#verbal-estimates

#verbal-estimates

Computational linguistics is a two-way street: You're either using a computer to do things with human language or communicate or translate or teach a foreign language, or you're using computational techniques to learn something about human languages. Her work documenting and preserving endangered languages uses a little bit of both.

The term "conspiracy theory" calls to mind a variety of dubious claims and controversies, like rumors about Area 51, claims that the Earth is flat, and the movement known as QAnon. At first blush, these phenomena would seem to have little in common with bogus word origins. But there are a variety of false etymologies that spread virally and refuse to go away, in much the same way that stories about chemtrails, black helicopters, and UFOs refuse to die.

After interviewing over 200 people for various articles, I've become hypersensitive to the subtle ways trust builds or breaks in conversation. And here's what I've discovered: we all use phrases that quietly erode trust, often multiple times a day, completely unaware of the damage we're doing to our relationships and credibility. The fascinating part? These aren't obvious lies or manipulative statements. They're everyday phrases that seem harmless but trigger our brain's ancient alarm systems, making people instinctively pull back from us.

1. Tongue in cheek 2. Old wives' tales 3. Statute of limitations 4. To be specific 5. Nipped in the bud 6. Get down to brass tacks 7. Deep-seated hatred 8. All intents and purposes 9. Wheelbarrow 10. Champing at the bit 11. Jury-rigged 12. Ulterior motive 13. Bald-faced lie 14. Dog eat dog world 15. Chump change 16. Dime a dozen 17. Duct tape 18. Can't see the forest for the trees 19. Quote unquote 20. Could have 21. Chalk it up 22. Iced tea 23. Take for granted 24. Blessing in disguise 25. Bated breath

The neural networks that process written and oral language are deeply intertwined and largely overlap when reading print books or listening to audiobooks. There isn't much of a difference between the brain network for reading and the brain network for language comprehension. The brain area we call the 'letter box,' which processes print, is not as engaged when you listen, but it has been shown that when some people listen to words, they visualize them, so the letter box gets activated as well.

For the first time, speech has been decoupled from consequence. We now live alongside AI systems that converse knowledgeably and persuasively-deploying claims about the world, explanations, advice, encouragement, apologies, and promises-while bearing no vulnerability for what they say. Millions of people already rely on chatbots powered by large language models, and have integrated these synthetic interlocutors into their personal and professional lives. An LLM's words shape our beliefs, decisions, and actions, yet no speaker stands behind them.

By comparing how AI models and humans map these words to numerical percentages, we uncovered significant gaps between humans and large language models. While the models do tend to agree with humans on extremes like 'impossible,' they diverge sharply on hedge words like 'maybe.' For example, a model might use the word 'likely' to represent an 80% probability, while a human reader assumes it means closer to 65%.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head. It doesn't get nearly enough credit. Instead of being understood as an uncouth behavior, "overhearing" should be celebrated, welcomed and pursued. It's an underrated tool in an increasingly lonely and disconnected world.

I've interviewed over 200 people for articles, from startup founders to burned-out middle managers, and I've discovered something fascinating: intellectual depth isn't about fancy degrees or knowing obscure facts. It shows up in how we communicate. When certain habits dominate someone's style, it reveals a concerning lack of curiosity and critical thinking that goes beyond just being annoying-it fundamentally limits their ability to engage with the world meaningfully.

Take the sur­prise some have expressed in recent years upon find­ing out that the expres­sion to "pic­ture" some­thing in one's head isn't just a fig­ure of speech. You mean that peo­ple "pic­tur­ing an apple," say, haven't been just think­ing about an apple, but actu­al­ly see­ing one in their heads? The inabil­i­ty to do that has a name: aphan­ta­sia, from the Greek word phan­ta­sia, "image," and prefix - a, "with­out."

Ever noticed how some people just seem unshakeable? They navigate criticism with grace, stand their ground without being aggressive, and somehow manage to stay authentic even when everyone else is playing politics. After interviewing over 200 people for various articles, from startup founders to burned-out middle managers, I've noticed something fascinating: the strongest personalities often share a common vocabulary. Not fancy words or corporate jargon, but simple phrases that reveal how they think about themselves and the world.

We've all been there: mid-story, mid-vent, mid-enthusiastic ramble, and suddenly the other person's energy shifts. Their smile fades. Their eyes wander down to their phone. Their whole body seems to quietly scream: "Please stop." Most of us don't realize when we're annoying someone. We just think we're being ourselves. We might think we're offering the type of advice our spouse really needs to hear right now.