AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[malloc]

Don't pretend I said things I didn't say. I'm pointing out that you're relying on a fallacy. That's not a matter of my "belief", it's a matter of you not knowing how to prove your claims.

The example with airplanes proves, if nothing else, that technology can advance from utterly useless to revolutionary in remarkably little time. That hardly proves that the Singularity will happen exactly one decade from now, but merely illustrates the potential of AI to experience similarly rapid evolution. Given the incredible momentum behind AI development over the past few years and its equally incredible war chest, we ought instead to ask why it would suddenly grind to a halt anytime soon.

Funding is not the only limit on technology. I shouldn't have to spoon-feed you this stuff; do some research.

Given that natural intelligence already exists, we can safely assume that nothing physical prevents us from creating intelligent machines. The challenges of AGI are fundamentally different from something like faster-than-light travel which physics appears to forbid outright. That leaves funding and time to carry out the research as the main obstacles. Unless it turns out that intelligence requires something immaterial like the soul, sufficiently dedicated researchers will eventually figure out AGI given enough time and funding.

[zompist]

This is, of course, how artificial neural networks work too. But it’s also how GPUs and FPGAs work. So ‘having many smaller processors’ is not sufficient for intelligence, and I strongly suspect that it’s not necessary either (though it’s awfully convenient).

I suspect that what’s important is not so much the simple fact of having many processors, but rather the way in which they’re connected together. This problem is much less amenable to being simplified into smaller parts. I feel sure there’s some way to do it, but neither neuroscientists nor computer scientists seem to have worked out how. So, for now, I remain agnostic on what the ‘smaller parts’ of intelligence may be.

At some level those are the smaller parts of human intelligence and, as you say, artificial neural networks. Personally I think a lot of theorizing about intelligence goes astray because it doesn't take this point of view into account. Most people like top-down schemes instead, and maybe that's what you're after, pointing at things like "prediction."

I think it's likely there are processes at a higher level. After all computer programs have structure that certainly isn't best understood at the level of individual transistors. Still... what if there really isn't much else? Maybe having a hundred billion processors is the key.

If you haven't seen it, see my review of How Life Works, or read the book. It's about organisms, not intelligence, but the overall situation is similar: if you look at genes or proteins or other aspects of cell activity, it's an utter mess. Genes rarely do one thing, there's huge amounts of redundancy, it's a Rube Goldberg machine we're far from understanding. Maybe one biological system, the brain, is a lot like another biological system, the cell? Throw enough pieces at the puzzle, allow evolution to select what works for 500 million years, and you get something that works, but not in a way that's easy to understand.

(I don't at all mean this is the only way to get intelligence. Before neural networks, most AI people thought procedural code would do it. There are big advantages to programs we can actually understand!)

(And ‘common sense’ as a criterion could well result in myself being considered unintelligent!)

Sounds like you've been internalizing neurotypical propaganda.

I don’t get your point here…

(I didn’t mean to call myself unintelligent, to be clear! I’m saying that this is a bad criterion because it would result in that conclusion.)

Why would you be considered not to have common sense? Certainly you have it, even if you find social interactions (or whatever) hard. There's different ways of being intelligent even among humans.

In such a situation, the actual using of intelligence feels like nothing at all. It’s simply the ground state of being: at every moment our thoughts arise from an intelligent mind. The actual state of being intelligent is not a ‘mental state’ as such; mental states arise from it, but being intelligent is simply what we are.

What all this means is that as humans we are incapable of feeling any more, less or differently intelligent to what we already are. Consequently, I don’t think introspection or empathy are helpful here. The most we can do is to observe the behaviour of other humans, animals and apparently intelligent systems, and thereby infer how intelligent they are. Which, after all, is precisely what we do with our fellow humans.

Er, it's not-- we do use our own introspection and empathy to understand our fellow humans. Again, these skills have been developing in the animal kingdom for millions of years. (Also, our powers of expression have co-evolved with our powers of observing each other. Why do we have facial expressions? It's useful for an organism to actually broadcast some of its internal state.)

I'd also point out that feeling stupid is something that most of us have felt, quite strongly, at one point or another.

But I don't quite get why you're talking about "feeling intelligent". I do think sci fi and some philosophy has given us the notion that feelings are "not rational" and are somehow bad, which I think is a mistake. And there is such a thing as emotional intelligence.

Conversely: if some animal could navigate as well as humans but using an inhuman cognition to do so, would we be able to tell? Would it matter that there are underlying differences?

Think two minutes about how a dog functions in the world. It should be obvious that yes, we can tell, and yes, it matters. Also note that we are not limited to watching animal behavior; we also have anatomy and can figure out, e.g., senses or eye architectures that humans don't have.

I’m not sure how dogs are relevant here; elaborate please?

Haven't you watched a dog moving around in the world? You can tell that they use their noses far more than we do. You can do experiments to confirm this: e.g. a dog is not only very sensitive to smells, but can tell things we absolutely cannot, like what direction someone went based on the smell of their footprints. Very occasionally we can navigate by smell (e.g. toward the smell of cookies), but it's obviously a huge part of the mindset of a dog.

[keenir]

that doesn't mean the scripts are any good - only that there were people at the studios who were willing to save money by using AI scripts that were worse than some of the human scripts that critics say are cliche and not as original as in the Golden Age.

The scripts must have been good enough for studio executives to believe they would lead to hit or at least watchable films, otherwise they wouldn't have considered them in the first place. Certainly the film industry has its problems, but I cannot imagine everyone agreeing to put out unwatchable nonsense just to save money. Everyone would simply stop watching new movies and the whole film industry would collapse.

I think the expression is "oh you sweet summer child" but am not sure.

I've been on both sides of a request to draw a fictional character...and I've still never seen an AI draw a flying echidna. your saying that its all cartoon animals and poo-pooing the sort of art required, tells me that you've never tried it.

That seems quite easy to remedy. You could just ask the generative AI to draw a flying echidna and it would easily draw one just like it draws anything else. Presumably the AI has echidna reference images and information on how to depict flight in its database.

and how do you depict flight?

take your time, this isn't an easy question to answer, though it seems like one might be.

(and once you decide on how to depict flight, how do you integrate the utter weirdness of monotreme anatomy?)

Regarding early airplanes, my point is that they went from completely useless to winning military battles in the space of one decade. ]/quote]

one decade after the Wrights, planes were used for recon. yes, that helps win, but its not much of a boost to "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"

[keenir]

I'm digging up my old picture of the flying echidna...

You can hardly criticize a free-to-use prototype AI for failing to consider the speculative evolution of volant monotremes in a biologically rigorous manner.

but you were just saying that we can use AI do make pictures like that and more...which is it? is it failing or not?

You really have to stop scaring yourself with fallacies. You've got two going on here, extrapolation and induction. Neither prove anything.

We've had spaceships for 68 years, and guess what, we've never got a human to Mars. We've never gotten a spaceship to the nearest star. We don't have a cure for cancer. We don't commute with personal jetpacks. Sorry, it's just not true that "if you can imagine it, it will happen", much less in "one decade."

So you believe that instead of continuing its rapid advance like aerospace, AI will soon hit a wall like space exploration or cancer research? My understanding has always been that space travel and possibly cancer research have been stymied by lack of funding more than anything.

remind me, how many organizations do we presently have, with the goal of fighting/eradicating cancer? and most if not all of them have each at least one wealthy supporter.

Artificial intelligence by contrast receives an enormous amount of funding from the world's richest people and political support from world leaders. Unless the money printer suddenly shuts off tomorrow, AI researchers have all the funding they need to push the technology to its physical limits. There is no reason to think those physical limits preclude massive improvements in AI including self-awareness and human-level intelligence.

sure there is reason: garbage in, garbage out. if you don't know how human brains work, you can't use that model for anything except disaster...though, to you, its all disaster anyway.

* Though perhaps true creativity and insight would be giving the echidna the bat wings fitting for a flying mammal...

except none of the types of wings of flying animals - living or otherwise - are anything like an echidna's limbs.

[keenir]

Don't pretend I said things I didn't say. I'm pointing out that you're relying on a fallacy. That's not a matter of my "belief", it's a matter of you not knowing how to prove your claims.

The example with airplanes proves, if nothing else, that technology can advance from utterly useless to revolutionary in remarkably little time. That hardly proves that the Singularity will happen exactly one decade from now, but merely illustrates the potential of AI to experience similarly rapid evolution. Given the incredible momentum behind AI development over the past few years and its equally incredible war chest, we ought instead to ask why it would suddenly grind to a halt anytime soon.

okay, lets assume for the moment that this one premise of yours, is correct: that AI will become intelligent based upon where the most money and tech are thrown at its research...

Look at what most of it is spent on: spying programs & cheap art. I grant you that such a result, it sounds less two-dimensional than some of the evil empires in fiction, but thats a fault of their own, not a proof of AI working.

[bradrn]

This is, of course, how artificial neural networks work too. But it’s also how GPUs and FPGAs work. So ‘having many smaller processors’ is not sufficient for intelligence, and I strongly suspect that it’s not necessary either (though it’s awfully convenient).

I suspect that what’s important is not so much the simple fact of having many processors, but rather the way in which they’re connected together. This problem is much less amenable to being simplified into smaller parts. I feel sure there’s some way to do it, but neither neuroscientists nor computer scientists seem to have worked out how. So, for now, I remain agnostic on what the ‘smaller parts’ of intelligence may be.

At some level those are the smaller parts of human intelligence and, as you say, artificial neural networks. Personally I think a lot of theorizing about intelligence goes astray because it doesn't take this point of view into account. Most people like top-down schemes instead, and maybe that's what you're after, pointing at things like "prediction."

Yes, ‘prediction’ is really a black-box view of intelligence. The point I was making in that post was that dismissing LLMs as ‘prediction machines’ isn’t much of an argument against them, because intelligence is related to ‘prediction’ in a fundamental way. To prove my point I gave examples of both cases where intelligence goes along with prediction ability, and cases where lesser intelligence goes along with a lack of prediction ability.

What we’re now discussing is something different: what does intelligence look like ‘from the inside’? That is, what are the mechanisms which let an intelligence actually do this job of prediction? This is a very interesting question, but I don’t claim to have any better answers to it than you do.

Sounds like you've been internalizing neurotypical propaganda.

I don’t get your point here…

(I didn’t mean to call myself unintelligent, to be clear! I’m saying that this is a bad criterion because it would result in that conclusion.)

Why would you be considered not to have common sense? Certainly you have it, even if you find social interactions (or whatever) hard.

‘Not having common sense’ is perhaps too strong a way to put it, but people who know me would definitely agree that my common sense is very poor compared to most peoples’. It’s hard for me to describe in more detail because I don’t know how you experience common sense!

In such a situation, the actual using of intelligence feels like nothing at all. It’s simply the ground state of being: at every moment our thoughts arise from an intelligent mind. The actual state of being intelligent is not a ‘mental state’ as such; mental states arise from it, but being intelligent is simply what we are.

What all this means is that as humans we are incapable of feeling any more, less or differently intelligent to what we already are. Consequently, I don’t think introspection or empathy are helpful here. The most we can do is to observe the behaviour of other humans, animals and apparently intelligent systems, and thereby infer how intelligent they are. Which, after all, is precisely what we do with our fellow humans.

Er, it's not-- we do use our own introspection and empathy to understand our fellow humans. Again, these skills have been developing in the animal kingdom for millions of years. (Also, our powers of expression have co-evolved with our powers of observing each other. Why do we have facial expressions? It's useful for an organism to actually broadcast some of its internal state.)

I'd also point out that feeling stupid is something that most of us have felt, quite strongly, at one point or another.

But I don't quite get why you're talking about "feeling intelligent". I do think sci fi and some philosophy has given us the notion that feelings are "not rational" and are somehow bad, which I think is a mistake. And there is such a thing as emotional intelligence.

Looks like I was unclear. Let me attempt to rephrase.

We started off with the navigational abilities of shrews, which work on rather different principles than those of humans. I said that the reason we know they work on different principles is because we can observe that they result in different outcomes. You said that we can’t stop at mere observation of external behaviour, because internal states are also important. Insofar as the topic was shrew navigation, I think we weren’t actually in disagreement: I think we both agree that one starts with observing shrews’ behaviour, then builds on top of those observations to understand the shrew’s mental states (more loosely, ‘how the shrew feels’).

Now what bearing does this have on intelligence? I’m… actually not quite sure; we seem to have wandered somewhat off-topic here (and of course my previous post was lost). But the point I was making is that intelligence can’t really be described as a ‘mental state’ to be ‘understood’, in the same sense that we can understand (or at least empathise with) the shrew’s mental states. We don’t feel intelligent like we feel angry or happy, we just are intelligent; in much the same way that we don’t feel capable of language, we just are capable of language.

Think two minutes about how a dog functions in the world. It should be obvious that yes, we can tell, and yes, it matters. Also note that we are not limited to watching animal behavior; we also have anatomy and can figure out, e.g., senses or eye architectures that humans don't have.

I’m not sure how dogs are relevant here; elaborate please?

Haven't you watched a dog moving around in the world? You can tell that they use their noses far more than we do. You can do experiments to confirm this: e.g. a dog is not only very sensitive to smells, but can tell things we absolutely cannot, like what direction someone went based on the smell of their footprints. Very occasionally we can navigate by smell (e.g. toward the smell of cookies), but it's obviously a huge part of the mindset of a dog.

Fair. I’ll point out that, once again, the argument is anchored in observations. (This is a good thing! It means we’re not making things up!) The reason we know that dogs navigate in a non-human way is that we can see them doing things differently to humans.

Note also that this is the same kind of argument as that which I gave in my earlier post: in which I identified some ways that LLMs respond similarly to humans, and other ways they don’t. The major difference is that it’s much harder to relate those similarities and differences to underlying similarities and differences in how the intelligences come about, because we don’t yet have a good handle on how intelligence actually works.

[Travis B.]

I personally really don't like "Chinese room" arguments, because they have the implicit assumption that there is something "special" about intelligence in humans, that humans aren't just machines like any other. Fundamentally, humans brains are just organic machines; there's no "souls" or "ghost in the machine" behind them. Consequently, "Chinese room" arguments are entirely specious in nature.

[malloc]

Even so, the fact remains that art websites are increasingly dominated by AI generated images with artists presumably suffering the corresponding loss of commissions. Perhaps some niche concepts like flying echidna fursonae remain out of reach for now, but I constantly see AI generated images of anime women and so forth. While some of these images are obvious rubbish, others easily pass as human-made and I only know their origins because the "creator" admitted to using AI. You can hardly tell me that this has no effect on the employment prospects of artists or that most people still hire artists rather than getting an AI-generated image for free.

Likewise students routinely use LLMs to write essays for class and get excellent grades on those essays. That proves if nothing else that LLMs know at least as much as the best human students and can write dozens of pages without hallucinating. Otherwise those essays would consistently get failing grades and cheating with LLMs would not have become an epidemic. Obviously they do hallucinate sometimes, but I must wonder if people are cherry-picking examples of especially risible hallucination and overstating the flaws of the technology. These hallucinations are mysteriously absent in the classroom after all.

[Ketsuban]

Even so, the fact remains that art websites are increasingly dominated by AI generated images with artists presumably suffering the corresponding loss of commissions.

In my experience art websites which allow AI-generated images (which are very much not the majority) are not generally received positively for it because on any other site AI-generated images would be considered spam, the same way ChatGPT output would be considered spam on AO3 (or the Zompist Bboard). DeviantArt, for example, was already in a decline which has accelerated as a result of their policies not just allowing AI "artists" but actively selling site content to train AI models.

Likewise students routinely use LLMs to write essays for class and get excellent grades on those essays. That proves if nothing else that LLMs know at least as much as the best human students and can write dozens of pages without hallucinating.

I suggest taking a look at what machine-generated essays look like from the other side of the lectern. Machine-generated essays getting passing grades doesn't prove LLMs know anything (definitionally they don't, all they have is a statistical breakdown of the training data) but that there are teachers who are unfit to practice (or schools that are understaffed).

[keenir]

Well, Malloc, it turns out that you're right...


https://youtu.be/gDKW0nldkxs?si=E-2mPaVIKde9WjzS
I confess I'd never heard of Goodheart(sp) or some of those other concepts. Though it does mean that, if we follow your airplane example, it would be like a decade after the Wright Brothers, early recon planes flew through the oceans off Finland and dropped bombs in Alta California...when the mission was to do recon over the two sides of the war in Europe.

but I constantly see AI generated images of anime women and so forth.

how hard are you trying to find them?

{me trying to be silly }

While some of these images are obvious rubbish, others easily pass as human-made and I only know their origins because the "creator" admitted to using AI. You can hardly tell me that this has no effect on the employment prospects of artists or that most people still hire artists rather than getting an AI-generated image for free.

Stop The Presses! NEWS FLASH: this just in: humans prefer getting things for free, over paying for them!
{/ me trying to be silly}

Likewise students routinely use LLMs to write essays for class and get excellent grades on those essays. That proves if nothing else that LLMs know at least as much as the best human students and can write dozens of pages without hallucinating.

yes, just as some students simply print out pages and pages of Wikipedia articles, LLMs mine and copy Wikipedia articles.

Otherwise those essays would consistently get failing grades

except they do.

and cheating with LLMs would not have become an epidemic.

Everyone always thinks "I won't get caught, not like those kids did."

Obviously they do hallucinate sometimes, but I must wonder if people are cherry-picking examples of especially risible hallucination and overstating the flaws of the technology. These hallucinations are mysteriously absent in the classroom after all.

go up to the board and write an answer to the five questions written there. you may use AI while you are at the board.

[alice]

Imagine your worst nightmare. Pretty soon all literature will consist of nothing but words taken from other literature, just in different orders.

[malloc]

Imagine your worst nightmare. Pretty soon all literature will consist of nothing but words taken from other literature, just in different orders.

Laugh all you want, but this example provides yet another example of my point. One can now manufacture entire books in the style of existing authors without even the input of those authors and certainly without compensating them. With some further refinements to the technology, publishing companies could easily produce perfectly satisfying, even if not groundbreaking, books without having to pay a single author.

I confess I'd never heard of Goodheart(sp) or some of those other concepts. Though it does mean that, if we follow your airplane example, it would be like a decade after the Wright Brothers, early recon planes flew through the oceans off Finland and dropped bombs in Alta California...when the mission was to do recon over the two sides of the war in Europe.

Yet the ability of airplanes to fly so far would itself represent an extraordinary achievement. People here focus so much on the existing flaws of this technology that they ignore its incredible successes. If any animal wrote as well as ChatGPT or played chess like Deep Blue we would consider that animal fantastically intelligent without question. Yet when computers achieve the same feats, we insist that they mean nothing and the computer has no destiny but the scrapheap because it flubbed somewhere.

I suggest taking a look at what machine-generated essays look like from the other side of the lectern. Machine-generated essays getting passing grades doesn't prove LLMs know anything (definitionally they don't, all they have is a statistical breakdown of the training data) but that there are teachers who are unfit to practice (or schools that are understaffed).

Maybe, but I also regularly hear about even dedicated and serious teachers struggling to distinguish human-written essays from AI generated ones. Perhaps an exceptionally careful teacher demanding thoughtful reflection could distinguish something a student wrote from something an AI produced but it seems apparent that schools in general are struggling to avoid this problem.

[zompist]

Pretty soon all literature will consist of nothing but words taken from other literature, just in different orders.

It already does, according to Borges...

[keenir]

logging in to ask if I've been aggressive or offending in my recent posts;

[keenir]

Imagine your worst nightmare. Pretty soon all literature will consist of nothing but words taken from other literature, just in different orders.

Laugh all you want, but this example provides yet another example of my point. One can now manufacture entire books in the style of existing authors without even the input of those authors and certainly without compensating them. With some further refinements to the technology, publishing companies could easily produce perfectly satisfying, even if not groundbreaking, books without having to pay a single author.

for someone who argues that nobody on Earth dares to speak out against Trump, because he will sue them...you seem perfectly happy to contemplate companies doing things which open them to lawsuits from hundreds and thousands of lawsuits.

I confess I'd never heard of Goodheart(sp) or some of those other concepts. Though it does mean that, if we follow your airplane example, it would be like a decade after the Wright Brothers, early recon planes flew through the oceans off Finland and dropped bombs in Alta California...when the mission was to do recon over the two sides of the war in Europe.

Yet the ability of airplanes to fly so far would itself represent an extraordinary achievement.

oh for f sake. I was talking about the action/activity, not the distance covered. I'm starting to think you're deliberately missing the point, just so you can panickmonger

People here focus so much on the existing flaws of this technology that they ignore its incredible successes. If any animal wrote as well as ChatGPT or played chess like Deep Blue we would consider that animal fantastically intelligent without question. Yet when computers achieve the same feats, we insist that they mean nothing and the computer has no destiny but the scrapheap because it flubbed somewhere.

You can train a box turtle or a newt to play a game, and some researchers do do exactly that. (and not just because some researchers got turned into a newt)

just curious - did you bother to watch any of the video? ...like when the AIs were speaking English on phones?

Maybe, but I also regularly hear about even dedicated and serious teachers struggling to distinguish human-written essays from AI generated ones.

thats a student problem, not an AI leap forwards.

[alice]

Pretty soon all literature will consist of nothing but words taken from other literature, just in different orders.

It already does, according to Borges...

Once again, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Richard W]

Perhaps not easily but feasibly. The first airplanes struggled to stay airborne for more than a minute but after one decade aerospace engineers were turning out machines capable of dogfighting. Today even the worst airplane can outfly even the fastest and strongest birds as easily as humans outwit bugs.

Bar-headed geese seem to have a higher ceiling than helicopters' publicly published performance, being able to overfly Everest. Or are you referring to flies ability to take off from me without being swatted? (I think my performance has gone downhill.)

[Raphael]

This might be relevant for this thread: on the occasion of learning about the Hungarian cover of his latest novel, John Scalzi has some thoughts on why machine translation simply isn't as good as the human version: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/02/03/ ... e-edition/

[zompist]

This might be relevant for this thread: on the occasion of learning about the Hungarian cover of his latest novel, John Scalzi has some thoughts on why machine translation simply isn't as good as the human version: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/02/03/ ... e-edition/

Scalzi's example is great, and I agree that a human translator will do best with fiction. Still, machine translation has gone from laughable (in the 1990s) to quite good, for major languages. For fun I had Google translate part of my Kebreni sample text into French; the original is here.

KALUM (s'exerçant). Sire, sire. Sire Broida. Quel plaisir de vous rencontrer.
Puis-je voir votre célèbre cave à vin ?
Je suis venu pour votre fille. Pour la main de votre fille.
Si vous souhaitez la donner, bien sûr.
Comme vous le savez, j'ai rencontré votre fille. Ou le sait-il ? Peut-être vaut-il mieux qu'il ne le sache pas.
J'ai rencontré la mère de la jeune fille. Non, ma mère a rencontré votre femme, votre femme et votre belle fille.
Je dois me détendre, m'occuper de mes mains.
(Prenant un livre) Des affaires célèbres de la cour royale. C'est exactement ce qu'il faut.
L'affaire d'un seigneur qui a assassiné le prétendant de sa fille. Excellent, excellent.
BROIDA (entrant). Salutations.
KALUM (surprise). Oh mon Dieu ! Salutations, sire Table. Sire Trousers ? Sire Broida.
Quelle douceur de vous rencontrer enfin.
Est-ce un bon livre ? Je pourrais peut-être le lire.
BROIDA. Et vous ?
KALUM. Kamul, votre majesté. Kalum. Kalum Patolen.
Ma femme a rencontré votre mère. Non, dans l'autre sens.
Elle a rencontré votre femme à la boulangerie, vierge de votre fille, euh, avec votre fille.
BROIDA. Vous êtes nerveux, jeune homme. Prenez un verre.
KALUM. Je ne bois pas, votre honneur. Que dis-je ?
Je bois tous les jours. (Boit.) C'était tout pour aujourd'hui.
Merci mon seigneur, je devrais y aller. Non, attendez.

There are rough spots. For instance, I don't think you exercer a speech; it should be préparant or répétant. "Et vous?" strikes me as wrong for "And you are?" And for some reason it coudn't translate "Trousers." "Sire, sire" doesn't make much sense though it could be argued that it's representing Kalum making a mistake. Kalum should be surpris, not surprise. "Je dois... m'occuper de mes mains" seems clumsy. I think "y aller" is wrong, it should be "m'en aller."

Google's translation strikes me as proper 19th century French, such as we're taught in schools— not a hint of colloquiality. Ironically that is not inappropriate for 3460s Kebreni. Still, there are places where Kalum slips into a more colloquial register and Google didn't catch that.

Here's its attempt at German, which you but not I can evaluate.

KALUM (übt). Sir Lord. Lord Broida. Was für eine Freude, Sie kennenzulernen.
Kann ich Ihren berühmten Weinkeller sehen?
Ich bin wegen Ihrer Tochter gekommen. Wegen der Hand Ihrer Tochter.
Wenn Sie sie aufgeben möchten, natürlich.
Wie Sie wissen, habe ich Ihre Tochter kennengelernt. Oder weiß er es? Vielleicht ist es besser, wenn er es nicht weiß.
Ich habe die Mutter des Mädchens kennengelernt. Nein, meine Mutter hat Ihre Frau kennengelernt, Ihre Frau und Ihre schöne Tochter.
Ich muss mich entspannen, etwas mit meinen Händen tun.
(Nimmt ein Buch) Berühmte königliche Gerichtsfälle. Genau das Richtige.
Der Fall eines Lords, der den Verehrer seiner Tochter ermordet hat. Ausgezeichnet, ausgezeichnet.
BROIDA (kommt herein). Grüße.
KALUM (überrascht). Oh mein Gott! Grüße, Lord Table. Lord Trousers? Lord Broida.
Was für eine Sanftheit, Sie endlich kennenzulernen.
Ist das ein gutes Buch? Vielleicht könnte ich es lesen.
BROIDA. Und Sie sind es?
KALUM. Kamul, Eure Majestät. Kalum. Kalum Patolen.
Meine Frau hat Ihre Mutter kennengelernt. Nein, andersherum.
Sie hat Ihre Frau in der Bäckerei kennengelernt, Ihre Tochter, äh, mit Ihrer Tochter gezeugt.
BROIDA. Sie sind nervös, junger Mann. Trinken Sie etwas.
KALUM. Ich trinke nicht, Euer Ehren. Was sage ich da?
Ich trinke jeden Tag. (Trinket.) Das war es für heute.
Danke, mein Herr, ich sollte gehen. Nein, warten Sie.

[Linguoboy]

That's...more than a little rough.