Really? People have been writing for a while. Even if you took a subset of language (say theological debate) the academic revisions, and search for contradiction and rebuttal would conclusively cover a vast amount of human experience. I don't understand how this is revalatory

No, it's only as complete as we can say. So, it seems that way. But it is far from it.

haters in the comments but i thought it was a beautiful tweet. idk.

Explain music to me then

Species that has defined the world it lives in with words for thousands of years finds that the world they live in is described well through words Mind blowing 🤯

I’ve been blown away by GPT, so this isn’t a dig, but I’d argue the opposite: how well GPT has performed provides a modern illustration of just how poorly text has ever captured the human experience.

“The human experience” insofar as we explore it through #ChatGPT, at least, and, indeed, #OpenAI as a whole.

Actually, the human world is mostly language based. And some of us have been seeing it for a while.

This type of statement shows perfectly our perception bias. I'm willing to bet that *the entirety of text of all civilizations in history" covers << 1% of the human experience. How many words there are that describes colour red? Our eyes see *millions* & that's just colour

That's surprising indeed. But in the end all of our knowledge is expressed in words, even science and maths. Words are just more nuanced in a literary context, and more rigorous and unambiguous in science. So it's possible to build a model of the world that has word as bricks.