A linguistic bias in the English language that leads us to 'improve' things by adding to them, rather than taking away, is so common that it is even ingrained in AI chatbots, a new study reveals.
Language related to the concept of 'improvement' is more closely aligned with addition, rather than subtraction. This can lead us to make decisions which can overcomplicate things we are trying to make better.
The bias is so ingrained that even AI chatbots have it built in. The researchers asked GPT-3, the predecessor of ChatGPT, what it thought of the word 'add'. It replied, "The word 'add' is a positive word. Adding something to something else usually makes it better. For example, if you add sugar to your coffee, it will probably taste better. If you add a new friend to your life, you will probably be happier."
Dr. Winter concludes, "The positive addition bias in the English language is something we should all be aware of. It can influence our decisions and mean we are pre-disposed to add more layers, more levels, more things when in fact we might actually benefit from removing or simplifying."
watch it with the english, folks
I swear to God if we're going to enter an age of scientists asking chat-gpt about what they're researching I'm going to scream
It's the new "the Oxford English Dictionary defines <thing> as..." essay padding method!
Pendant mode, engage.
The OED is actually an AMAZING tool due to the methodology. The definitions are not the important thing, rather, the citation origins. For instance, we can see from the communist entry how the word enters the language around c.1840, which gives us a marker for when it becomes used enough to be in a print source. Now, does that mean that earlier utopian movements like the Levelers, etc. weren't communist? Of course not, but it allows us to historically and ideologically recognize the difference between our ideological conceptions of something like communism and a pre-1840 proto-communist movement.
Basically, the value of the OED is always going to be in the deep archival and archaeological work that goes into it - knowing when a definition of a word is current - rather than the definition itself.
I'll admit though, this is because I cited the OED in my dissertation in this latter fashion (i.e. "term appears in the middle ages, derived from the Latin, and the need for a vernacular version says such and such things about the material/ideological conditions of the period).
Basically, these kinds of dictionaries are actually really valuable in doing historical materialist work, since we are doing more than merely "defining a word with other words" like the normal dictionary does.
Edit, because a cool thing I just saw on the sidebar:
Of course, communion is 1382, and brings with it understandings of one-ness, etc. through its theological origins. So it's not as if we might not trace communitarian movements back further from 1840 - perhaps one could make arguments about primitive christian communism with this kind of language. Also, ironically, the vernacular archive for "Communion" more or less lines up with the rise of Lollardy (Wycliffite bible is the first citation). Coincidence, perhaps, but one might also find provocative arguments that this borrowing might have also had material/ideological effects...
Yeah, it's actually an incredible work of scholarship. The "meaning" of the word is frankly a joke (there's some Derridian joke/observation that all the dictionary does is refer you to other words endlessly - you never arrive at a "root" of meaning). But the history of words - knowing when they were first used (or at least our first known textual reference) - is actually valuable knowledge that we, as materialists, shouldn't turn our noses up at.
:curious-marx:
the origin of the word "improve" is an old french word that means something like "to make profitable"
so interesting choice of words here
So, Samuel Beckett gradually simplifying his prose as he got older wasn't just a technical choice, it was an act of defiance against the English.
:wholesome: :ira:
I feel like the plot of Metal Gear Solid V is in here somewhere, but I honestly can't remember it well.
The consolidation of language into a singular tongue but at the cost of culture and heritage of people.
the article doesn't go into it: how does this compare with other languages?
Thinking about putting, "And AI agrees with me!" at the end of every post because it's completely meaningless, but everyone's doing it and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
And AI agrees with me!
Trying to figure out the forum signature that will piss off the highest percentage of people
