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?
Baud comes from Baudot code. The things I learned getting a HAM license.
You did it to yourselves by overreacting.
I just act like Randal when someone says I “can’t say that” or use “that word” anymore.
Just say I’m getting old and can’t cope next time
Take advantage of yet another communication hook that the old internet gave us: word tagging.
You can for example request comments on 90s!AI or you can ask someone to convert a image!GIF for you.
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.
Haha. Language, culture and society, golly all I can say is, sometimes it do be like that…
no one says Baud, that one is up for grabs
‘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.
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.
I remember how everyone talked about how the first Half-Life game implemented AI so well. The enemies were actually cunning, especially by the standards of the time; One enemy grunt would chase you into cover and have another grunt throw a grenade, while a third one circled around.
If a game today was released with a rumor of having “great AI implementation”, a lot of people would understandably steer clear.
Don’t you mean SI?
“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
irregardless
“Inflammable” means flammable!
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 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.
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.
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?
It’s certainly been tarnished by LLM-bros coopting the term for marketing/grifting purposes
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?
Whoosh
OP is very much aware of this. You missed their point.
