3 ms·

Sure ok, there's a bit of namespace conflict now, happens quite a lot. I also don't love it, but it's there now, and it's really not the worst name. It's a goo

by chaxor 3y ago

Sure ok, there's a bit of namespace conflict now, happens quite a lot. I also don't love it, but it's there now, and it's really not the worst name. It's a good area though, and the paper seems interesting. Do you have any real problems with it?

ggm 3y ago
My only complaint is that it adds to the set of core concept-labels which imply things about AI which aren't correct.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Probably most words for which the origin is known started out as a metaphor. Examples: hallucinate - mid 17th century (in the sense ‘be deceived, have illusions’): from Latin hallucinat- ‘gone astray in thought’, from the verb hallucinari, from Greek alussein ‘be uneasy or distraught’. induction - late Middle English: from Latin inductio(n- ), from the verb inducere ‘lead into’ Wikipedia: > Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" → "computer device". > In historical onomasiology or in historical linguistics, a metaphor is defined as a semantic change based on a similarity in form or function between the original concept and the target concept named by a word. > In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. "the price of peace is rising") or the understanding of time in terms of money (e.g. "I spent time at work today").
  - ggm 3y ago
    I get this, but I worry that the metaphorical quality of hallucinate implies belief in consciousness. It may have surface qualities analogous to what we call hallucination in conscious beings, but to backwards intuit because we decide this AI is "hallucinating" implies it's alive worries me. In particular, that some theory of mind in a concept derived from AI contextual use of "hallucinate" could inform eg disease aeteology. I'd be delighted if our understanding of the mind and consciousness meant we had a theory which related to algorithmic hallucination but I don't believe that's true. We've taken surface effects and (I argue mis-) labelled them. There is no demonstrated link between AI hallucination and why it happens, and what happens in a mind. Why? Because we don't entirely understand what consciousness is. So, we have weak theories, based on experiment and observation. AI models aren't (as far as I know) informing this. Hallucination (the AI term meaning) is an emergent effect in systems. And that doesn't imply anything about it, and how it relates to real hallucination in real minds. Grokking is to humans understanding. Making intuitive connections, corollaries, inductive reasoning, abstraction, reapplication. It's strongly tied to cognition. I don't like this use of the term. While machine generated outputs display wildly inappropriate judgement between facts, and instantiate lies as syllogistic consequences it's way way off grokking as humans do. So ask yourself: do you think pop Sci pundits and journalists and thus politicians understand this? Or do you think they hear "hallucinate" and think it's evidence of belief it's consciousness?

by chaxor 3y ago

ggm 3y ago

My only complaint is that it adds to the set of core concept-labels which imply things about AI which aren't correct.

cubefox 3y ago
Probably most words for which the origin is known started out as a metaphor. Examples: hallucinate - mid 17th century (in the sense ‘be deceived, have illusions’): from Latin hallucinat- ‘gone astray in thought’, from the verb hallucinari, from Greek alussein ‘be uneasy or distraught’. induction - late Middle English: from Latin inductio(n- ), from the verb inducere ‘lead into’ Wikipedia: > Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" → "computer device". > In historical onomasiology or in historical linguistics, a metaphor is defined as a semantic change based on a similarity in form or function between the original concept and the target concept named by a word. > In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. "the price of peace is rising") or the understanding of time in terms of money (e.g. "I spent time at work today").
- ggm 3y ago
  I get this, but I worry that the metaphorical quality of hallucinate implies belief in consciousness. It may have surface qualities analogous to what we call hallucination in conscious beings, but to backwards intuit because we decide this AI is "hallucinating" implies it's alive worries me. In particular, that some theory of mind in a concept derived from AI contextual use of "hallucinate" could inform eg disease aeteology. I'd be delighted if our understanding of the mind and consciousness meant we had a theory which related to algorithmic hallucination but I don't believe that's true. We've taken surface effects and (I argue mis-) labelled them. There is no demonstrated link between AI hallucination and why it happens, and what happens in a mind. Why? Because we don't entirely understand what consciousness is. So, we have weak theories, based on experiment and observation. AI models aren't (as far as I know) informing this. Hallucination (the AI term meaning) is an emergent effect in systems. And that doesn't imply anything about it, and how it relates to real hallucination in real minds. Grokking is to humans understanding. Making intuitive connections, corollaries, inductive reasoning, abstraction, reapplication. It's strongly tied to cognition. I don't like this use of the term. While machine generated outputs display wildly inappropriate judgement between facts, and instantiate lies as syllogistic consequences it's way way off grokking as humans do. So ask yourself: do you think pop Sci pundits and journalists and thus politicians understand this? Or do you think they hear "hallucinate" and think it's evidence of belief it's consciousness?