Hacker News Reader

Comment by namenotrequired | Hacker News Reader

The original title says he “got cheers” which is much less ambiguous than the HN title

In case it gets edited, the title of the HN submission is "Steve Wozniak cheered after telling students they have AI – actual intelligence".

I laughed when I read this, imagining a weird act of self-congratulation in front of a silent audience.

I wonder if other languages are less ambiguous about this. "Steve Wozniak cheered" makes it sound like he did the cheering. But the practice of removing verbs from headlines makes this more ambiguous. "Car collides with bridge" is not a grammatically correct sentence but a perfectly normal headline.

But in this case, "Steve Wozniak cheered after telling students they have AI" _is_ a grammatically correct sentence, which means that Wozniak did the cheering, which may be the source of confusion. Or, perhaps it means not that he vocally cheered, but was cheered up emotionally.

>I wonder if other languages are less ambiguous about this.

most are (few others I can speak). Generally, passive voice and past tense do not collide by having the exact same suffix. The fact the headline lacks a verb (when interpret correctly) doesn't help either.

English isn't ambiguous here either. It's the fault of journalists who have this weird obsession with removing as many words as possible from headlines.

The actual headline is not ambiguous at all

> Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak got cheers, not boos, after telling students they 'all have AI — actual intelligence'

Modern journalism deserves a lot of criticism, but this headline is not one of those cases

Thankfully, humans have AI and can understand the title from context.

Not to me... Maybe a ESL thing

"Steve Wozniak cheered after telling students they have AI – actual intelligence "

Could be interpreted as Steve himself cheered. Or it could be interpreted as the passive which is meant here but I would argue it should then say "Steve Wozniak cheered at after telling..." but I am not a native speaker.

The original title "Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak got cheers, not boos, after telling students they 'all have AI — actual intelligence'" can not be interpreted in the way that Steve cheered as far as I know.

Where would the skill issue be? Please be specific.

How is the original title not less ambiguous to you? Do you see other interpretations than I mentioned above or do you disagree with my interpretations?

Could also mean that he was cheered by the response to his comments and his disposition improved. There are layers of ambiguity in this headline.

While it's technically ambiguous, most native speakers would immediately understand that Steve was not the person cheering. Firstly, Steve cheering makes no sense. Secondly, it's a very common construction for newspaper/article headlines.

For example, BBC News right now says "Jury discharged in Ian Watkins pirson murder trial", "Carrick confirmed as Man Utd permanent boss", "Ex-soldier jailed after woman..."

Okay, in this example it's more ambiguous because "cheered" does not have to take an object. But native speakers are primed to expect a passive sentence here.

  While it's technically ambiguous

Is it? To read it as intended, shouldn't it be "Wozniak is cheered"?

I mean technically in the sense that you -can- interpret it two different ways, even if most people wouldn't.

The 'is' is not required because it's using newspaper headline grammar.

I'm a native speaker, and read it the "Wozniak gave a little cheer after" way at first, though the more likely meaning did occur to me immediately after. As for it making no sense, I differ. There are scenarios I can conjure in which that exact sequence could happen, either because he was cheering the students after telling them they're great, or because he forgot what he was doing -- dementia wouldn't even be "early onset" at his age. Further, if something is utterly mundane and expected, there are no headlines about it, as in the old saying about the difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".

Language is often ambiguous! You have to guess the intended meaning based on context clues. Unambiguously phrased language sounds less natural, because it is. Incidentally, this is part of what makes natural language such an awful fit for controlling a computer.

Yeah I agree with you. To me it was immediately obvious what it meant. It never occurred to me that he would "cheer himself", that doesn't even make any sense. ESL is right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com