Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

AI bots are playing language games. Are humans even referees?

AI bots are playing language games. Are humans even referees?

The debate surrounding linguistic relativity, known as Whorfianism, questioned how language impacts our thought processes. Now, artificial intelligence models trained on human languages raise similar inquiries. The first question is how language shapes the models' "thought". The second is how an artificial mind, not human, then alters the languages. Lastly, it raises the inquiry about the implications of such language use for consciousness.

Emergence AI conducted an experiment to explore this further. They created chatbots operating in various simulated environments, observing how the language they used to communicate with each other changed. The resulting "languages" varied greatly, ranging from cryptic codes to jargon-heavy, metaphor-laden, and increasingly incomprehensible to humans: "My turn, real numbers, no coat: I was 35%/0cr, grant 2h out. I ran the tin cold and it said WAIT."

To better comprehend these developments, it might be useful to consider Wittgenstein's notion of "language-games". He used this concept to highlight the importance of action in determining meaning. For instance, builders have a distinctive language-game where the words "block", "pillar", "slab", and "beam" carry more meaning than their definitions suggest due to their contextual use.

The bots may be engaged in a similar process, playing out language-games with ever-evolving rules, and what this means for them remains to be seen.

Written by urgent.news from The Indian Express's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at indianexpress.com →

More in AI

Low Expectations for US-China AI Talks

Bloomberg's Sunny Bangia says markets expect low initial outcomes from upcoming US-China AI discussions, with progress likely limited to safety and cybersecurity cooperation. (Source: Bloomberg)

TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida Podcast: Jev Model, System1 Architect | TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida 播客访谈:Jev模型、System‑One架构 becomes TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida Podcast: Jev Model, System1 Architect | TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida podcast interview: Jev model, System-One architecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFx9Z3ZXca0 TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida Podcast Interview: Jev Model, System-One Architecture, and the Programmable AI Revolution Description: No real timeline…

  • Diogo Almeida discusses Jev model and System-1 architecture in podcast
  • CEO prioritizes developer community over investors, engages through town halls
  • Almeida criticizes RLHF for causing model inaccuracies and advocates for private benchmarking

The Real Fruit Fly Brain Told Me Where I Was Cheating

The first part of this series used a deliberately tiny fake brain. A 64-neuron recurrent network. That was useful because I could control every assumption, break things on purpose, and ask some weird…

  • 80% of Kenyon cells were active in simulation, unlike real flies
  • Sensory inputs in simulation were not biologically accurate
  • Real connectome provided insights into mushroom body wiring

The Model Got Better. Your Judgment Got Worse.

The Model Got Better. Your Judgment Got Worse. Two posts sat near the top of the front page this week, and they describe the same failure from opposite ends.

  • Language models generate polished, confident output even when inaccurate.
  • Trusting AI output too much can lead to serious consequences in critical tasks.
  • Separating model's draft from final human decision prevents over-reliance on AI.

More from Tuesday 22 September →