this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
64 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43471 readers
868 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think if you're trying to model completely agnostically on every language possible translating entire words and existing known pictograms to what they mean. Then there might be a slight chance that kind of deciphering part of it. Just because humans usually come back to similar symbols and maybe it can pick up on something that we can't. But it would be a long shot to be sure
The question specified present technology, which is how I answered. I'd guess that an algorithm that can find a reasonable interpretation of any corpus of text in a reasonable time period exists, it's just it hasn't been made.
For really small corpuses there might be more than one interpretation. The Voynich manuscript can probably only be read one way (or zero, but I've seen convincing arguments for 1).