00:11:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2026 07:25:33 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter
than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
We look at those who get so attached to using these systems that
they end up overlooking some quite glaring shortcomings.
Yes, they certainly make some mistakes. But they're not simply turbo
charged markov chains that some people seem to think, there is some
kind of thinking going on.
I rest my case.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 08:17:22 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 00:11:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2026 07:25:33 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter
than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
We look at those who get so attached to using these systems that
they end up overlooking some quite glaring shortcomings.
Yes, they certainly make some mistakes. But they're not simply turbo
charged markov chains that some people seem to think, there is some
kind of thinking going on.
I rest my case.
You didn't have a case. Thinking doesn't mean conciousness, it simply means the application of logic in an intelligent way.
Even back then, there were a few people who could not separate truth from >fiction,
On Sat, 30 May 2026 14:30:16 -0400
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> gabbled:
On 3/26/26 10:38 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff.
it also has no intrinsic logic
It does in the sense of the low level ANN programming that allows it to function, but it builds up its own logic and knowledge as its trained.
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter than a lot of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
On 2026-05-31, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2026 14:30:16 -0400
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> gabbled:
On 3/26/26 10:38 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff.
it also has no intrinsic logic
It does in the sense of the low level ANN programming that allows it to
function, but it builds up its own logic and knowledge as its trained.
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter than a lot
of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
They are a lot dumber than people believe.
A simple hash table token predictor trained on a large body of text
using 4-grams keys (strings of four words) to predict the fifth word
will produce some amazing outputs.
An algorithm predicting using much more sophisticated linear algebra,
over a data set of terabytes upon terabytes of text, encompasses a scale
that is so completely alien to your experience and scope, that your >intuitions about it have no hope of being correct.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 23:34:13 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> gabbled:
On 2026-05-31, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2026 14:30:16 -0400
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> gabbled:
On 3/26/26 10:38 AM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
Remember, ChatGPT is a text-prediction program, and has no
experience or intrinsic knowledge of groff.
it also has no intrinsic logic
It does in the sense of the low level ANN programming that allows it to >>> function, but it builds up its own logic and knowledge as its trained.
People are too dismissive of these systems - they're a lot smarter than a lot
of people particularly in IT would like to believe.
They are a lot dumber than people believe.
A simple hash table token predictor trained on a large body of text
using 4-grams keys (strings of four words) to predict the fifth word
will produce some amazing outputs.
Oh please. I've written at least 4 markov chain programs in my career and they don't get anywhere close to what an LLM can output.
don't simply spit out chunks of text they've ingested joined together by keywords, they have some kind of - limited - understanding of the subject in hand or they wouldn't be able to extrapolate and interpolate.
If you don't
believe my try it. Then there's the part no one mentions - the ability to understand the input text in a meaningful way. Something no markov chain
can do.
An algorithm predicting using much more sophisticated linear algebra,
over a data set of terabytes upon terabytes of text, encompasses a scale >>that is so completely alien to your experience and scope, that your >>intuitions about it have no hope of being correct.
Don't patronise me.
On 2026-06-09, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Oh please. I've written at least 4 markov chain programs in my career and
they don't get anywhere close to what an LLM can output.
Right; nobody is saying that. My point is that these simple programs
have already produced some outputs that have made people go "wow!".
The point is that people going "wow!" is not a reliable yardstick of anything.
don't simply spit out chunks of text they've ingested joined together by
keywords, they have some kind of - limited - understanding of the subject in
hand or they wouldn't be able to extrapolate and interpolate.
These things purely interpolate. They do it at such a scale of data that
you can't tell interpolation from extrapolation. Except maybe if it
happens to land in your area of extensive expertise.
If you don't
believe my try it. Then there's the part no one mentions - the ability to
understand the input text in a meaningful way. Something no markov chain
can do.
The meaning is entirely bundled in the training data.
You can extract meaning from a book. Yet a book doesn't think.
The LLM interposes itself as a middle man broker of information in such
a way that it appears to be doing the thinking, but all the thinking
already went into the training material.
By your, I mean everyone, you and me. I should say "we". Our intuitions
are completely in uncharted waters when faced with a contextual
path-finding engine that wades through terabytes of compressed text,
with a high degree of statistical accuracy.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:15:50 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> gabbled:
On 2026-06-09, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Oh please. I've written at least 4 markov chain programs in my career and >>> they don't get anywhere close to what an LLM can output.
Right; nobody is saying that. My point is that these simple programs
have already produced some outputs that have made people go "wow!".
For a few seconds until they read all of the output and realise its either grammatically correct but incoherent gibberish or simply a dump of the input text depending on key length.
The point is that people going "wow!" is not a reliable yardstick of anything.
No, but still going wow after years of use is.
don't simply spit out chunks of text they've ingested joined together by >>> keywords, they have some kind of - limited - understanding of the subject in
hand or they wouldn't be able to extrapolate and interpolate.
These things purely interpolate. They do it at such a scale of data that
you can't tell interpolation from extrapolation. Except maybe if it
happens to land in your area of extensive expertise.
Like I said, why don't you try it asking it to extrapolate on data that it couldn't possibly have injested because its personal to you or uses long floating point values.
If you don't
believe my try it. Then there's the part no one mentions - the ability to >>> understand the input text in a meaningful way. Something no markov chain >>> can do.
The meaning is entirely bundled in the training data.
Yes, and?
You can extract meaning from a book. Yet a book doesn't think.
A book doesn't do anything, its memory, not compute. I'd have thought that distinction was obvious.
The LLM interposes itself as a middle man broker of information in such
a way that it appears to be doing the thinking, but all the thinking
already went into the training material.
Probably the same could be said for you when you were at school.
By your, I mean everyone, you and me. I should say "we". Our intuitions
are completely in uncharted waters when faced with a contextual
path-finding engine that wades through terabytes of compressed text,
with a high degree of statistical accuracy.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Searles Chinese Room. It doesn't matter how it works internally, its the output that matters.
On Wed, 6/10/2026 4:19 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Searles Chinese Room. It doesn't
matter how it works internally, its the output that matters.
It's because it is a black box, that we cannot use it.
Half an answer, is no answer at all.
some web site. Absolutely nothing in the cited web page was
an attempt at an authoritative answer. I've even had the cite
web pages, where the keywords of the question do not appear.
Why would I pay money for this ?
When I first ran this query, it was on a data center machine.
"What are your capabilities ?"
At the time, that caused the poor thing to have a nervous
breakdown (it's an unbounded question). The safety timer
went off after 15 seconds, and the answer was *erased* from
the screen, so I cannot give sample text showing how unhinged
it was.
[Picture] Run-Queries-With-Network-Cable-Disconnected.gif
https://postimg.cc/k20gzLYy
https://imgur.com/a/It9jbsL
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:15:50 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> gabbled:
These things purely interpolate. They do it at such a scale of data that >>you can't tell interpolation from extrapolation. Except maybe if it
happens to land in your area of extensive expertise.
Like I said, why don't you try it asking it to extrapolate on data that it couldn't possibly have injested because its personal to you or uses long floating point values.
You can extract meaning from a book. Yet a book doesn't think.
A book doesn't do anything, its memory, not compute. I'd have thought that distinction was obvious.
By your, I mean everyone, you and me. I should say "we". Our intuitions >>are completely in uncharted waters when faced with a contextual >>path-finding engine that wades through terabytes of compressed text,
with a high degree of statistical accuracy.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Searles Chinese Room. It doesn't matter how it works internally, its the output that matters.
I'm addressing the wrong ideas that the thing is thinking, or that
it has access to information outside of its training data; I am not
claiming that the output doesn't matter or isn't useful.
On 2026-06-10, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Like I said, why don't you try it asking it to extrapolate on data that it >> couldn't possibly have injested because its personal to you or uses long
floating point values.
People also believe that psychics know something about them personally,
which then "proves" they indeed have telepathic powers.
Same kind of con job.
A book doesn't do anything, its memory, not compute. I'd have thought that >> distinction was obvious.
No it isn't; the weights of a trained LLM are also memory, not compute.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Searles Chinese Room. It doesn't
matter how it works internally, its the output that matters.
I'm addressing the wrong ideas that the thing is thinking, or that
it has access to information outside of its training data; I am not
claiming that the output doesn't matter or isn't useful.
Those wrong ideas are not supported by only-the-output-matters
argumentation, which amounts to nothing more than a feeble attempt
to shut down the discussion.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 495146:45:21 |
| Calls: | 165 |
| Files: | 574 |
| D/L today: |
29 files (9,998K bytes) |
| Messages: | 78,216 |