|
| ▲ | ninjagoo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| May I humbly submit: Automatologist: One who studies the behavior, adaptation, and failure modes of artificial agents and automated systems. Automatology: the scientific study of artificial agents and automated-system behavior. Greek word derivatives all seem to be a bit unwieldy; Latin might work better. While the names aren't set yet, the field of study is apparently already being pushed forward. [1] [1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-anthropologist-of-artific... |
|
| ▲ | swader999 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is not in any sense of the word a being, it's a sophisticated generator that relies entirely on what you feed it. |
| |
|
| ▲ | card_zero 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is no word anthropodes. :) I guess it would mean man-feet. Antipodes is opposite-feet, literally. Synthetipologist looks to me like a portmanteau of synthetic and apologist. Otherwise the -po- in it comes from nowhere. Sensible boring versions of this like synthesilogy just end up meaning the study of synthesis. I reckon instead do something with Talos, the man made of bronze who guarded Crete from pirates and argonauts. Talologist, there you go. |
| |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | yeah I realized that when I looked up podes downthread. I still like synthetologist better than talologist, in general no one in the common folk knows who Talos is. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're probably right. There's things that are correct, and then there's things people think they know, which win and become true. We already have "synths", after all, which are keyboards. Though that adds to the vagueness of synthetologist, because maybe it refers to Rick Wakeman or Giorgio Moroder. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ggsp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Agree with your sentiment, I think synthetologist (σύνθετος/synthetos + λογία/logia) flows better. The plural of anthropos is anthropoi, not anthropodes. |
| |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, I realize that's more correct. I also realized when someone else downthread bastardized it into synthropologist that the podes part has entirely to do with feet and nothing to do with beings, necessarily. Anthro- -podes is more what I had in mind, not as a pluralization of anthropos. So unless the AI has feet you wouldn't study Synthetipology. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're probably thinking of anthropoids? That's anthrop[os]-oid. Like in humanoid or centroid or factoid. Or dorkazoid. |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But since when is there a synthetos? Since right now, I guess. Shrug But you know it's from the same root as thesis, and synthesis (or a more proper ancient Greek spelling) is the noun and doesn't end in -os. σύνθεσις (súnthesis, “a putting together; composition”), says Wiktionary. Oh wait there is a σύνθετος, but it's an adjective for "composite". Hmm, OK. Modern Greek, looks like. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | ninjagoo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Please do not use anthropology or any derivative of the word to refer to non-human constructs So you, for one, do not welcome our new robot overlords? A rather risky position to adopt in public, innit ;-) |
| |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve already had my Roko’s basilisk existential breakdown a decade ago, so I don’t really care one way or the other. I just wanna point out that I only called them non-human and I am asking for a precision of language. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > am asking for a precision of language. “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse wh***. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”* --James D. Nicoll * Does not generally apply to scientific papers | | |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Precision of ideas isn't purity of language. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Precision of ideas isn't purity of language That's fair. Was trying to be funny, so glossed over the difference. Leaving my post above unedited/undeleted as a testament to your precision, and evidence of my folly. Onwards; more appropriate rebuttals: "English is a precision instrument assembled from spare parts during a thunderstorm." --ChatGPT “If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.” -- Doug Larson |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | keybored 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So tedious. |
|
|
| ▲ | fragmede 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Synthetipologist vs Synthropologist tho. |
| |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Anthropo- is the entire prefix as it relates to human kind. The -thro- does not carry a meaning on its own that can be carried to another word. | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Synthropologist Have an upvote :) *thropologist: study of beings | | |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's not how the Greek word stems work. Technically it would not be synthetipologist, it would more accurately just be Synthetologist, as the Greek podes suffix means having feet. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's not how the Greek word stems work. Sir, I would have you know that we are discussing English terms, not Greek AInthropologist works fine for me, and is a lot funnier LoL |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ninjagoo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Synthetipologists, those who study Synthetic beings. I see you took the prudent approach of recognizing the being-ness of our future overlords :) ("being" wasn't in your first edit to which I responded below...) Still, a bit uninspired, methinks. I like AInthropologist better, and my phone's keyboard appears to have immediately adopted that term for the suggestions line. Who am I to fight my phone's auto-suggest :-) |
| |
| ▲ | xerox13ster 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | They are state machines so they have a state of being therefore they are beings. Living is an entirely different argument. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They are state machines I might have to hard disagree on this one, since my understanding of state machines (the technical term [1] [2]) is that they are determistic, while LLMs (the ai topic of discussion) are probabilistic in most of the commercial implementations that we see. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine [2] have written some for production use, so have some personal experience here | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Even at your link it immediately says that there are 2 kinds of automata (a.k.a. FSMs): deterministic and non-deterministic. In the former, the transition function provides the next state, while in the latter the transition function only provides a probability distribution for the next state, i.e. exactly how running an LLM is implemented. | |
| ▲ | ggsp 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
