Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it?
-
@iamnotU @emilymbender People have been doing this since the first welding robot was installed at GM in 1959.
@MartyFouts @emilymbender Wally Welder
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
I don't usually have to describe the output of LLMs, but when I do, I like to say "it emitted some text which seemed to say".
But even "seemed to say" is too anthropomorphizing.
-
I don't usually have to describe the output of LLMs, but when I do, I like to say "it emitted some text which seemed to say".
But even "seemed to say" is too anthropomorphizing.
One time, I even tried "it emitted some text which, if it had been written by a human, would say..."
But maybe I could go with "it emitted some text which, if it had been written with intention, would say..."
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
@emilymbender for my own amusement i've for a while now here been calling it "Al". no–one seems to have noticed, but obviously this is not helping matters
-
@emilymbender for my own amusement i've for a while now here been calling it "Al". no–one seems to have noticed, but obviously this is not helping matters
@fishidwardrobe Believe me, I have noticed.
-
@fishidwardrobe Believe me, I have noticed.
@AlSweigart IoI
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
@emilymbender Good suggestions, but I think some of those names reveal a bias
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
-
One time, I even tried "it emitted some text which, if it had been written by a human, would say..."
But maybe I could go with "it emitted some text which, if it had been written with intention, would say..."
@MegaMichelle I think the long form is good: It emitted (I use "extruded") some text that the reader was able to interpret as....
-
@MegaMichelle I think the long form is good: It emitted (I use "extruded") some text that the reader was able to interpret as....
Oooh, I like the focus on the reader's interpretation. It doesn't imply that the meaning is actually in the text.
For this reason, I might avoid "able to interpret" because that changes it back to implying that the meaning was actually in the text. Maybe "It extruded some text that a reader might interpret as saying..."
-
@clickhere @Mimesatwork @Petesmom @emilymbender
"Stochastic transmogrifier"
@martinvermeer I'll take it!
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
@emilymbender
Slop
Smile-face Shoggoth
Brainrotter
Faker machine
Bullshitnator -
@martinvermeer @Petesmom @emilymbender I don't think 'corpus-based generation' is a feasible alternative. A good alternative is as easily understandable and pronounceable as possible, otherwise it's not going to be adopted into wider use, and most people will associate "corpus" with any biological body, because their only connection with the word is from corpus Christi, as in body of Christ
@Mimesatwork @Petesmom @emilymbender I don't entirely agree. Corpus/corpora is widely used in science to describe bodies of text etc. put together as a basis for research. Adopting it for this use - which is already a reality among the professionals in this field - does not seem like a long shot to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus
And BTW if you object to 'corpus', you should also have a problem with 'generation', which for lay people will refer either to successive generations of people, or to generating electricity. 'Generating' text or imagery or other output is fairly new and specialized and not yet common in the general language.
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
Zero pronouns, just "it". I call it the Robot or the text Robot. It doesn't have a human name. I also frequently refer to it as "the BS machine".
I've definitely been using "input" terminology for a long time as well. Though I also like "input prompt", we've had a "command prompt" in computing for a long time, it's never really felt like an anthro term to me. And "input prompt" is a subtle shift on existing terminology.
I really like "unexpected results" over hallucinations... Though I am still very hesitant to acknowledge the term hallucination at all. Even the notion of errors seems kind of wrong. The output may include things that you didn't want in it, but in no way does that mean the system failed.
I think that's the weirdest thing about these Gen AI systems. Not the anthropomorphic language trying to humanize the machines, but the functional language falling to represent what they do.
I use these tools and still hate the language.
I will be a stick in the mud.
-
@Mimesatwork @Petesmom @emilymbender I don't entirely agree. Corpus/corpora is widely used in science to describe bodies of text etc. put together as a basis for research. Adopting it for this use - which is already a reality among the professionals in this field - does not seem like a long shot to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus
And BTW if you object to 'corpus', you should also have a problem with 'generation', which for lay people will refer either to successive generations of people, or to generating electricity. 'Generating' text or imagery or other output is fairly new and specialized and not yet common in the general language.
@martinvermeer @Petesmom @emilymbender I mean I do have minor issues with "generating" too. it's just that alternative common words for producing something that wouldn't have any biological connection at all are scarce.
Corpus may be widely used in science, but most people interacting with machines or AIs are not scientists.
-
@emilymbender wait til we give human names to robots, like pets
@iamnotU @emilymbender well, people are talking about "chatty"
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
@emilymbender yes! So annoyed! Thank you for this.
-
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
While the idea is nice, the words you propose are too long and complicated. Saying "probabilistic, unverified software manipulator" is a tongue twister by itself.
-
@Mimesatwork @Petesmom @emilymbender
Some ideas. For AI in general, we could use 'corpus-based generation', like language, image, action, speech generation. What is characteristic for current AI is how they are built using these large bodies of (often stolen) 'stuff', typically from the Internet.
I have a problem with 'undesirable output' for hallucination. Too vague for me. The undesirability is invariably a failure to be factually correct, which is what users expect from AI, an expectation that is both unreasonable and unwise for a language tool - but also real. Let's make that explicit: a 'factuality violation'.
@martinvermeer @emilymbender @Petesmom @Mimesatwork
Undesirable output doesn’t feel right for me either, bur factuality violation has a connotation that all other output is factual right. I would approach it from a control system view (yes, I’m an engineer :-P) and call it error accumulation or windup. -
Are you annoyed with the anthropomorphizing language being used in the "AI" discourse, but not sure how to talk about this stuff without it? Nanna Inie and I have got you covered:
https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/
@emilymbender Thanks! Going to organise a very necessary discussion in the fablab community about probabilistic systems and this helps a lot.
