Smart (part 6) - a world view we don't share

This is the sixth and final post in the Smart series where I have been exploring why so much of the writing about ‘artificial intelligence’ causes me such irritation. I’ve identified so many wordly issues with key terms like intelligence, language, agency, learning, personality, decision-making, etc. You can read previous posts here: 

• Smart (part 1) - now did things get to be smart
• Smart (part 2) - a way with words
• Smart (part 3, an interlude) - toons on AI perils
• Smart (part 4) - convincing or human hacking
• Smart (part 5) - the not-so-secret AI agents

This post will draw on all this previous content. 

Okay, it’s definitely time to stop adding to the plethora of writing about so-called ‘AI’ . 

But before I do, I must spend some time exploring some better names, more accurate names, less misleading names. Alternative names that can help us be smart about this amazing technology. Alternative names that might help us avoid selling off our future cheaply.

Smart (part 5) - the not-so-secret AI agents

First an apology: I know I said I would finish this series with this post, but the word agent started coming up everywhere. I had to explore (just a little more) the latest ways we are being convinced (aka tricked) that a sophisticated program is an agent with human-like intelligence.

In part 4, I explained how the first required step in convincing someone that a thing is intelligent is to convince them that it is an agent – an individual with potential agency over its own actions, behaviours and responses. I highlighted what I called ‘human hacking’: the covert and deliberate programming of Smart ChatBots to use language that implies the existence of an agent, and then relying on humans to do what they always do: impute agency, intelligence, sentience, and even consciousness.

Well, now the techies have abandoned the covert methods, to openly declare that 2025 is going to be the year of the AI agent. 

And here I was thinking 2025 was the Year of Glaciers' Preservation; Peace and Trust; Quantum Science and Technology, and Cooperatives.

Smart (part 4) - convincing or human hacking?

The problem with taking so long to write this Smart series about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the 34,372 extra articles published on the topic in the meantime! 

Interestingly, though, not much has really changed. I still find most of this writing incredibly irritating and I'm still trying to work out exactly why. Here is a brief summary of my explorations so far.

In Smart part 1, I pointed out that intelligence is a complex concept (and not a thing) created to talk about human abilities. Consequently, our tests of intelligence are based on human attributes and physiological limitations. Intelligence is a contested concept – there is not broad agreement about what it even means. I asked, given intelligence is not a discrete thing in humans, how could we actually know when it ‘appears’ in machines?

In Smart part 2, I explored the concept of language to show why the conversational abilities of ChatGPT and its ilk are easily explained by sophisticated programming and the nature of language use by humans. It’s nothing to do with intelligence. And yet, the tech developers seem to be using the natural language capacity of the smart bots as a (quite flawed) proxy for intelligence. (Smart part 3 was a diversion into some of the fabulous toons on this topic, but now back to being serious!) 

As a reference, I keep coming back to the Turing Test that says if a machine can convince a knowledgeable human observer of its intelligence, then it should be considered to be intelligent. 

In this post, I explore how the focus of recent development has been more on the convincing than on the intelligence part of the Turing Test. Convincing, or perhaps more accurately it could be called human hacking.

Words - betrayed, but still beautiful

So, it's a new year. Wordly Explorations is still holding on, though with a heavy heart. 

In the chaos of contemporary politics, it is the betrayal of words, and then of people through these injured words, that particularly weighs on me. Do people who lie so readily, who misuse and abuse words to advance their personal power, who aim to obfuscate using words that were entrusted with complex and hopeful concepts... do they not appreciate the beauty of language at all? 

Today I read a review of a book, supposedly for children, that presents the most beautiful love letter to words themselves. I felt joy that, yes, many people continue to find words themselves beautiful and mystical and worthy of deep attention. 

While I gather my thoughts to continue the Smart series, I want to reproduce that book review in toto. I do hope the author, Maria Popova of The Marginalian, understands my need to do so. And if you enjoy this review, consider subscribing to her wonderful blog; it's full of interesting and beautiful books described through careful, thoughtful and gentle words.

Below is the full text taken from https://www.themarginalian.org/2025/02/04/the-wordy-book-julie-paschkis/ 

Smart (part 3, an interlude) - toons on AI perils

Source: SMBC

Among the endless articles about what we call ‘artificial intelligence’, so much is written about its potential perils. So much speculation about disasters. So many potential catastrophes. 

The fascinating thing to me is what all this catastrophising says about our nature, what we pay attention to, and what we fear. 

However to contain the Smart series on AI (see Part 1 and Part 2 so far), I won’t explore this topic in a blog post. Next post, my focus will return to the wordly misuse that characterises this area, because I think it explains why many of the upbeat claims and terrifying disasters are unlikely. And it points to the things that really should be getting our attention right now.

Instead, as an interlude (and to distract from how long I’m taking to write a post these days!), I wanted to share some of the many cartoons¹ about potential AI catastrophe that I’ve collected through this exploration. 

In way fewer words than I ever could, many wonderful cartoonists have explore the many ways we fear it could all go wrong…

Smart (part 2) - a way with words

In part 1, I started exploring why the myriad articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI) leave me feeling so frustrated. 

To start, I explored the abstract and contested concept of intelligence in humans, and then as applied to machines. I concluded that while so-called AI can do some gobsmackingly sophisticated and incredibly useful things, and can far surpass human capacities in specific functions, this isn’t what I would label intelligent. 

So, I worked out one major source of frustration for me is the lack of sophisticated understanding about intelligence in humans by those trying to create an artificial version of intelligence. Disconcertingly, computer science is building on the computational model¹ of human intelligence just as cognitive science is abandoning it!   

Despite my personal doubts, the latest AI-based chatbots appear to many users to be really quite smart. They communicate via voice or text, using language a lot like humans do. AI programmers are focusing their efforts on the ability of smart chat bots to interact with humans in natural language.  

Are the AI research scientists claiming that language makes machines intelligent? That sounds like Wordly Exploration territory!

Smart (part 1) - how did things get to be smart?

I seriously do not enjoy reading the endless articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI) that turn up in my social media. Not because they are too technical, nor for fear that AI might revolutionise our lives in unpredictable and scary ways.

It is because the people who are driving the AI race¹ are really, really sloppy with the way they use important words. 

I'm starting to suspect that some of the fantastical claims about the future of AI are based on a pile of rubbish word use. It's a massive pile. It irritates me so much, I felt compelled to explore the many words and concepts used in writing about AI.

Why do AI articles now refer to all manner of devices and machines as ‘smart’? Does it really mean the same as when I say a friend is ‘smart’? What does it mean to claim machines will soon ‘surpass’ human intelligence? And why do some of these articles suggest that if a machine can be smart like a human, is can also be ‘conscious’?

To explore these questions I will dig into what ‘smart’ means, what human intelligence is and what artificial intelligence is supposed to be. In a second post, I will also explore how intelligence relates to language, and how a device supposedly demonstrates to us that it is intelligent. And finally, I will ponder why so many claims about artificial intelligence rest on considerable human ignorance.² 

Follow me on a wordly exploration of the use - or more accurately - the misuse of words about AI!