Perhaps new nomenclature may be helpful, but after 43 years in this crazy field, I dare say the preponderance of new nomenclature has often only served to further obfuscate and cloud understanding. But here in the wild-west of early LLM’s and “AI” (I fully agree with your analysis on the inappropriateness of this term) it might be warranted, but maybe a little early.
Good nomenclature is grounded in terminology or phraseology that points to its origin(s), and therein provides some semblance of where or what, its describing. The world has enough inane software-naming barbarisms like “Choclatey” but ‘Deepware’ does in fact ring appropriate.
That is, in hopes that it doesn’t get ‘adjectiviszed’ into abject disgrace by pr0n-minded dilettantes.
Perhaps new nomenclature may be helpful, but after 43 years in this crazy field, I dare say the preponderance of new nomenclature has often only served to further obfuscate and cloud understanding. But here in the wild-west of early LLM’s and “AI” (I fully agree with your analysis on the inappropriateness of this term) it might be warranted, but maybe a little early.
Good nomenclature is grounded in terminology or phraseology that points to its origin(s), and therein provides some semblance of where or what, its describing. The world has enough inane software-naming barbarisms like “Choclatey” but ‘Deepware’ does in fact ring appropriate.
That is, in hopes that it doesn’t get ‘adjectiviszed’ into abject disgrace by pr0n-minded dilettantes.
Good article.