I agree, I’ve also been thinking about this. I think there’s a great deal of interesting work here, to try to put together better terminology.
My guess is that it would be difficult to change all dialogue using this vocabulary anytime soon, but even shifting some of the research dialogue could go a long way.
I worked in advertising agencies for almost a decade. People there complain about terminology too. But it never gets fixed because that’s not how linguistics / culture works. This is an intractable problem and only useful for insiders who feel like venting.
Most analytic philosophers, lawyers, and scientists have converged on linguistic norms that are substantially more precise than the informal terminology employed by LessWrong-style speculation about AI alignment. So this is clearly not an intractable problem; otherwise these people in other professions could not have made their language more precise. Rather, success depends on incentives and the willingness of people within the field to be more rigorous.
I don’t think this is true, or at least I think you are misrepresenting the tradeoffs and diversity here. There is some publication bias here because people are more precise in papers, but honestly, scientists are also not more precise than many top LW posts in the discussion section of their papers, especially when covering wider-ranging topics.
Predictive coding papers use language incredibly imprecisely, analytic philosophy often uses words in really confusing and inconsistent ways, economists (especially macroeconomists) throw out various terms in quite imprecise ways.
But also, as soon as you leave the context of official publications, but are instead looking at lectures, or books, or private letters, you will see people use language much less precisely, and those contexts are where a lot of the relevant intellectual work happens. Especially when scientists start talking about the kind of stuff that LW likes to talk about, like intelligence and philosophy of science, there is much less rigor (and also, I recommend people read a human’s guide to words as a general set of arguments for why “precise definitions” are really not viable as a constraint on language)
I agree, I’ve also been thinking about this. I think there’s a great deal of interesting work here, to try to put together better terminology.
My guess is that it would be difficult to change all dialogue using this vocabulary anytime soon, but even shifting some of the research dialogue could go a long way.
I worked in advertising agencies for almost a decade. People there complain about terminology too. But it never gets fixed because that’s not how linguistics / culture works. This is an intractable problem and only useful for insiders who feel like venting.
Most analytic philosophers, lawyers, and scientists have converged on linguistic norms that are substantially more precise than the informal terminology employed by LessWrong-style speculation about AI alignment. So this is clearly not an intractable problem; otherwise these people in other professions could not have made their language more precise. Rather, success depends on incentives and the willingness of people within the field to be more rigorous.
I don’t think this is true, or at least I think you are misrepresenting the tradeoffs and diversity here. There is some publication bias here because people are more precise in papers, but honestly, scientists are also not more precise than many top LW posts in the discussion section of their papers, especially when covering wider-ranging topics.
Predictive coding papers use language incredibly imprecisely, analytic philosophy often uses words in really confusing and inconsistent ways, economists (especially macroeconomists) throw out various terms in quite imprecise ways.
But also, as soon as you leave the context of official publications, but are instead looking at lectures, or books, or private letters, you will see people use language much less precisely, and those contexts are where a lot of the relevant intellectual work happens. Especially when scientists start talking about the kind of stuff that LW likes to talk about, like intelligence and philosophy of science, there is much less rigor (and also, I recommend people read a human’s guide to words as a general set of arguments for why “precise definitions” are really not viable as a constraint on language)