Technobabble: We need a whole new vocabulary to keep up with the evolution of AI
Technology now sprints past our words. As machines get smarter, our language lags. Buzzwords, recycled slogans and podcast quips fill the air but clarify nothing. This isn't just messy, it's dangerous. Investors chase vague terms, policymakers regulate without definitions and the public confuses breakthroughs with sci-fi.
Also Read: An AI gadget mightier than the sword?
We're in a tech revolution with a vocabulary stuck in the dial-up days. We face a generational shift in technology without a stable vocabulary to navigate it.
This language gap is not a side issue. It is a core challenge that requires a new discipline: a fierce scepticism of hype and a deep commitment to the details. The instinct to simplify is a trap. Once, a few minutes was enough to explain breakthrough apps like Google or Uber. Now, innovations in robotics or custom silicon resist such compression. Understanding OpenAI's strategy or Nvidia's product stack requires time, not sound-bites.
We must treat superficial simplicity as a warning sign. Hot areas like AI 'agents' or 'reasoning layers' lack shared standards or benchmarks. Everyone wants to sell a 'reasoning model,' but no one agrees on what that means or how to measure it. Most corporate announcements are too polished to interrogate and their press releases are not proof of defensible innovation. Extraordinary claims need demos, user numbers and real-world metrics. When the answers are fuzzy, the claim is unproven. In today's landscape, scepticism is not cynicism. It is discipline.
This means we must get comfortable with complexity. Rather than glossing over acronyms, we must dig in. Modern tech is layered with convenient abstractions that make understanding easier, but often too easy. A robo-taxi marketed as 'full self-driving' or a model labelled 'serverless' demands that we look beneath the surface.
Also Read: Productivity puzzle: Solow's paradox has come to haunt AI adoption
We don't need to reinvent every wheel, but a good slogan should never be an excuse for missing what is critical. The only way to understand some tools is to use them. A new AI research assistant, for instance, only feels distinct after you use it, not when you read a review of what it can or cannot accomplish.
In this environment, looking to the past or gazing towards the distant future is a fool's errand. History proves everything and nothing. You can cherry-pick the dot-com bust or the advent of electricity to support any view. It's better to study what just happened than to force-fit it into a chart of inevitability.
The experience of the past two years has shattered most comfortable assumptions about AI, compute and software design. The infographics about AI diffusion or compute intensity that go viral on the internet often come from people who study history more than they study the present. It's easier to quote a business guru than to parse a new AI framework, but we must do the hard thing: analyse present developments with an open mind even when the vocabulary doesn't yet exist.
Also Read: Colleagues or overlords? The debate over AI bots has been raging but needn't
The new 'Nostradami' of artificial intelligence: This brings us to the new cottage industry of AI soothsaying. Over the past two years, a fresh crop of 'laws' has strutted across conference stages and op-eds, each presented as the long-awaited Rosetta Stone of AI. We're told to obey Scaling Law (just add more data), respect Chinchilla Law (actually, add exactly 20 times more tokens) and reflect on the reanimated Solow Paradox (productivity still yawns, therefore chatbots are overrated).
When forecasts miss the mark, pundits invoke Goodhart's Law (metrics have stopped mattering) or Amara's Law (overhype now, under-hype later). The Bitter Lesson tells us to buy GPUs (graphic processing units), not PhDs. Cunningham's Law says wrong answers attract better ones.
Our favourite was when the Victorian-era Jevons' Paradox was invoked to argue that a recent breakthrough wouldn't collapse GPU demand. We're not immune to this temptation and have our own Super-Moore Law; it has yet to go viral.
Also Read: AI as infrastructure: India must develop the right tech
These laws and catchphrases obscure more than they reveal. The 'AI' of today bears little resemblance to what the phrase meant in the 1950s or even late 2022.
The term 'transformer," the architecture that kicked off the modern AI boom, is a prime example. Its original 2017 equation exists now only in outline. The working internals of today's models—with flash attention, rotary embeddings and mixture-of-experts gating—have reshaped the original methods so thoroughly that the resulting equations resemble the original less than general relativity resembles Newton's laws.
This linguistic mismatch will only worsen as robotics grafts cognition onto actuators and genomics borrows AI architecture for DNA editing. Our vocabulary, built for a slower era, struggles to keep up.
Also Read: Rahul Matthan: AI models aren't copycats but learners just like us
Beneath the noise, a paradox remains: staying genuinely current is both exceedingly difficult and easier than ever. It's difficult because terminology changes weekly and breakthroughs appear on preprint servers, not in peer-reviewed journals.
However, it's easier because we now have AI tools that can process vast amounts of information, summarize dense research and identify core insights with remarkable precision. Used well, these technologies can become the most effective way to understand technology itself. And that's how sensible investment in innovation begins: with a genuine grasp of what's being invested in.
The author is a Singapore-based innovation investor for GenInnov Pte Ltd
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
The great dealmaker is conspicuously short of trade deals
The world's trading system is now a reality-TV show. 'We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World," President Donald Trump proclaimed in letters dispatched to many of America's partners on July 7th. Then he threatened them with tariffs set to take effect on August 1st: 25% for Japan and South Korea, 32% for Indonesia and 36% Thailand. How serious is this deadline? Mr Trump first announced 'reciprocal" tariffs on April 2nd, only to withdraw them a week later, and grant countries another 90 days to reach deals. As the new deadline of July 9th loomed, it became clear that the administration's boast of '90 deals in 90 days" would fall flat. Negotiators have lined up only two 'frameworks", with Britain and Vietnam. Rather than admit failure, Mr Trump has doubled down, issuing a new deadline and posting threats to the world. Trade deals, it turns out, take time. Japan jumped to the front of the queue in April after Ishiba Shigeru, its prime minister, had a friendly phone call with Mr Trump. Its chief trade negotiator even donned a MAGA hat for the cameras during a visit to Washington. But after seven rounds of talks in three months, America is learning just how slow trade negotiations can be. Deals typically take 18 months to strike because they are complex and politically fraught. Although Mr Trump wants talks with Japan to settle all of America's grievances, from the trade deficit and defence spending to non-tariff barriers such as regulations on cars, Japan has its own constraints. Its government has ruled out concessions that would anger farmers ahead of an election to the upper house of parliament on July 20th or put its car industry at risk. Meanwhile, American tariffs on Japanese autos are already in place under a separate measure, meaning they were never tied to the July 9th deadline. Trade negotiations also require clarity on aims, which is in short supply in Mr Trump's talks with South Korea. In March he claimed that the Asian country maintained tariffs four times higher than America's, baffling officials. South Korea has a free-trade agreement, renegotiated during Mr Trump's first term, under which its tariff on American manufactured goods is near zero. Last week, Lee Jae-myung, South Korea's president, admitted that 'the two sides are not really clear what they want." And the agenda has since sprawled. America has raised issues including digital taxes on its tech firms, cost-sharing for its troops, network fees for platforms such as Netflix, South Korean investment in shipbuilding and an Alaskan pipeline, and restrictions on the export of location-based data by Google and others. With Mr Trump's tariff deadline now, in many cases, extended by three weeks, America's trading partners face a difficult calculation. They suspect he may delay again if they fail to reach an agreement, but cannot rely on him doing so. Such an imbalance—with export-reliant partners suffering more than America in the event of a deterioration in relations—gives Mr Trump leverage. Most will try to defuse the threat by conceding where they can, promising to buy more American gas and farm goods or to tweak regulations. Where concessions are especially unpalatable, they will stall and hope that domestic politics shifts or that small offers buy time. The goal is to yield just enough to avoid the full weight of tariffs, while avoiding outright capitulation. Over a dozen tariff letters have gone out; more are expected in coming days. For now, one name is missing: the European Union. With Canada, China and Mexico enjoying separate negotiations, and Britain and Vietnam signed up, the EU is the biggest partner still in play. It is racing to secure a preliminary deal to lock in a tariff rate of 10%. The bloc wants exemptions for aeroplane parts, wine and better terms for its carmakers, including a deal that would allow those with plants in America to ship more vehicles from Europe at lower rates. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission's president, has also hinted at granting leeway for American tech firms on digital rules and closer co-operation on China, even as the bloc has prepared an arsenal of counter-measures that it could turn to if negotiations head south. Officials are working on a slim 'agreement in principle". If it is signed in the coming days, others may look on in envy—and wonder if the EU's threat of retaliation helped seal the deal.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Epic Games settles lawsuit against Samsung over app controls
Synopsis Epic Games has settled its antitrust claims against Samsung, alleging it conspired with Google to limit competition to Google Play. The case focused on Samsung's Auto Blocker feature. Terms of the settlement remain undisclosed. Epic Games' claims against Google continue, while Google appeals a separate court ruling favouring Epic.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
AI's power drive is fuelling a green boom
Synopsis Hyperscale data centres are consuming increasing amounts of electricity and water. In 2024, Google's power use surged 27% to 32 TWh. With consistent 25% annual power growth, Google, Microsoft, and Meta face rising Scope 3 emissions. However, this surge is also accelerating their investments in clean and sustainable energy solutions.
