There are various degrees and dimensions of success in making statements. Belfast is north of london; that galaxy has the shape of fried egg; Beethoven is rumoured to have been a drunkard. Statements fit the facts always more or less loosely, in different ways on different occasions for different intents and purposes.
The problem, then, is when two unrelated words, together in a sentence, no longer leave room for individual interpretation. One can imagine clusters of stars suspended in the sky to create the shape of a fried egg. A fried egg itself carries different interpretations; a greasy diner, on a plate from Julia Child.
Consider the following statements. Intelligence was artificial. Intelligence is rumoured to have been artificial. Artificial conversation has intelligence; now available to pro subscribers, the newest model empowering users with artificial intelligence, using artificial intelligence to enhance the experience of every user;
During which statement did your mind stop actively thinking?
Beholden to the cooperation of conversation
Are we, through our incessant preoccupation with visibility and celebrity, devising a self fulfilling prphecy? There is a point during the life of any topic of conversation that it becomes a language separate from its reality. To describe AI, the vernacular must be as pundit A, as headline B, as poorly written film dialogue C, else the discussion will end, because in truth, an understanding of the topic from the beginning was never shared.
Is it no longer the ultimate goal to create powerful tools crafted for our hands, tools to equip and carry with us along the great quest for greater happiness, for the wholly common desire for a better life? It would seem so, as the throwaway phrases of artificial intelligence press an urgency of the end of mankind, of which company has grown the largest language model, of how “well” a generative engine does at sounding “human”. It is humorously tragic- imagine- our preoccupation with being tricked into believing an AI tool is human. How “convincing” it is! How incorrect the answer is!
Explain yourself
By shaking off the yoke of this thinking, we may see the traps language sets for us. Words are tools, and we should use clean and precise tools. They are not facts; words are not things; pull them off the world, hold them apart and against it, realise full inadequacies, arbitrariness, and look at the world again without blinkers. Words and language, unlike philosophical perspectives or moral theories, have been wrought and rung and sounded off the walls of the world for generation after generation. Who am I to brilliantly declare a revelation that math is “intelligence”, and accept all is done?
Language itself does not rely on morals, or passoins, or religious influence or the newborn structures of governance. Language is ordinary. Language is so dreadfully boring that it often excuses itself from conversation at all. The dreadnaught of time allows us to use language as a perfectly ordinary practice.
How does one describe the experience of tuning out, of shutting down, merely by a turn of phrase? “Enhancing the user experience and empowering all individuals with artificial–“? If I may give label to it, it is a blinder. A blinder imposed upon us by words alone.
New problems require a new faculty of reason; these powerful generative tools unimaginable by our predecessors require a patient language, a steady staff of well-tempered doubt. It is true that all problems are rooted in human understanding; ordinary language allows us to take a breath before we begin.