If it had been up to me, which it most certainly wasn’t and isn’t, it would be called the complex dynamics of transformers, or perhaps LLMs, because that’s what it seems to be. That’s where the math is from and where it’s been most developed. I just ignore the semiotics part of the name. In any event I tend to think the notion of semiotics has long been overgeneralized to the point where it has little meaning. As far as I can tell there’s not much of a connection with any of the intellectual traditions that fly the semiotics flag.
As you say, there’s “a barrier of communication and extra translation cost for many readers.” Well, yeah, if anyone wants to publish or post this work outside of LessWrong, the terminology is likely to prove problematic. If you look around you’ll find that that’s an issue in several posts, communicating with the larger intellectual world. I have no idea how that’s going to work out in the long run.
If you don’t mind, I’ll make a remark.
If it had been up to me, which it most certainly wasn’t and isn’t, it would be called the complex dynamics of transformers, or perhaps LLMs, because that’s what it seems to be. That’s where the math is from and where it’s been most developed. I just ignore the semiotics part of the name. In any event I tend to think the notion of semiotics has long been overgeneralized to the point where it has little meaning. As far as I can tell there’s not much of a connection with any of the intellectual traditions that fly the semiotics flag.
As you say, there’s “a barrier of communication and extra translation cost for many readers.” Well, yeah, if anyone wants to publish or post this work outside of LessWrong, the terminology is likely to prove problematic. If you look around you’ll find that that’s an issue in several posts, communicating with the larger intellectual world. I have no idea how that’s going to work out in the long run.