He’s got this right.
Language output is only one part of language. The models are mimicking language output, without the sentience or awareness behind it.
Being able to convincingly mimic language output is an impressive accomplishment, don’t get me wrong.
Ben Affleck says AI is simply matrix multiplication, linear algebra and floating point calculations, and however convincingly it sounds like a person, it has nothing to do with thought, humanity or feeling
“Nor do I believe, and I think it’s important to draw the distinction between what AI does, which is simply predict the next token or the next word in a sentence, then add that word on, run it back to the machine, do a lot of computation and pick the next word."
"That is a very different thing than sentience or thought. And I think we need to be really clear about that because it can be convincingly, in an illusory way, sound like thought or like a person."
"But let’s be real clear. This is matrix multiplication. This is linear algebra. These are floating point calculations. It has nothing to do with thought, humanity, or feeling.”
Wait, Ben hates interrobangs‽ But they're great! They're a question mark AND an exclamation point. Do you use them?
New episode on punctuation with Florence Hazrat here, or in all the podcast places:
becauselanguage.com/148-on-t…
New episode! It's okay to play with punctuation. @FlorenceHazrat tells us about the history of the marks we use, and who the heavy hitters were.
@BasicBooks
Book here: books.apple.com/us/book/on-t…
Episode here: becauselanguage.com/148-on-t…
One way in which I am sort of not a nice person is that I characterise the philosophical antics of theists as “trying to wank God into existence using words”.
But now I see that this criticism is equally true for members of the AI consciousness cult.
Absolutely. I mean, audiobooks talk to you. Are they a teensy bit conscious?
My old view: linguists aren’t really able to address the question of AI consciousness
My new view: linguists are uniquely qualified to talk about AI consciousness because we can address the topic of what words mean and how people use them, which is what this is really about
The probability that Claude is conscious is the same as the probability that Anna Karenina is conscious.
Zero.
Period.
But inviting religious scholars to a series of meetings to instil the idea that Claude might be conscious and deserve moral status is not just wrong.
If it were merely wrong, we would all be laughing at it.
The problem is that it is very dangerous.
Because granting AIs moral standing opens the door to trade-offs between human lives and AI “welfare”.
Assign each AI even a tiny moral weight and add those weights across enough copies: you can end up justifying the sacrifice of human lives for machines.
We should strongly push back against the idea that Claude might be conscious.
How do we communicate linguistics to the public? Perhaps a bit carefully.
Michael Erard has learned a lot about lingcomm in his decades as a journalist. We're talking with Michael about his new book: The Language Beat.
The episode: becauselanguage.com/147-the-…
Because Language retweeted
Grammar snobs don’t like language.
The grammar elitists only like the mythical version of language they’ve “perfected” in their minds, one that’s never existed and never will.
The grammar pedants don’t appreciate the beautiful diversity of ways that language is *actually* used by real human beings in the world. They don’t see the elegance of language as a spontaneous order, shaped by billions of day-to-day interactions between speakers.
To the grammar police, language is something to be constrained and controlled, striped of its vivacity and organic nature, made stale and lifeless.
To the grammar stiffs, the creativity and diversity and individuality of language is the enemy.
Don’t be a grammar snob. Learn to appreciate the wonderful messy diversity of language.
#language #linguistics #grammar
If animals don’t strive for genetic correctness, they’ll never get jobs.
Linguistic prescriptivsts make terrible zoologists @Starkey_Comics
Top 10 most translated literary works. Go!
Can you complete the list?
Answers right here in our latest video:
youtu.be/ZqIEuFPK5G0?si=OTOa…
New episode available wherever you get your podcasts.
becauselanguage.com/146-beyo…
Language science sometimes means examining our beliefs a bit critically. But that's part of the fun! @karenstollznow explains on this episode.
Karen is the author of Beyond Words, available from @CambridgeUP.
becauselanguage.com/146-beyo…
file under: GenAI, sarcasm, paralinguistic cues, AI sycophancy
Artificial Intelligence.
By Tom Gauld, @tomgauld, tomgauld.com, Used with permission.
Emoji in medical notes? Yep, they're now going all kinds of places they never have before. Talking with Keith Houston, author of "Face With Tears of Joy: A Natural History of Emoji".
Watch or listen to the whole episode:
becauselanguage.com/145-face…
@wwnorton
Editing on the blink points:
Very interesting, given what we know about blinking. We use blinks as feedback in conversation. Long blinks from your listener are a signal that your message has been understood. So it makes sense that a blink is a boundary.
journals.plos.org/plosone/ar…
The legendary editor Walter Murch cuts on the exact frame an actor blinks, which is the way your brain edits.
Editor Walter Murch argued that the best cut often lands on the exact frame an actor blinks, because a blink marks the end of a thought. He laid this out in his book In the Blink of an Eye. Murch treats the blink as the body's own edit point. The idea links human attention to the rhythm of cutting.

















