4 ms·

I can't tell whether this is an exercise in scifi-ish speculation, a la Julio Vernes, in which case is kinda interesting, or an attempt at seriously exploring p

I can't tell whether this is an exercise in scifi-ish speculation, a la Julio Vernes, in which case is kinda interesting, or an attempt at seriously exploring possible near future, in which case I hate it. There's a weak and strong version of what I feel is the core idea, "what if human communication becomes largely intermediated by machines". The weak version is already here, as the article points out. We (at least we, chronically online people) already talk in memes and gifs quite a lot. And how AI will shape it is worth thinking about. I saw that happening on real time on TikTok with people using alternatives for words they feel get their content deprioritized, like suicide, murder, sex, etc. A literal AI model changing language. The strong version, though, is purely star-trek/Asimov level of speculation. Let alone the same neighborhood, current technology is not even in the same country as that. The article kinda mixes both things back and forth for a bit, and then fully dives into the scify version, which makes me wondering if the author genuinely believe they will see anything like this. If they do, boy will they be disappointed. Now, assuming it's all fun scify speculation of a future we'll never see, but hey, might happen, I have some problems with the ideas, but I'll highlight two. > Plenty of other species manage fine with simpler languages or no language at all. No they don't. Only species doing well right now are the ones we breed or our parasites. We can potentially erase almost all non-microscopic life forms by accident, let alone if we really put our minds to it. Humans have effects on a geological scale, that's a very select group of species. > And it is not clear to me that intelligence has much to do with the linguistic fabric of contemporary society. Kinda see the above comment? I don't think we even have a concept of intelligence that isn't somehow based on language, even if that language is not necessarily some form of spoken language. We certain can't evaluate intelligence without it. And as far as I know, humans don't develop language without socialization. Sure, you could envision a future where the machines do the socialization, but I think that would be a civilization that would be too fragile to exist for much long.

prox 3y ago
Interesting take. I think it also matters how broad or small you define language or communication. Personally and in a philosophical way spoken and written language is the main differentiation between us and and animals. We can quickly and specifically make intent and meaning mediated between us. I also think we are hilariously bad at it in a modern context, the complexity of the current society makes communication (and by extend community!) unnecessarily (?) noisy. Another interesting point is the idea of Logos, Word, Speech as the divine attribute par excellence in some religious and mythological contexts. That said I am not sure what the author wants to optimize. I mean if AI can mediate meanings and intent, that sounds interesting. If it is to AI have their own chats, I doubt that is useful from a human context.
- tonnydourado 3y ago
  I think we're only bad at language in the sense that we created harder problems than the language we have can solve, so we feel its limitations. But the kind of stuff out language can do is pretty amazing, in a larger scale.
jamilton 3y ago
I agree re: sci-fi or serious. I could see "intentionally intermediate most communication through AI" being a niche subculture some years from now, but I wouldn't actually expect it to be a panacea to communication.

prox 3y ago

Interesting take. I think it also matters how broad or small you define language or communication. Personally and in a philosophical way spoken and written language is the main differentiation between us and and animals. We can quickly and specifically make intent and meaning mediated between us. I also think we are hilariously bad at it in a modern context, the complexity of the current society makes communication (and by extend community!) unnecessarily (?) noisy. Another interesting point is the idea of Logos, Word, Speech as the divine attribute par excellence in some religious and mythological contexts. That said I am not sure what the author wants to optimize. I mean if AI can mediate meanings and intent, that sounds interesting. If it is to AI have their own chats, I doubt that is useful from a human context.

tonnydourado 3y ago
I think we're only bad at language in the sense that we created harder problems than the language we have can solve, so we feel its limitations. But the kind of stuff out language can do is pretty amazing, in a larger scale.

jamilton 3y ago

I agree re: sci-fi or serious. I could see "intentionally intermediate most communication through AI" being a niche subculture some years from now, but I wouldn't actually expect it to be a panacea to communication.