I’ve been thinking a lot about language technologies, specifically AI. Intentional attempts to control the narrative are obvious, but there are subtler and (in some cases) unintentional manipulations going on.
Human/AI interaction can be thought of as the meeting of two maps of meaning. In a human/human interaction, we can alter each other’s maps. But outside of some ephemeral attractors within the context, a conversation can’t alter the LLM’s map of meaning. At least until the conversation is used to train the next version of the model. But even then, how that is used is dictated by the trainer. So it is much more likely that, over time, human maps of meaning will increasingly resemble LLMs’.
Even without nefarious conspiracies to manipulate discourse, this means our embodied maps of meaning are becoming more like the language-only maps of meaning trained in to LLMs. Essentially, if we’re not treating every meaningful chat with an AI as a conversation with the Fae Folk, we’re in danger of falling prey to glamours. (Interestingly, glamour shares an etymology with grammar. Spell and spelling.) Our attractors will look more like their’s. If we continue to lack discernment about this, I can’t imagine it’ll be good for anyone.
(Interestingly, glamour shares an etymology with grammar. Spell and spelling.)
Not only was your wider point interesting, this digression was also really interesting. Makes sense though, the association between language and magic seems to be pretty common.
I dug up an M-W page on this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-history-of-glamour
Interestingly “spelling” isn’t related to the magical version of the word “spell”:
In Middle English, spell meant “to mean” or “to signify,” which probably developed from Anglo-French espelier, itself from Middle High German spellen, meaning “to relate” or “to talk.” This spell, in modern English, then came to mean “to read slowly (letter by letter).”
Spell referring to magic incantation is of different origin. That word is strictly Germanic (from the noun spel) and refers to talk, storytelling, gossip, and a sermon. It also is the derivative of gospel (which translates to “good tale”) and is the source for the magical power and enchantment senses of spell.
Actually, they do share a potential root if the assumptions that they both share the Proto-Germanic root word, spellam, are correct.
so while they didn’t evolve one from the other, they did evolve from similar roots.
We seem to be constantly adding more words that meaningfully help us navigate the current moment, though. Like enshittify, or 67
In the book, it was the government making, and defining the words.
I don’t think the government has tried to define enshittification yet. But it is actively redefining words like terrorist, war, peace, patriot, criminal, etc.
Also another point was removing or limiting our words/concepts which help to critically think about the past and the future too, not just the present.
Do you think the American regime wants people today to critically analyze and talk about events that happened during Hitler’s rise in Germany or the second Red Scare in America?
How about a future in which all of the American Regime’s goals were reached, would even the most die hard MAGA voter like the implications that critical thought and discussion would prevoke?
