3 ms·

> I think such influence will be extremely minimal. AI will accelerate “natural” change in language like anything else. And as AI changes our environment (men

> I think such influence will be extremely minimal. AI will accelerate “natural” change in language like anything else. And as AI changes our environment (mentally, socially, and inevitably physically) we will change and change our language. But what will be interesting is the rise of agent to agent communication via human languages. As that kind of communication shows up in training sets, there will be a powerful eigenvector of change we can’t predict. Other than that it’s the path of efficient communication for them, and we are likely to pick up on those changes as from any other source of change.

runarberg 8mo ago
Seems very unlikely. My parent said the effects have already started (but provided no evidence), so I assume you mean by less then a generation. I am not a linguist but I would like to see evidence of such rapid shifts ever occurring in anywhere the history of languages before I believe either of you. I have a feeling you only have a feeling, but not any credible mechanism in which such language shifts can occur.
- Nevermark 8mo ago
  I am a little confused. Every year language changes. Young people, tech, adapting ideologies, words and concepts adopted from other languages, the list of language catalysts is long and pervasive. Language has never stood still.
  - runarberg 8mo ago
    GPs original claim was “[Machine Intelligence] already is influencing the grammar and patterns we use.” Your claim above was “AI will accelerate “natural” change in language like anything else.” Now these are different claims, but I assumed you were backing up your parent’s claim. These are far stronger claims than what you write now, in a way that it feels like you are arguing in Motte and Bailey. First of all if GP claim is true, linguists should be able to find evidence of that and publish their findings in a peer review papers. To my knowledge, they have not done that. Second of all, your claim about AI “accelerating” changes in natural language is also unfounded, unless you really mean “like everything else”, in which case your claim is extremely weak to the point where it is a non-claim (meaning, you are not even wrong[1]). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
    - Nevermark 8mo ago
      > These are far stronger claims than what you write now > unless you really mean “like everything else”, in which case your claim is extremely weak Language responds to changes in context. Books, the printing press, radio, the web, social media, mobile web, all changed how people used language and impacted language. AI is a dramatic new context, with unique properties: 1. It is the first artifact to actively participate in realtime natural language communication. In a striking break with those predecessors. 2. AI language capabilities evolve quickly, and are unlikely to stop soon. 3. As learning during inference becomes prevalent, we will be co-adapting communication with AI in realtime. 4. Model to model communication is in its infancy, but is an entirely new category of language use, by entirely new users. No preceding change to language context or purpose comes close. Holding out for studies is reasonable, to determine the level of change. But statements of "not even wrong" make no sense. The default is changes in communication context and purpose, drive changes in language. Language has never been static or unresponsive to new contexts.
      - runarberg 8mo ago
        My not even wrong argument was contingent on the weakest interpretation of your argument, where AI would change the language exactly like anything else in human society changes language. > Changes in how we use language with AI will change even faster when AI starts learning continuously during inference. This is a stronger claim, and shows that the weakest interpretation of your argument does not apply. I take not event wrong back. As this is a testable hypotheses which offers a solid prediction. I can in fact be wrong. That said, I am skeptical of your claims for the reason stated above. People don’t interact with LLM’s nearly as much as they do with their dogs, and I am not aware of any research that shows that people who interact with a lot of dogs simplify their languages in human-to-human communication. To the contrary, there is ample research that humans are in fact quite good at context switching. You can speak extremely poorly in a second learning you are currently learning, and then in the next sentence speak fluently without hesitation in your native language.
        Nevermark 8mo ago

runarberg 8mo ago

Seems very unlikely. My parent said the effects have already started (but provided no evidence), so I assume you mean by less then a generation. I am not a linguist but I would like to see evidence of such rapid shifts ever occurring in anywhere the history of languages before I believe either of you. I have a feeling you only have a feeling, but not any credible mechanism in which such language shifts can occur.

Nevermark 8mo ago
I am a little confused. Every year language changes. Young people, tech, adapting ideologies, words and concepts adopted from other languages, the list of language catalysts is long and pervasive. Language has never stood still.
- runarberg 8mo ago
  GPs original claim was “[Machine Intelligence] already is influencing the grammar and patterns we use.” Your claim above was “AI will accelerate “natural” change in language like anything else.” Now these are different claims, but I assumed you were backing up your parent’s claim. These are far stronger claims than what you write now, in a way that it feels like you are arguing in Motte and Bailey. First of all if GP claim is true, linguists should be able to find evidence of that and publish their findings in a peer review papers. To my knowledge, they have not done that. Second of all, your claim about AI “accelerating” changes in natural language is also unfounded, unless you really mean “like everything else”, in which case your claim is extremely weak to the point where it is a non-claim (meaning, you are not even wrong[1]). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  - Nevermark 8mo ago
    > These are far stronger claims than what you write now > unless you really mean “like everything else”, in which case your claim is extremely weak Language responds to changes in context. Books, the printing press, radio, the web, social media, mobile web, all changed how people used language and impacted language. AI is a dramatic new context, with unique properties: 1. It is the first artifact to actively participate in realtime natural language communication. In a striking break with those predecessors. 2. AI language capabilities evolve quickly, and are unlikely to stop soon. 3. As learning during inference becomes prevalent, we will be co-adapting communication with AI in realtime. 4. Model to model communication is in its infancy, but is an entirely new category of language use, by entirely new users. No preceding change to language context or purpose comes close. Holding out for studies is reasonable, to determine the level of change. But statements of "not even wrong" make no sense. The default is changes in communication context and purpose, drive changes in language. Language has never been static or unresponsive to new contexts.
    - runarberg 8mo ago
      My not even wrong argument was contingent on the weakest interpretation of your argument, where AI would change the language exactly like anything else in human society changes language. > Changes in how we use language with AI will change even faster when AI starts learning continuously during inference. This is a stronger claim, and shows that the weakest interpretation of your argument does not apply. I take not event wrong back. As this is a testable hypotheses which offers a solid prediction. I can in fact be wrong. That said, I am skeptical of your claims for the reason stated above. People don’t interact with LLM’s nearly as much as they do with their dogs, and I am not aware of any research that shows that people who interact with a lot of dogs simplify their languages in human-to-human communication. To the contrary, there is ample research that humans are in fact quite good at context switching. You can speak extremely poorly in a second learning you are currently learning, and then in the next sentence speak fluently without hesitation in your native language.
      - Nevermark 8mo ago