• doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    Like the other person, I’m disgusted by this. Aside from an educational case, where a person can use a simplified version to establish context and use it to learn how to read the original (which seems dubious), what’s an argument for this?

    • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      Human-written simplified versions of classic books have already been a thing for a very long time, as a way to make the stories accessible to people with intellectual disabilities. LLMs should probably not be used for this!

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think that’s the intended audience, and regardless the thing to do in that case is just get an easier text instead of pretend that this is the same thing, which is such a perversion of literature as an art form rather than just a bunch of Lore that you can be cultured if you know.

        Summaries to help someone follow the text are a useful teaching tool, but this is plainly being proposed to replace the text, which is literally in some ways worse than reading its Wikipedia page because at least the Wiki will simply describe some of the themes and allusions and other more connotative elements that here only exist if they turn up in the crass plot summary that they are calling the text. Just read a “Simple English Wikipedia” page or SparkNotes or something if knowing Lore is that important to you for some reason.