A hacker was once a computer enthusiast, and the media made it into a name for criminals who break into other people’s systems.
Decades ago, people started using baud when they meant BPS. Not many technical people back then, but it wasn’t possible to correct the few who made the mistake. Even one top member of the CCC (Chaos Computer Club) said it’s just “baud” now, no matter the real meaning.
(baud = symbols per second. A symbol can transport multiple bits, so a V.32 modem with 9600 bps worked at 2400 baud, 4 bits per symbol.)
GIF is an image format. Multiple frames stored in such a file can get played like a video. But today every video without sound gets called a GIF.
AI is an old term. But today most people say AI but only mean genAI.
It’s even more absurd: There are gamers who demand computer games without AI. WTF?
AI was always part of computer games. Even the early computerized board games. I remember Half-Life fans loving the enemy AI. And I think one of the games in the Wolfenstein franchise had enemies that found cover when shot at. That’s normal, old AI. Not genAI.
If AI is really lost, how do we discuss the thing that was once considered AI?
“Lost?”
None of those terms have been lost. They’ve just come to have a wider definition than before. Language evolves over time as people are exposed to new ideas, words, or terms. As non-technical people begin using the terms, the meaning has an understood meaning to the public that most people use (e.g. AI/genAI), and a technical definition that is still understood by those it is relevant to. It just requires context.
Yes, words have meaning- but words also change over time as the public understanding shifts. Just like the word “literally.” It used to mean something that is/should be interpreted exactly as it is said/written/shown. Now “literally” also means “figuratively,” even within the dictionary.
So, no. It isn’t lost, you just need to give context about what form of “AI” you are referring to.
Now “literally” also means “figuratively,” even within the dictionary.
That’s literally true… Like in the literal sense… STOP WINKING AT ME!
“Literally” is used as a superlative. The “literally means figuratively” thing tends to refer exaggerations. “I’m literally dying” or “That’s literally hotter than the sun”.
It’s a stand in for “really” which has a double meaning
- Adverb form of “real”
- Expressive form, to convey intensity
But yes, we never “lost” the word. Some online grammar pedants simply refused to accept it as a homonym.
Because both meanings are opposites, literally is a more specialized form of homonym called a contronym. Unlike a contronym such as clip where it’s to tell whether the speaker is talking about clipping things together or clipping stuff off of something based on their use in a sentence, literally and figuratively fit into any sentence the same way. In any case where the speaker’s words could be interpreted ambiguously to be literal or figurative and they add literally to clarify they can’t because someone could mistake their literal literally meaning to be a figurative one.
That means the literal use of literally is functionally lost, and for what? So folks have another way to exaggerate? I don’t care if a language evolves, but if it’s going to I think it should evolve in such a way that expressing certain ideas isn’t lost, especially if there isn’t anything real to be gained. I literally don’t understand why people are so gun-ho to defend using literally figuratively.
Because both meanings are opposites
“really” -> “extremely” is not the opposite of “really” -> “factually”.
the literal use of literally is functionally lost
It isn’t functionally lost any more than “really” has become functionally lost. It’s contingent on context.
“It’s really hot outside” and “He’s really the murderer” have two very coherent and distinct interpretations.
In the same vein, “It’s literally as hot as the sun out here” and “This Christian extremists are taking the Bible too literally” have distinct and non-interchangeable meanings.
But the term has (ahem) LITERALLY been used as an intensifier since 1769. You’re far too late to the party on this debate. It’s LITERALLY been settled for centuries.
How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it? Unless you mean figuratively? Good to know people two and a half centuries ago could write poorly.
How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it?
Same way people can wave a Confederate Flag 150 years after the war is over.
I didn’t realize people had been shot for not using literally figuratively. Plus one could argue that people waving the Confederate flag 150 years later means the war wasn’t fully finished, but I’m not here to debate politics.
I don’t understand why you compare “literally” to “really”. They’re two different words that are used differently. I really don’t have any problem with using really as an intensifier because it aligns just fine with using it to indicate fact. “It’s really hot outside” -> “The heat outside is real.” “He’s really the murderer” -> “His being the murderer is real.”
But using literally in your example adds absolutely nothing to the sentence. “It’s literally as hot as the sun out here” and “It’s as hot as the sun out here” convey the exact same meaning, except one has an extra word that degrades other uses of it. If your sentence could replace the word “literally” with the word “figuratively” and you would intend the same meaning, you should either use “figuratively” or nothing there at all. That way when the word literally is used there can be no doubt that you mean “in the literal sense.”
Irregardless isn’t even setting off spell checkers. “Without having lack of regard”, fucking what?
Our language is evolving into useless shit, and I despise people who do not respect language and definitions. “Oh, language is evolving!”
Yeah, velociraptors evolved into chickens: how did that shit work out? /being facetious, before someone with poor language skills happens to be a paleontologist snaps back
You’re fighting the tide. There’s never been a point in time where language had fixed, immutable definitions. It’s always been transient, no matter what you learned, and it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it’s just how communication and culture work.
I think it’s valid to have a visceral hatred for contranyms.
I’m not saying you can’t hate them, but I am saying that all you’ll achieve by that is getting angry all the time.
I am pretty sure we came up with DEFINITIONS. Now what does that word mean?
I having been fighting a tide of idiocy my entire life, but it doesn’t mean I will drown in it.
Definitions are found, not made. ;)
Objects are found. We define objects. Then we make words. This seems so simple and people seem to want to make it complex.
Eh, I’ve been learning about linguistics and it’s changed my view on the topic.
irregardless
“Inflammable” means flammable!
It would make more sense if it was written “enflammable”, similar to French.
But both forms are acceptable… meaning in French, you can have “ininflammable”!
Context is rarely given.
And the real meaning is important when the actual work has to be done.
“Allow users to upload and play GIFs.” And now I’m reading old specs from 1987 or try to use an existing GIF library. The boss is angry because he can’t upload his silent movie.
“This site needs AI.” And now I’m happily pruning some trees for the perfect minimax implementation. The manager asks me how many tokens it will need, and I say 0. They become suspicious.
Context doesnt have to be given, it exists regardless of instructions ; it’s your responsibility to infer and understand it, or ask questions if you feel like you’re missing important info
If context isn’t given, in a professional setting- then that is a failing on the person communicating. Again, your examples are cleared up with context. The meaning isn’t gone, there is just more than one definition to those words now.
But there is a general definition. That’s the point isn’t it? Its a bit on the reader to get with that.
For example, if I say something about corn you should know what im talking about immediately. I shouldn’t have to specify the yellow vegetable also called maize just because a thousand years ago the word meant something else.
Did you fail to read the thread, or do you actually think you said anything that has bearing on the conversation?
I’m gonna reuse an old comment here
“literally” being used to mean “figuratively” dates back to 3 years after the word “literally” began meaning “actually”. If this is a hill to die on, you need to use “literally” exclusively to mean “as written in the texts”. Common usage of “literally” to mean “actually” and “figuratively” both date to the 1590s
It’s certainly been tarnished by LLM-bros coopting the term for marketing/grifting purposes
“Crypto” is the big one for me, always was cryptography but yah, that one has been taken over by the shitcoins now…sigh.
Damn, I almost forgot about crypto. My tired brain tried to protect me. But this word is up in the big league of lost words.
Indeed it is sadly…
The term “artificial intelligence” was first used in the 50s, so video game AI wasn’t the original meaning either. Arguably neither video game AI nor machine learning AI are proper AI, but the term has always been very malleable. I don’t think the other meanings are lost. If you say “the enemies in this game have bad AI”, people aren’t going to think that you mean LLMs.
People are stupid. They will. Give it time.
Here is a video about a combat robot team using various algorithms to assist with driving. It includes the following:
- a robot team trying to explain how their neat driving assist technology works
- regular people mixing up ai and genai in the video
- commentors in the video doing the same thing
- a big company mixing up ai and genai just to spread more conflict / drama
I don’t think the other meanings are lost. If you say “the enemies in this game have bad AI”, people aren’t going to think that you mean LLMs.
The ai techbros won. We’re already here.
‘AI’ has been a marketing term since it was conjured in 1956, nothing of value has been lost in it being assimilated by a grift.
Lost as in the definition has changed and it isn’t going back so just get used to it, yes. That’s how language works.
I work in crypto. No, not “cryptocurrency”.
That’s the fun part - you don’t! In the absolutist landscape of social media it’s impossible to discuss subjects where every comment is reduced to which of two polar opposite sides you are on. Either you hate capitalism or hate socialism. Either you are pro-AI and all the evils anyone has ever associated with it, or you’re a tech-bro who wants to ruin the environment building datacenters. Many subjects in online discussions have reached the “Why bother?” stage.
I’m still trying to figure out when “bucket list” came to mean a todo list with a deadline rather than a list of things to do before you die.
figure it out should be on your bucket list
From the employer’s perspective, there is no difference.
It is usually one person not fully understanding the meaning, using it wrong and no one correcting them. I know a guy that does it all the time, and then he says “you know what I meant”. No, I did not!
That’s not at all what a bucket list is
edit: unclear, my meaning was “a random todo list with a date is not a ‘bucket list’” - to me a bucket list is a list of things to do before you die
a list of things to do before you die.
That is exactly what a bucket list is. It’s a list of things you want to do before you “kick the bucket”.
Correct, we are in agreement. Sorry, my comments intent was “a bucket list is not a dated todo list”
u/CallMeAI already described two interpretations, which is the 3rd you’re proposing?
how about a list of buckets?
I think I saw a TikTok talking about it. It was first mentioned in a movie. I am not sure if it is from this or from the last century. But less than 40 years.
no one says Baud, that one is up for grabs
Baud.
Now think about “theory”: the popular meaning¹ and the original meaning, the one used in science².
¹ “it’s just an idea”
² “it is proven beyond doubt with the current knowledge”Many people who know the difference between theory and hypothesis say hypothesis when they mean hypothesis.
Lol, no they don’t. Because outside of a scientific setting- the words are synonyms. Listed as such within any modern dictionary or thesaurus. Just because YOU have a narrow understanding of a word, doesn’t make its use outside of that scope wrong.
"the·o·ry /ˈTHirē/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
"hy·poth·e·sis /hīˈpäTHəsəs/ noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
It’s even more absurd: There are gamers who demand computer games without AI. WTF?
They don’t want genAI slop for visuals, writing, and other creative things in games. They are using AI in the context of those things and even give examples about how AI upscaling of textures in game design looks shitty and don’t want voice actors to be replaced with fake voices. They still want human creative involvement front and center because all the llm/genai image stuff is just ripping off existing stuff in the worst ways.
They aren’t talking about pathing or gameplay ai that has been around forever because the term AI has been coopted by genAI and that is what they are referring to.
They aren’t talking about pathing or gameplay ai that has been around forever because the term AI has been coopted by genAI and that is what they are referring to.
That was OP’s whole point
Then why would it be absurd for gamers to demand games without AI if the gamers don’t literally mean the older types of AI?
In video games, (enemy) AI can mean a pathfinding algorithm and a couple rules regarding the distance to the player
Because AI used to mean the older types of AI. It’s an example how the meaning of AI changed which OP is complaining about.
OP is very much aware of this. You missed their point.
Whoosh
I’m doing my part by only calling it machine learning or LLMs. I do my best to avoid calling it AI
Well it is AI, it’s just not all AI
I know, but I need to make a specific point to my managers and coworkers that LLMs are statistical guessing machines
Isnt using machine learning as bad? LLMs dont include image, sound, animation generation as far as i know
Generative AI or genAI seems like the best term to use
The short answer is probably yes.
Maybe it’s a quote I read somewhere, but basically everybody agrees that language changes over time, but nobody wants to admit that it changes during their lifetime. I think the only thing to do, rather than campaign for or against one form or another, is to do what you’ve already been doing and make yourself understood given the context of the situation.
In terms of technical accuracy, new variables have been introduced that are–through no fault of your own–making you less understandable. I think, though, that it still falls to you to make yourself understood, either by brute force and using your definitions regardless, or by being more descriptive.
The hill I’m willing to die on is that “cyber” is short for cybersex, not cybersecurity or cyberspace as appropriated by the military.
This is a prefix I only heard the last few years, and I have no idea who started it. Everything with cyber has almost nothing to do with cybernetics.
It sounds so fake.
care to elaborate?
If you know, you know.
¯\(ツ)/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I got short arms… no need to mock me 😥
