Last year, someone (specifically, OUP) asked me to write an encyclopedia entry for "AI".

[emilymbender@dair-community.social]

In the end, this was a fun project to work on, especially through the readings I got to revisit (and sometimes read for the first time) in the process.

[djl@mastodon.mit.edu]

@emilymbender

AI _SHOULD_ be an approach to Cognitive Science. The parts af AI that aren't have nothing to do with intelligence.

But, careful there. The folks doing domain modelling (Go, chess, protein folding, gradient decent) are reasonable comp. sci. stuff. (Although calling that stuff "AI" is completely ridiculous.)

It's LLMs that are exactly and only parlor tricks.

But the incredibly-stupidity-dense clusterfrack that AI has become is embarassing.

[lina@neuromatch.social]

@djl
@emilymbender

intelligence has nothing to do with intelligence

[hypostase@bsd.network]

@emilymbender
So much this. Thank you.

[gabriel@col.social]

@emilymbender

What is OUP? I'm not familiar with the acronym.

I can't wait to read the entry

[roytoo@mstdn.social]

@gabriel
Thanks for asking, I was wondering the same thing.
@bodhipaksa
Thanks for answering!
@emilymbender

[65dbnoise@mastodon.social]

@emilymbender
8. AI is #technofascism

[unfmeghan@dmv.community]

@emilymbender what happened to AI is a marketing term not a technology

[davide_sandini@mastodon.uno]

@emilymbender
Illuminating...

[npars01@mstdn.social]

@roytoo @gabriel @bodhipaksa @emilymbender

OUP publishes some superb books.

[jochenlingelba1@h-net.social]

@gabriel @emilymbender OUP is Oxford University Press

[qybat@batchats.net]

@emilymbender If you understand your regression analysis, then it is basic statistics.

If you used some brute force and somewhat understand your regression analysis, then it is machine learning.

And if you have no idea how the mathematical abomination you just created works, and can only take on faith that it produces appropriate results most of the time, then it is AI.

[penguinrebellion@tldr.nettime.org]

@emilymbender

Where & when will it be published?

[sevoris@mastodon.social]

@emilymbender I really love the framing around "understand our world, allocate resources and relate to each other". It‘s short and yet it really teases at the social values of technology and also just the social power of the meanings of language (which I‘ve recently been learning a lot about for discourse analysis)

[rogerparkinson@mastodon.nz]

@emilymbender back in the late 80s I recall much discussion about there being 7 problems that AI in some form would address. One, oddly, was speech synthesis. Another, more reasonably, was speech recognition (note: not understanding, more like transcribing). Image recognition was in there and I forget the others. I think your approach is more useful.

[collective_truth@mastodon.social]

@emilymbender And remember:

Everything is a way to:

- Shift Accountability
- Centralize Power
- etc

IF THERE IS FREE LUNCH, YOU ARE THE DINNER!

(nothing commercially given for free & all is manipulation without good sense)

[botally54@mastodon.social]

@emilymbender AI is our last warning.

[androcat@toot.cat]

@djl

Well, the original intent of the term was extremely dishonest, so I would argue that the modern appropriations of the term for dishonest ends are actually failry genuine, and it was the poor sods using it for genuine approaches who got fooled and used to provide the term with legitimacy.

@emilymbender

[claudius@darmstadt.social]

@djl @emilymbender that is not how words or definitions work.

[collective_truth@mastodon.social]

@claudius Can you say more what you mean - I didn't understand what you mean / referring to.