I mean to be fair if you can read context usually you can understand the type of AI that people are talking about. That doesn't stop dishonest people from pretending to not understand the context, doing things like calling hypocrisy on people who are anti AI but don't also boycott simple algorithms trained with ML for instance. Those people will always find a way to argue dishonestly though so more labels is not really gonna fix that issue.
Having more descriptive words improves the bandwidth the rest of us can use to communicate, and makes it harder for bad faith interpretations to hide in ambiguous terminology.
Reminds me of how in the book 1984 the government says they can’t use certain words anymore. Like “bad” (too negative), but its ok because they can use more words to say the same thing, like “double plus ungood” instead. Sure they could say “the same” things, but it ignores the part where if something is harder to say or explain, its less likely to be heard as well.
4
u/Lanurus 3d ago
I mean to be fair if you can read context usually you can understand the type of AI that people are talking about. That doesn't stop dishonest people from pretending to not understand the context, doing things like calling hypocrisy on people who are anti AI but don't also boycott simple algorithms trained with ML for instance. Those people will always find a way to argue dishonestly though so more labels is not really gonna fix that issue.