Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears@fosstodon.org too.
I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen@mastodon.social. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
Posts
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
This is an interesting site about the company acquisitions of the main Big Tech players. Including a useful visualisation of their expansion across the years.
https://gafam.theglassroom.org/
(Found via @louisderrac@framapiaf.org -- in French.)
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
Last night:
3.5-year-old Kiddo is visiting with her responsible adults -- let's call them Kim and Sandy. We are sitting at the dinner table and I am occupying the seat that Sandy was using the previous night. Kiddo points at the seat and says: "Not Sandy".
Perfect opportunity to test semantic abilities of Kiddo, including reference, inference and negation, plus the presence of a consistent belief system. I lie through my teeth:
Me: But I am Sandy!
Kid (laughing loudly): Nooooo!
Me: What do you mean? Sandy is wearing a blue jumper and I have a blue jumper on. That proves I am Sandy.
Kid: No, you're Aurelie.
Me: Why am I not Sandy?
Kid: Sandy long hair.
So Kiddo can name (Aurelie, Sandy). Kiddo can do complex inference: if X has Z and Y has Z, nothing follows, but if X has Z and Y does not have Z, then X cannot be Y (blue jumper vs. long hair). Kiddo can process sentential negation ("Why is X not Y"). Kiddo will refuse to do belief update when that update would send her belief system into an inconsistent state.
In contrast, I suppose this is what would have happened with a language model:
LM: I see that you are occupying Sandy's seat.
Me: Well, I am Sandy.
LM: Oh, I thought you were Aurelie.
Me: No, I am Sandy. Sandy is wearing a blue jumper and I have a blue jumper on.
LM: I am ever so sorry. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. You are of course Sandy.
Me: Why shouldn't I be Sandy?
LM: Sandy is wearing a blue jumper.
👶 vs 🤖 .
👶 wins. Any time.
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
I bumped today into a 2017 article published on the US Naval Institute website entitled "Hyperwar". The term refers to #war waged with #AI, including all the things you would see in a 2026 Anduril video: swarms of drones and intelligent helmets, as well as less photogenic military tools such as LLMs.
It goes without saying that the article is very pro-AI. What is interesting is the initial justification of the use of AI in war. "System 1", a well-known trope in dual-process theories of cognition is mentioned, in connection with Daniel Kahneman's popular science book "Thinking fast and slow".
System 1, a.k.a. "fast thinking", is the kind of automatic, instinctive (and mostly dumb) thinking that characterises a good deal of human cognition. The argument of the hyperwar article is that humans get tired and when tired, 'revert' to System 1 rather than using their more evolved System 2: the system of slow, logical thinking that supports well thought-out decisions. The article claims that, since AI does never get tired, it will not suffer from the same issues.
Now, I have bad news all around. First, System 1 is actually our default mode of cognition -- we are thoughtless most of the time because it is easier and faster for our brains. System 2 requires more energy and slows us down, with the upshot that it delivers more rationality and better thought-out decisions. So we don't 'revert' to System 1. We have to make the effort of moving to System 2, and indeed, it is naturally harder when we are tired, stressed or under time pressure.
Following the hyperwar line of argumentations, this might be a factor in favour of systems that are not liable to such biological constraints. Except that... /1
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
When thinking about #AI, I think it is worth recalling where language models came from. It explains a few things.
The first mention of a language model can be found in a 1983 paper by three IBM employees: Lalit Bahl, Frederick Jelinek and Robert Mercer. The paper sensibly suggests a statistical method to improve automatic speech recognition: whenever the audio system is too bad to distinguish between "*The cat sleep" and the "The cat sleeps", the language model should come to the rescue to say that the grammatical sentence "The cat sleeps" is probabilistically much more likely.
By 1990, with the popularisation of personal computers, IBM is looking for opportunities to sell their mainframes. A research team (incl. Jelinek and Mercer) extends the statistical approach used in speech recognition to machine translation. The paper makes it very clear that the technology relies on sheer computing power -- something that IBM happens to have a lot of and is very keen to sell. It also makes for interesting close-reading: after deploring the so-called 'impotence' of earlier computers, the authors go on introducing mathematical measures such as the evocative 'fertility' to describe how many words the model spawns for each lexical item in the source text. (No women were involved in the making of this paper.)
Statistical language models are properly born, and with them the advent of large text corpora. They prefigure the Large Language Models we are now used to.
Jelinek will become famous for his disdain of linguistics and is often quoted as saying “Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up.” Mercer will go on donating millions of his personal fortune to the Brexit campaign, the 2016 election of Donald Trump and the super PAC in support of J.D. Vance.
So should we really be surprised when scale is confused with intelligence? When Alex Karp says that AI will be bad for women? Or when prominent technology companies display fascistoid tendencies? It seems to me it was all there at the beginning.
References:
Bahl, L. R., Jelinek, F., & Mercer, R. L. (1983). A maximum likelihood approach to continuous speech recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (2), 179-190.
Brown et al (1990). A statistical approach to machine translation. Computational linguistics, 16(2), 79-85.
Computational semanticist. Ex-academia. #meaning. #AI critique. Machine learning on single boards. Developer of PeARS, a decentralised, privacy-friendly Web search engine. If you're degoogling, please consider following @pears too. I am currently on stage at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, supporting the show "Engine room of the future" with @evas_notizen. Together, we mix political philosophy and tech, advocating for technologies that do not harm us or the planet.
In the meantime, you lovely people in #Frankfurt can come to our event with the NODE Forum for Digital Arts (@nodeforum@mstdn.social) this Friday. We're calling to the creative community to come and build a tiny #chatbot from scratch for a new digital art space (the amazing 'display'). No #LLM and no Big Tech involved. The point is to show that if there is anything clever in #AI, it is not the algorithm, it is your data. And we intend to make really great, quirky data for the tiny bot!
So if you want to experience what it is like to use very small language models as a medium for critical and creative work, do join!
PS: the 'display' space is painted in the most wonderful green. Guaranteed to give you Spring feelings 🌷
https://d-i-s-p-l-a-y.de/de/events/how-to-build-a-bot-from-scratch