Hacker News Reader

Comment by adelmotsjr | Hacker News Reader

I agree 100% to what Rich has to say here, especially because, as Rich always writes, he goes to the dictionary to find correct definitions to support his argument. But I think this is a lost battle, because there is always going to be the camp of people of "BuT lAnGuAgEs EvOlVe".

Yes, Janet, languages do evolve. But why do you think dictionaries exists? Solely for teaching purposes? No, it is because at the end of the day, sometimes there is a need for a correct definition to establish a foundation for some argument of some kind.

But I know people are going to ignore and simply say his arguments have no validity.

A shame, beause in this he actually wrote a very clear separation of software that is a tool and aoftware that is automation. And he didn't even say AI is bad or any other thing. He simply says: AI is automation, not a tool. Use accordingly

View on HN

> I agree 100% to what Rich has to say here, especially because, as Rich always writes, he goes to the dictionary to find correct definitions to support his argument.

I don't know why you think that's so effective a way of getting at the truth. Whether something is a tool or not is a matter of family resemblances and is not susceptible to proof or disproof. Id recommend that Hickey put down the dictionary and pick up Wittgenstein.

Hickey is not leaning on the dictionary. The specific definitions he lays out for tool and automation make up his argument, not the words themselves. Saying "no, tool can be these other things" misses the point by a considerable distance.

So he's stipulating a definition of the word and then saying LLMs don't meet it. A more truthful title would be, "LLMs are not tools in my narrower, idiosyncratic sense of the word." Fine, but so what?

Dictionaries exist to show what some people currently believe a word means. But it is poor argumentation to argue that a word should only mean what the dictionary says. That's the "old man shaking his fist at the clouds" that the world is constantly changing.

I think there's a better version of this, and it fits well with Hickey's predilection for etymology dictionaries in particular:

Words are embedded in (yes, evolving) traditions of use. They are situated in systems of other words and ideas. A precise definition (and often a history of the word and the turna its meaning has taken over time) serves to train you, just a little, in that entire tradition— in its motivations, its other ideas, and adjacent terms. It gives you clues about what distinguishes it connotatively and denotativelu from its nearest synonyms. It helps you maintain intelligibility with written works that use older senses of the word. For words in your native tongue, that also means that, in a sense, it helps keep your own cultural history open to you.

So if I had to push a norm, it wouldn't be "stick to old, established definitions" or "arguments are stronger when we use old definitions". It would be something like:

> It is better to keep in contact with what makes a word special, with the stories and arguments it was created to tell. And arguments about whether X is a Y are sometimes arguments about whether we are losing contact with a concept that Y once helped clarify and communicate. If that's happening, it's sometimes an argument worth being sensitive to and propagating, so honestly consider it.

> "BuT lAnGuAgEs EvOlVe"

They do and they don’t, depending on what (and who) you’re talking about and whether or not it’s beneficial to say language evolves or not in that particular argument :)

No, they always do. The confusion might be that you think evolution means "get better". But evolution of languages, just like biological beings simply means "changes over time".

I don’t think evolution means “get better”.

I mean that people can both claim that “words have meaning” and “languages evolve” depending on which one fits their narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com