Conversation

Notices

1. James Broadhead (jbo@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2023 10:31:27 UTC James Broadhead

   in reply to

   • Justin Pot
   • Bornach
   • Andrew North 🎹 🎶

   @bornach @andrewnorthrocks @jhpot YES

   • Bornach (bornach@masto.ai)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2023 10:31:34 UTC Bornach

     in reply to

     • Justin Pot
     • Andrew North 🎹 🎶

     @andrewnorthrocks @jhpot

     Less misleading if one uses the 2nd definition of "artificial":
     /ˌɑːtɪˈfɪʃl/
     adjective
     adjective: artificial

     2.
     (of a person or their behaviour) insincere or affected.
     "she gave an artificial smile"
     Similar:
     feigned
     insincere
     false

   • Andrew North 🎹 🎶 (andrewnorthrocks@shakedown.social)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2023 10:31:39 UTC Andrew North 🎹 🎶

     in reply to

     • Justin Pot

     @jhpot It's beyond just "the word sounds cool" though - they want to disingenuously give the impression that it understands more than it does - which makes it even grosser. The term AI for these models is already misleading enough

   • Justin Pot (jhpot@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2023 10:31:41 UTC Justin Pot

     "Grok" being the name for an AI chatbot is just the latest example of tech bros not understanding science fiction. In "Strangers In a Strange Land", the famous 1950's novel the term comes from, to "grok" something is to understand it on a deep level. AI chatbots, as we all know by now, do not grok—they bullshit.

     I'm really tired of sci-fi terms being used by people who read the books and got nothing from them beyond “lol this word sounds cool”. (See also: “metaverse”.)