Think of ChatGPT as a blurry JPEG of all the text on the Web. It retains much of the information on the Web, in the same way that a JPEG retains much of the information of a higher-resolution image, but, if you’re looking for an exact sequence of bits, you won’t find it; all you will ever get is an approximation. But, because the approximation is presented in the form of grammatical text, which ChatGPT excels at creating, it’s usually acceptable. You’re still looking at a blurry JPEG, but the blurriness occurs in a way that doesn’t make the picture as a whole look less sharp.
Our intelligence is always imperfect.
Round numbers are always false.
Nothing endures, nothing is precise and certain (except the mind of a pedant), perfection is the mere repudiation of that ineluctable marginal inexactitude which is the mysterious inmost quality of Being
Politics is less than perfect because we are less than perfect. We therefore need to approach it with some modesty. Politics is not like mathematics, where clear premises and deductive reasoning can lead to exact answers.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
Economics is not an exact science.
Journalism is not a precise science, it's a crude art
Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man. Every careful measurement in science is always given with the probable error ... every observer admits that he is likely wrong, and knows about how much wrong he is likely to be.
It's impossible to say a thing exactly the way it was, because of what you say can never be exact, you always have to leave something out, there are too many parts, sides, crosscurrents, nuances; too many gestures, which could mean this or that, too many shapes which can never be fully described, too many flavors, in the air or on the tongue, half-colors, too many.
The dictionary is, however, only a rough draft.
The common people do not accurately adapt their thoughts to objects; nor, secondly, do they accurately adapt their words to their thoughts; they do not mean to lie; but, taking no pains to be exact, they give you very false accounts. A great part of their language is proverbial; if anything rocks at all, they say it rocks like a cradle; and in this way they go on.
When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man.
Words are an imperfect medium for explaining.
It's hard to pin down precise dates on these things.
A TV journalist in an interview asked the Treasurer, "When did your government lose its grip on reality?"
An exact science is one that admits loss.
Men were not intended to work with the accuracy of tools, to be precise and perfect in all their actions.
Government is not an exact science.
People like to say, 'What do you mean exactly?' I would answer, 'I mean, but not exactly.'
Second to the right, and straight on till morning.' That, Peter had told Wendy, was the way to the Neverland; but even birds, carrying maps and consulting them at windy corners, could not have sighted it with these instructions. Peter, you see, just said anything that came into his head.
Journalism is not an exact science. At best it i a crude art.
Indistinctness is my forte.
The precision of naming takes away from the uniqueness of seeing.
There’s part of me that loves words. But sometimes it feels like you’re trying to drive nails with your shoe.
... nothing is more human than substituting the quantity of words and actions for their character. But using imprecise words is very similar to using lots of words, for the more imprecise a word is, the greater the area it covers.