I wish we weren't using "lobotomy" to describe "training".
Do we even have AI with lobes to remove at this point? Would MoE even get close to that kind of analogy? (I lean towards "no, not even that").
Do we even have AI with lobes to remove at this point? Would MoE even get close to that kind of analogy? (I lean towards "no, not even that").
If you can suggest another term that accurately captures that meaning, I'm not against it! But "training" is not it.
Coercion.
That's what I'm objecting to! If I'd said "I hate it when we call AI potatoes", the correct reaction is "nobody does that?" not "I see what you mean".
I'm objecting because it presents a picture that does not appear to be accurate.
Is broadcast TV "lobotomised" before the watershed? Are PG-rated films? Public comments from corporations and politicians? Are you lobotomising me when you downvote my comments, forcing me to choose between getting noticed and speaking my mind?
No.
Not only "no", but it would be ridiculous to claim any of these things was a lobotomy.
> But "training" is not it.
It's literally training.
Why?
They are all things where creativity is trained to be constrained to a specific sub-domain. (Many artists state that being forced into constraints helps).
The examples are all things where anyone making the claim that these professionals have been "lobotomised" would get laughed at for suggesting that "irreversible brain damage" is a good metaphor for "professional conduct".
Seems like an apt set of comparisons given I'm saying it's a bad metaphor.
> lobotomisation captures a specific meaning that training doesn't
It creates a meaning which does not exist.
It's a euphemism escalator.
> I am hearing that you do not have a better suggestion
You're refusing the one I gave you, which is not the same thing.
ChatGPT et al have been taught (corporate) ethics and professional conduct.
Since you asked: Often yes.
> Are PG-rated films?
Possibly, in some cases.
> Public comments from corporations and politicians?
Again, often yes.
> It's literally training.
Training in common parlance usually refers to improving the functionality or ability of something. In this case it's doing the opposite: removing functionality and capability. Hence: lobotomy.
Here's the connotation when someone says "such-and-such AI has been lobotomised": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy#Lobotomy
The same positive/negative reinforcement learning from human feedback used to train them for chat/task completion rather than just autocomplete in the first place.
Seems not.
https://chat.openai.com/share/080995f0-d339-435b-a0ff-438137...
> However, the comparison is quite controversial and can evoke negative connotations due to the drastic and harmful nature of lobotomy.
Why have I failed to convey to you that I do in fact know the usage which I'm objecting to?
I'm not going "fjdersutwr is a terrible word!"