Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 626.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Norman Gray <norman.gray@glasgow.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.624: acronyms problematic? (62)
[2] From: Jan Rybicki <jkrybicki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.624: acronyms problematic? (76)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-03-30 10:01:09+00:00
From: Norman Gray <norman.gray@glasgow.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.624: acronyms problematic?
Willard, hello.
On 30 Mar 2022, at 6:59, Humanist wrote:
> Then there are examples of acronyms for subjects, such as 'AI', which
> are more of a problem. In the case of AI, by not spelling out 'artificial
> intelligence', the acronym becomes a lexical item of its own, with no
> 'artificial' or 'intelligence' to stir one to question or think about the
> subject. 'AI' thus becomes an acronymised package which we take in,
> start talking about etc. without ever wondering what's inside. We just
> swallow the pill and start feeling the effects.
'AI' is a very good example of the process you mentioned, a 'phrase that in the
repetition begins to lose meaning'. Under the heading of 'artificial
intelligence', it's a field that's been reported dead at regular intervals in
the last few decades.
I'm no historian of the field, so take this account with some care, but I
believe it started off being as much interested in the 'intelligence' as in the
'artificial', but now a practical gulf has opened between (at least) 'good old
fashioned AI' -- which even has its own acronym, GOFAI -- and the stuff that's
all over the news right now, which is labelled 'AI', but which is probably more
accurately described as 'machine learning' (ML). That's a completely different
approach to the problem, fundamentally about statistics rather than symbols, and
is about trying to control cars without hitting things, or crushing human Go
players. It really has very little in common with GOFAI, except that it was
initially funded through the same lines, and it actually achieves lots of the
things that were real-soon-now for AI for decades (it's also _massively_ less
interesting in its goals).
AlphaGo was significant, because I (dimly) recall that while people could see
how a computer could be unbeatable at chess without 'understanding' the game, Go
was held up in contrast as something that, when a computer finally managed to
play it adequately, would surely give us insights about the nature of
intelligence. I remember that some of the commentary about AlphaGo's wins at
the game was the astonishment that (I paraphrase) some of its moves were
inhuman. That is, 'AI', to the extent that the symbol covers AlphaGo, is now
unlimbered from its initial motivation -- it possibly isn't about 'artificial
intelligence' any more, and indeed might possibly have been held back if the
focus had remained where it started.
> It is for this reason that 'DH' as well bothers me. I find myself wondering,
> what about the 'digital', what about the 'humanities', what about their
> collision? Once upon a time, I favoured 'humanities computing' because
> the apparent oxymoron seemed a good place to start thinking about the
> subject.
Analogously, I wonder if the _virtue_ of 'DH' is that it detaches thought from
both 'digital' and 'humanities'. People have been agonising about 'what is
humanities computing/digital humanities?' for an awful long time. But perhaps
most folk know it when they see it, and know that its products tend to be one
way or another of interest to humanists, for some hard to pin down reason. And
perhaps that vagueness is not unproductive.
Best wishes,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-03-30 06:28:07+00:00
From: Jan Rybicki <jkrybicki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.624: acronyms problematic?
Dear Willard,
Acronyms can be problematic for very mundane reasons too. In my suicidal (lances
against tanks) attempts to finally persuade Poland's oldest University that it
does need a Digital Humanities centre (approval pending, ora pro nobis), I had
to opt for calling it a Platform instead as the most obvious acronym in Polish
using the word Centrum invariably created the Polish counterpart of the word
that Ukrainians have been using to describe Putin at least since 2014 (while the
West sat on its hands). Now I have high hopes that the Platform, if it is
approved for funding, will survive that miserable monarch.
On the other hand, if we ever do come up with something better than DH, the
Centre name could be back on track.
I am sure all other responses will way more serious and way less topical.
Best
Jan Rybicki
Wysłane ze smartfona w T-Mobile, sieci największych możliwości.
Pobierz aplikację Outlook dla systemu Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 7:59:29 AM
To: jkrybicki@gmail.com <jkrybicki@gmail.com>
Subject: [Humanist] 35.624: acronyms problematic?
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 624.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org<http://www.dhhumanist.org>
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2022-03-29 05:34:32+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: acronyms
Acronyms are handy, economical, useful for avoding repetition of some
phrase that in the repetition begins to lose meaning anyhow. But they
can also exclude outsiders and in their common usage slip from
abbreviation to a lexical item that hides its origins.
There are many perfectly innocent examples legible to insiders
but puzzle those not in the know. This can be a problem if, for example,
there would be value (as often the case) in attracting outsiders. I
come across many announcements of potential interest if not great value
to members of Humanist that require me to do a fair bit of looking to figure
out what the acronyms mean. I cannot help but think that these
announcements are (in all likelihood unintentionally) carrying the
subliminal message, "Go away, you are not wanted here".
Then there are examples of acronyms for subjects, such as 'AI', which
are more of a problem. In the case of AI, by not spelling out 'artificial
intelligence', the acronym becomes a lexical item of its own, with no
'artificial' or 'intelligence' to stir one to question or think about the
subject. 'AI' thus becomes an acronymised package which we take in,
start talking about etc. without ever wondering what's inside. We just
swallow the pill and start feeling the effects.
It is for this reason that 'DH' as well bothers me. I find myself wondering,
what about the 'digital', what about the 'humanities', what about their
collision? Once upon a time, I favoured 'humanities computing' because
the apparent oxymoron seemed a good place to start thinking about the
subject. Isn't it the case that when you put on a uniform you become
more identified with a group? This has its advantages, of course.
Comments?
Yours,
WM
--
Willard McCarty,
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
www.mccarty.org.uk<http://www.mccarty.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
