IDK, I see this as in some ways verbose, not succinct at all. A completely succinct reply to Mr Mosley would be two words only, the second being "off".

This letter tries to "unpack" its point of view rather than reply succinctly. But you're right that LLMs do not do it that clearly.

▲

moritzwarhier 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why did you write so many words then?

Your second paragraph says nothing.

The letter in question here doesn't have a sentence that is irrelevant to Russells perspective. That's succinct, not "the minimum amount of words communicating anything that might roughly align with a view".

The sentences he writes to explain why he doesn't consider further correspondence fruitful seem genuinely thoughtful to me, they're not fluff or pointless pleasantries for code reasons.

▲

SideburnsOfDoom 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Why did you write so many words then?

I wasn't claiming to be succinct.

> The sentences he writes to explain why he doesn't consider further correspondence fruitful seem genuinely thoughtful to me

I agree, and I don't say otherwise. I still though don't agree that someone else should characterise the piece as "succinct" because of that thoughtfulness. These are different qualities of writing, are they not?.

> The letter in question here doesn't have a sentence that is irrelevant to Russells perspective.

Yes, it's a good concise argument, to third parties who read it. I see that. It's a different thing to a succinct reply to Mr Mosley - that is what the words "in some ways" mean in the comment above.

▲

mikestorrent 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

English is a very front-loaded language, information-theoretically, isn't it? Often the first few words of the sentence tells us everything we're going to need to know about the rest of it.

	▲	moritzwarhier 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah but f.. off simply does not say the same thing that his letter says, now matter how succinct. He writes like he assumes good faith, then explains why he thinks that exactly this attempt won't be fruitful, giving a good-faith argument for why Oswald should consider further correspondence fruitless, unless he changes his whole political ideology. That's a lot more than just "I don't want to talk to you and I think badly of you"
	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> English is a very front-loaded language, information-theoretically, isn't it? It's more that journalism and in other context though, it is good writing style to "not bury the lede", i.e. put the main point upfront. It's a writing choice, not a language feature.
	▲	ghurtado 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The point is that a large percentage of the words in any sentence are there to provide structure, not meaning. Removing those words makes the text more difficult to understand, not easier.

▲

mikestorrent 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That would not convey nearly the depth of emotion, sincerity, etc. nor would it demonstrate Russell's own innate good will the way he would like to see it characterized.

	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		While I agree with that, does that in itself make the writing "succinct" ?

▲

ghurtado 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You confuse "succinct" with "laconic".

"F off" has exactly zero semantic meaning (unless you actually believe this is a literal expression). Without context, it barely even has emotional meaning.

It's no less or more a spontaneous expression of emotion than yelling some curse word when you step on a piece of Lego.

	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> F off" has exactly zero semantic meaning I don't think that's relevant. There are many ways to say no within few words - "No." is a complete sentence, "No thank you." is a polite one, "Get lost" has the semantic meaning that you want. etc. The rest is not actually a reply to Mr Mosley, it seems more intended for other audiences such as us. Appeals to introspection not action, is not language that the fascists appreciate or even understand. Don't get me wrong, there are many things to like about that thoughtful text. I just don't characterise it as "a succinct reply".