Anyone who’s engaged in developing new knowledge or understanding using AI as a participant in the process should expect to learn some AI-created jargon. However, they should demand AI systems that are willing to explain their “opaque” jargon!
This is not a fact about AI; it’s a fact about language users generally. Any language-using system that is developing new or better-organized knowledge about a subject, is going to be inclined to create jargon about it. Jargon exists among humans for legitimate reasons of precision and compression, not just for obscurantism or ingroupiness / shibboleth-ism.
(When people look at a field of study not their own, and remark that it has “so much jargon”, one thing they’re noticing is inferential distance, which is actually good: if you aren’t achieving inferential distance from the layperson, is your field really discovering anything?)
Epistemic status: speculative ramble.
Anyone who’s engaged in developing new knowledge or understanding using AI as a participant in the process should expect to learn some AI-created jargon. However, they should demand AI systems that are willing to explain their “opaque” jargon!
This is not a fact about AI; it’s a fact about language users generally. Any language-using system that is developing new or better-organized knowledge about a subject, is going to be inclined to create jargon about it. Jargon exists among humans for legitimate reasons of precision and compression, not just for obscurantism or ingroupiness / shibboleth-ism.
(When people look at a field of study not their own, and remark that it has “so much jargon”, one thing they’re noticing is inferential distance, which is actually good: if you aren’t achieving inferential distance from the layperson, is your field really discovering anything?)