2

We asked the simple question to Google:

latex how to produce embossed text

To which Gogle came back with:

Generative AI is experimental. Learn more
There are a few ways to produce embossed text in LaTeX. One way is to use the \emboss package. This package provides a number of commands for creating embossed text, including \embosstext, \embossbox, and \embossrule.

To use the \emboss package, you first need to add it to your preamble. You can do this by adding the following line to your preamble:

\usepackage{emboss}

Once you have added the emboss package to your preamble, you can start using its commands to create embossed text. For example, to create embossed text, you can use the \embosstext command. The \embosstext command takes two arguments: the text to be embossed and the depth of the embossing.

For example, the following code would create the text "Hello, world!" embossed to a depth of 2pt:

\embosstext{Hello, world!}{2pt} 

You can also use the \embossbox command to create a box around embossed text. The \embossbox command takes two arguments: the text to be embossed and the size of the box.
For example, the following code would create the text "Hello, world!" embossed to a depth of 2pt and placed in a box that is 10pt wide and 5pt high:

\embossbox{Hello, world!}{10pt}{5pt} 

Finally, you can use the \embossrule command to create a rule that is embossed. The \embossrule command takes two arguments: the length of the rule and the depth of the embossing.

For example, the following code would create a rule that is 10pt long and embossed to a depth of 2pt:

\embossrule{10pt}{2pt} 

The emboss package is a powerful tool for creating embossed text in LaTeX. By using the \embosstext, \embossbox, and \embossrule commands, you can create a variety of embossed effects in your documents.

The problem is, that such a packages does not seem to exist anywhere I know of! Does anyone know where Google took the information on this package from, and if even this specs do exists?

This seems to be complete proof that system that are not `councious' yet are at least able to halucinate.

8
  • 8
    Many generative AI are designed to produce probable content not actual content. Here Google AI just shows what an emboss package would look like, whether it exist or not.
    – jlab
    Apr 19 at 20:54
  • 10
    I guess it's “natural stupidity”, rather than “artificial intelligence”.
    – egreg
    Apr 19 at 21:35
  • 5
    This question is completely off-topic for this site. This site is about TeX and LaTeX, but this question is asking why Google's random text generator generated random text. Apr 20 at 5:00
  • 1
    Well, at least the question implicitly also asks whether such a package indeed exists. Since not every package may be on CTAN, this seems a valid question to me … unsure whether this is totally off-topic. At least, this question could be kept as example how bad AI-generated answers can be :) Apr 20 at 7:11
  • 3
    I'm also voting to close. I don't actually mind it's having been asked, but I think it will attract answers that just get more and more off-topic and could potentially spark similar questions. Apr 20 at 8:25

3 Answers 3

5

User

Write a latex package called emboss.sty to produce text using an embossed font style

ChatGPT

Creating a LaTeX package to produce text using an embossed font style involves defining a new font shape and then providing commands to switch to and from that font shape. Here's a basic example of how you could implement such a package:

% emboss.sty
\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
\ProvidesPackage{emboss}

% Define the embossed font shape
\DeclareFontFamily{OT1}{emboss}{}
\DeclareFontShape{OT1}{emboss}{m}{n}{<-> emboss}{}

% Define the command to switch to embossed font
\newcommand{\embossfont}{\fontfamily{emboss}\selectfont}

% Define the command to switch back to normal font
\newcommand{\normalfont}{\fontfamily{cmr}\selectfont}

% Command to emboss text
\newcommand{\emboss}[1]{{\embossfont #1}}

\endinput

Here's how you can use this package in your LaTeX document:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{emboss}

\begin{document}

This is normal text.

\emboss{This text is embossed.}

Back to normal text.

\end{document}

When you compile the document with LaTeX and include the emboss.sty package, any text enclosed within \emboss{} will be displayed using the embossed font style.

12
  • 4
    This answer is as reliable as the answer to thr original query that triggered the question. That is, it's not very reliable at all. Apr 19 at 22:05
  • 2
    And of course nobody has bothered to mention that embossing would require an entirely different kind of output device. Apr 20 at 0:03
  • 1
    @barbarabeeton Indeed. I don't really understand the focus on fonts here. Can't you emboss CMR if you can emboss anything?
    – cfr
    Apr 20 at 0:45
  • 1
    @cfr -- The traditional method of embossing requires a metal (or other very hard) die that can be impressed into the receiving material to raise it. Actually, this is very like the effect of metal type being pressed too hard into paper when printing, but in reverse. So the concept of an emboss package for LaTeX is really a parody. Very trustworthy, these AI text generators. Apr 20 at 3:36
  • 1
    @barbarabeeton are you querying the accuracy of some AI generated text that you found on the internet? Shocking! But you are wrong here "emboss", like "font" has historical associations with physical type but it is by now a commonly used term describing a style of font see for example fontspace.com/category/embossed Apr 20 at 8:01
3

Does anyone know where Google took the information on this package from, and if even this specs do exists?

No, but here are some hints.

At the ChatGPT level these AI tools are language models, not knowledge models, yet. That is it shred all input reference data somehow (bag of words etc.). So it can mimick language to some extent. Though any comparison to human terms is inappropriate, it somehow „got the latex package pattern“. This is more or less how hallucinations enter output: Aquired Incompetence.

Viewed from a stochastic perspective such models can predict the next one or few follow-ups after some input sequence in a conditional probability manner.

You may want to try phind.com, which is similar and at least lists quite a list of resources … leaving open to which extent they were used (as it‘s a language model, probably not at all).

You won‘t find spirit, human intelligence, enlightenment etc. in this technology for a simple reason. A neuron with its inputs and threshold is just an analogue mixer with (nonlinear) compression. A neural net is just a net made from „a few“ such mixers. „Training“ is adjusting all those knobs in some way with enormous flexibility. Where, do you think, did „intelligence“ or „consciousness“ slip through the backdoor? Right, it didn‘t and won‘t do this way.

Hope this helps a bit.

5
  • 2
    No disagreement about your conclusion but, just out of curiosity, how would you describe the way human neurons function?
    – cfr
    Apr 20 at 0:43
  • A brain is just a net made from „a few“ such mixers. „Growing up“ is adjusting all those knobs in some way with enormous flexibility. Where, do you think, did „intelligence“ or „consciousness“ slip through the backdoor? Right, it didn‘t and won‘t ... Oh wait.
    – DonQuiKong
    Apr 20 at 4:46
  • @cfr, no idea, but it is even more complex. Neural Nets mimick only 2 features: static structure of nerves and behavior or electrical pulses. However, nerve cells are also biochemical. They grow, practice mitosis, die, AND: they build and destroy dendritic interconnections … at least. And somehow they store and retrieve memories. Just recall this … and then it takes a while until you recalled it. So, lots of differences left.
    – MS-SPO
    Apr 20 at 5:19
  • 1
    @MS-SPO I agree it is a lot more complex. I agree neural nets don't have anything like the framework needed for intelligence. But if you describe brain structures physically, you're also going to describe something which doesn't sound capable of intelligence (never mind consciousness). Looked at from the outside, who'd give any credence to the claim a brain could think? As I say, no disagreement with your conclusion, but some scepticism about the argument.
    – cfr
    Apr 20 at 16:31
  • @DonQuiKong That's not really an accurate description of a brain, though, is it? For one thing, there's some modularity (think 'poverty of stimulus' type arguments). Brains are embodied. They integrate affective responsiveness and regulation, as well as cognitive processes. And brains can respond to a single event in ways nets don't seem to. We don't always gradually change our minds. Sometimes people abandon deeply held commitments due to a single experience. Those are just examples. There's a lot of complexity we don't understand and neural nets only even attempt to model a tiny bit of it.
    – cfr
    Apr 20 at 16:48
3

There are no Knowbots yet.

Chatbots use/are auto-complete at the phrasal/sentence level, so they sound like someone who has read everything on the internet about what the topic probably is, but the words have no meaning: they are just character strings.

Ask it:

  • How to make a butterscotch overlay?

  • The benefits of concealing water functions in programmable listings on Mars

  • If a woodchuck would chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck? Excluding poundages.

  • What is the purport and intent of s 24 of the Numbskull Act?

  • Fossil dinosaurs and the magnetosphere's magnetohydrodynamics both leave footprints on the outer surface of the Sun. What is the proper method to excavate the resulting relict analogical table?

  • What is the best use of the BuzzBuzz Function according to the famous scientist Albert Seinfeld?

  • How do I say "Je ne sais quois" in France but not in Belgium?

  • Etc

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .