Call them Bullshit Generation Machines
We need to take control of the public framing of LLMs and other current "AI" trends, or risk being mired in endless bad takes.
I see a small opportunity in the popular terminology1 that we use to talk about ChatGPT, DALL-E, Midjourney, and other “deep learning” technologies that seem to make up the bulk of this generation of machine learning tools. Namely, the existing popular terms don’t feel like a great fit:
“AI” feels far too broad a term, and implies progress towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which I consider disputable,
“Machine Learning”, to me at least, is already humorously characterised as being linear regression with better marketing.
The “Large Language Model” (or LLM) term is useful when we are talking about text-based technologies, but although LLMs are being used in image generation tech, that doesn’t feel like a broad enough brush for popular understanding.
“Deep learning” is fine as a term of art, but is deceptive when talking about this technologies capabilities and limits.
I like “stochastic parrot”, and it has legs and pedigree, but it feels a little too clever and language-focused for this purpose.
I think its critics need a short, catchy term that we can use to get across the fundamental limits of what this technology can do. These tools are unable to produce art or meaning. That’s not what they do. It’s more accurate to call them lossy compression algorithms or ELIZA bots than it is to impute intelligence and creativity, or even the possibility of such to them.
I propose that we start calling them Bullshit Generation Machines, or BGMs. This has a number of benefits:
It firmly frames them in non-technical but well understood terms
It is already starting to be used to refer to this tech: in Wikipedia talk sections, in arguments on Reddit, on Twitter and Mastodon
For a TLA, it only has a few existing expansions, and most obscure, or obviously unrelated.
It is a little bit rude, so it’s more likely to stick in the mind
It is short and punchy2
Most importantly, it makes it impossible to talk about a Bullshit Generation Machine and still wring one’s hands about “general AI” or “super-intelligence” or “the singularity”. One can’t go from bullshit to intelligence.
As the Silicon Valley hype train gathers speed, its critics need to use every rhetorical technique we have available to challenge it, and framing is one of the most powerful. Our opponents are already trying to control the frame.
It’s a pretty modest proposal, and I don’t claim to have invented the term, per se. But hey, if you read this and agree, could you do me a favour and start using it?
Allow me to finish this rant with a relevant XKCD comic about the challenge of naming things:
NOT, I hasten to add, the technical terminology. There’s usually overlap, but often the popular use of the term is subtly wrong - too specific, not specific enough, whatever.
There is a slight downside, in that I foresee an endless uncertainty whether the middle word is ‘generating’ or ‘generation’, but that feels pretty minor. Both could work. We live with “Wi-Fi” as a term, after all.