Why does AI struggle with nuance? I was in the process of translating a book from Russian into English when the client wrote and said that he had run my translation through Microsoft Copilot as a quality check. He asked me to implement the changes based on the feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I worked through the recommendations, I realized that some of them simply could not be adopted. So I called him and said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cThe author quotes 1 Corinthians 13:12: \u2018Now we see through a glass, darkly.\u2019<\/em> He then alludes to this \u2018seeing darkly\u2019 throughout the chapter using the exact same expression. Copilot claims that the word darkly<\/em> here means gloomily<\/em> and recommends replacing it with \u2018we live in the world by guesswork.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But if I make this change, the allusion will disappear. Readers will no longer recognize Paul\u2019s words from 1 Corinthians behind the phrase \u2018we live in the world by guesswork.\u2019 Are you willing to sacrifice the allusion?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
He replied: \u201cMy goodness, no! The entire chapter is hinged upon the reader catching this subtle hint. Without it, the meaning falls apart. Thank you for catching it!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I thought to myself: \u201cBut why didn\u2019t Copilot spot it in the first place?\u201d So I opened my laptop and asked directly: \u201cWhen you determine the meaning of a text, how do you do it? Do you \u2018feel\u2019 what the author is trying to say?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The answer was illuminating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen I interpret a text, I don\u2019t feel<\/em> where the author is coming from. I don\u2019t experience empathy or emotional resonance. What I do is recognize patterns in language\u2026 I detect textual signals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Understanding without empathy is misunderstanding. If I wish to understand another person, I must attend to more than textual signals. I must empathize. I must resonate. I must sense how the words reverberate within the living context from which they emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Had I not felt<\/em> what the author was doing, I might never have noticed this all-important allusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interestingly, the French word nuance<\/em> means \u201cshade, slight difference, subtlety.\u201d It is derived from nuer<\/em>, which in turn comes from nue<\/em> meaning \u201ccloud\u201d (hence nebula<\/em>). The paradox of nuance is that it reveals by shading and obscuring <\/strong>\u2014 unveiling by making something more nebulous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A nuance is a shade, a cloud that overshadows the visible. When you look at this cloud, you don\u2019t see clearly in the ordinary sense \u2014 but you see all the more for it. You understand by sensing what the cloud hides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A nuance disrupts the straightforward flow of thought and creates in you this nebulous feeling: \u201cWait a minute. The text does not put it clearly, but I clearly feel that something is hidden behind this.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
A nuance causes us to \u201cunknow\u201d what we thought we knew \u2014 so we can pause and sense the subtle resonances arising from behind the nebula.<\/a> And then, suddenly, the cloud parts, and the sun breaks through. We see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paradoxically, no vision is entirely clear without a nebula. Textual clues are not enough to arrive at meaning. There\u2019s more to communication than markings on a page or sound waves in the air. Copilot cannot empathize and therefore cannot catch the author\u2019s feeling. <\/a>What the author feels is more important than what the author says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For meaning does not reside only in what is said. It resides mainly in what is unsaid \u2014 hinted at in between the words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article you are reading right now contains countless textual clues to what I am trying to say, but what I am actually saying<\/strong> cannot be deduced from the textual clues alone. One must feel<\/em> what lies behind those clues. Textual clues don\u2019t create clarity; they create a veil \u2014 a nebula of nuances to be seen through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s how humans communicate; we speak in words, but we create nebulas. We speak not to make things clear but to point to something that cannot be spoken. Every word, ultimately, leads us into the cloud. As Asaph says in Psalm 78: \u201cI will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings<\/strong> of old\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why does he call his sayings dark? Because every saying is a cloud; it reveals by hiding. It invites us to feel, empathize, recognize<\/em> \u2014 penetrating the veil and participating in the meaning.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meaning can only be found on the other side of the nebula \u2014\u00a0when the veil is suddenly lifted, and we hear the unutterable.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n