Seems intuitively sound; a larger model would have the ability to differentiate among a larger variety of concepts, which translates to a larger vocabulary and greater ability to use expressive tools such as imagery, metaphor etc etc.
It makes sense that flowery language is more decorative than functional, but I wonder how much nuance can help shape reckoning, reasoning, and rendering -- if at all.
Flowery language is a powerful tool, but it demands more from both the reader and writer.
That’s the fundamental flaw in using simple heuristics to evaluate language, the exact same text can be useful or deeply flawed just based on the context. You need to make sacrifices the wider the intended audience.
Please don’t turn this place into reddit with a race to the bottom for postings puns or “jokes” that are little more than pointing out hollow pop culture associations to a word in the title of the submission. It’s already happening more and more, but maybe we could try to keep the level of discourse just slightly higher for just a bit longer, please?
I could go on, but brevity is virtuous.
Maybe RFC terms are all that's needed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119
That’s the fundamental flaw in using simple heuristics to evaluate language, the exact same text can be useful or deeply flawed just based on the context. You need to make sacrifices the wider the intended audience.