This is all interesting, however, I'd suggest, some of these will be abused, mostly by overuse. Some of that overuse will be over diagnosis, incorrectly attributing the behavior described to regular human behavior. But the other form of overuse is probably even more prevalent, of attributing the correct diagnosis, but attributing more harm to the occurrence.
Let's take "AI’m a Writer Now" as an example. Is that really bad if it occurs? I'd say, usually not. But in a jealous defense of their current position of status, the "I've always been a writer" will look down at these new writers, diminishing them for the process, without always having a real argument to attribute to the output. The "nouveau riche" of writers? Even when there's some substance there, some ill-judged sense of superiority is there too.
I would caution against this type of approach because it neglects a fundamental understanding of the nature of communication and what is needed to appropriately convey meaning.
It is not wrong to want to define words to make communication of these types of topics easier, but the failure to take a rigorous approach will inevitably lead to people claiming these things are being done by others when they actually objectively aren't.
For labeling something, the definition needs to be based in objective observable measure. If you read old books you'll note the wide range of words used compared to today. Each word has a unique, non-contradictory, often unambiguous meaning in use. It was rarely strictly subjective between two people.
The issue with AI is that there is no objective measure to prove what was said is AI. In philosophy metaphysics there is this concept of metaphysical objectivity, or what some simply call identity. Descartes popularized this with his "I think therefore I am", when he reduced to first principles the very core of his argument that remained true. Without this, any rigorous approach based in rational thought will fail.
It certainly may not seem like that immediately, but over the entire cycle it becomes self-evident, and I prefer to call AI under a more appropriate name, pseudo intelligence. It can't effectively reason, draw up an argument, or convey meaning, or even analyze correctly from differing perspectives.
The fundamental issue you describe here is known in Communications curricula as distorted reflected appraisal. Reflected appraisal is the primary mechanism that children adopt their culture, and its also the primary mechanism that torture, propaganda, and malign influence seek to use to reduce people to robotic responses. It can and has been used in the past, in a number of diabolical ways to break and destroy people's minds. If you've ever wondered how cults manage to inspire the fanatical belief where members are willing to kill themselves the answer becomes evident when you know this material.
What most people do not realize is that the fundamental knowledge needed to break perception as a whole was discovered by Mao around the 1950s building upon what the Nazi's knew. The discoveries were confirmed, and mastered by governments around the world since. The CIA had many black projects that will never see the light of day which included MkUltra and COINTELPRO. While these were shuttered, newer programs were recreated under more benign names for the same purpose (Biden and Clinton in the 90s authorized it). The East German Stasi used this knowledge on their public to control political dissent through Zersetzung. The Chinese following Mao of course had a head-start. The Russians have followed as well.
Today, whether its for nation-state sponsored subversion, or corporate sponsored subversion (for profit), the basics of these things exist to impose psychological stress which induces involuntary hypnotic states and act on people at a pre-cognition level, using these psychological blindspots to leverage outcomes. Without knowledge of these things, and a certain degree of self-associated responses to critically look at certain stimuli, people trend towards fixed action patterns and are easily manipulated without any cognition or perception that it happened.
Cialdini covers all but distorted reflected appraisal in his book on Influence. Robert Lifton and Joost Meerloo cover this dark history and the foundations of torture in their many books.
Current adtech techniques such as associative priming for addiction triggers, have basis in the narco-synthesis/narco-analysis origins of this subject matter. It was found that making people more susceptible was easily done when under the effects of barbituates and drugs that flooded dopamine. Rational thought tends to break down prior to the involuntary hypnosis, and or psychological break which is just a function of time and exposure.
To save you a read, the elements of torture are isolation, cognitive dissonance, coercion with perceived or real loss forcing participation, and lack of agency to remove. The structures are trauma loops that turn the mind back in on itself running in a circle, with periods of leniency or relaxation between to fracture. Clustering is multiple different versions of these type of structures or elements happening concurrently or within a narrow period of time.
Reading this, you might notice a commonality between these elements and certain teaching pedagogy done in schools (K-12). Yes its there, the teaching by rote system uses torture and a reversal of the greeks approach to first principles, following a structure also found under gnosticism, that pedagogy has been used since the late 1970s and the structure was openly called by its name today, "Lying to Children", starting in the 90s. You see a sharp drop-off of academic first-principled approach published material starting in the late 1970s, replacing it with this pedagogy. If you've ever tried to learn electronics I'm sure you've heard the pipe analogy to electricity, this is based in that latter approach. It takes a flawed model that you learn, then forces you to unlearn parts of it while keeping other parts of it, and torture/frustration occurs in the process. Irrational response or PTSD-like symptoms related to math or other induced material is a common outcome.
Hopefully you find this post enlightening. The drive for this originated with Sputnik, and the massive reduction in standards in academia following the push for engineers and math. Bad actors apparently snuck in and propagated these things forward.
It might just be me, but even after reading the article I find it hard to remember which is which. Some also look like typos or are difficult to distinguish when said out loud ("Praste").
Just spitballing, but here are some attempts at simpler ideas for the same terms (it's evident I don't love using the acronym "GPT", either):
- Promptsplain - "We were just trying to pick a time to meet, but then Jamie promptsplained with three paragraphs and a table". (If not, I like "aijacked" more than "chatjacked")
- Promptdumping - "You can tell he didn’t write that - straight up promptdumped from Claude."
- I already like prompt pong as a metaphor.... one alternative could be "promptfencing" for the back and forth, but I'm not sure.
- Ghostbotting / Ghostprompting (Having an AI "ghostwrite"). "Now he’s writing 1,200-word think pieces on storytelling and tweeting like Naval Ravikant. Totally ghostbotting.”
- Promptholism - (addiction to offloading thinking to AI prompts rather than developing original ideas) "He didn’t contribute much on his own - a promptoholic". I've seen this in the wild already. It doesn't imply the emptiness of their engagement, though, so perhaps "botbrain" or something? AIcrutching ("using it as a crutch")?
- Promptstalking or Overscraping- (stalker-level personal details from prompts) "The recruiter congratulated me on finishing the Providence half-marathon in 2017. Promptstalking alert! How did she even know?"
- Promptwash (or we just reuse "autotune" directly in the new context?) - Washing away personality through AI writing enhancement. "He promptwashed all the personality out of the AI vocabulary suggestions"
I worked with an Indian software engineer who recently left my company. English was (obviously) his second language and you could tell this from his writing. No problems there; that’s simply who he was. But his leaving message on Slack was written in perfect English, structured like a PR statement, in overly formal/professional tone. You could tell it came straight from GPT and not from him, which was a shame because it just erased his personality. It was like someone else had entered the room to say goodbye for him.
This is all interesting, however, I'd suggest, some of these will be abused, mostly by overuse. Some of that overuse will be over diagnosis, incorrectly attributing the behavior described to regular human behavior. But the other form of overuse is probably even more prevalent, of attributing the correct diagnosis, but attributing more harm to the occurrence.
Let's take "AI’m a Writer Now" as an example. Is that really bad if it occurs? I'd say, usually not. But in a jealous defense of their current position of status, the "I've always been a writer" will look down at these new writers, diminishing them for the process, without always having a real argument to attribute to the output. The "nouveau riche" of writers? Even when there's some substance there, some ill-judged sense of superiority is there too.
you saved the best for last
Before being able to talk about something, you need the words for it.
I would caution against this type of approach because it neglects a fundamental understanding of the nature of communication and what is needed to appropriately convey meaning.
It is not wrong to want to define words to make communication of these types of topics easier, but the failure to take a rigorous approach will inevitably lead to people claiming these things are being done by others when they actually objectively aren't.
For labeling something, the definition needs to be based in objective observable measure. If you read old books you'll note the wide range of words used compared to today. Each word has a unique, non-contradictory, often unambiguous meaning in use. It was rarely strictly subjective between two people.
The issue with AI is that there is no objective measure to prove what was said is AI. In philosophy metaphysics there is this concept of metaphysical objectivity, or what some simply call identity. Descartes popularized this with his "I think therefore I am", when he reduced to first principles the very core of his argument that remained true. Without this, any rigorous approach based in rational thought will fail.
It certainly may not seem like that immediately, but over the entire cycle it becomes self-evident, and I prefer to call AI under a more appropriate name, pseudo intelligence. It can't effectively reason, draw up an argument, or convey meaning, or even analyze correctly from differing perspectives.
The fundamental issue you describe here is known in Communications curricula as distorted reflected appraisal. Reflected appraisal is the primary mechanism that children adopt their culture, and its also the primary mechanism that torture, propaganda, and malign influence seek to use to reduce people to robotic responses. It can and has been used in the past, in a number of diabolical ways to break and destroy people's minds. If you've ever wondered how cults manage to inspire the fanatical belief where members are willing to kill themselves the answer becomes evident when you know this material.
What most people do not realize is that the fundamental knowledge needed to break perception as a whole was discovered by Mao around the 1950s building upon what the Nazi's knew. The discoveries were confirmed, and mastered by governments around the world since. The CIA had many black projects that will never see the light of day which included MkUltra and COINTELPRO. While these were shuttered, newer programs were recreated under more benign names for the same purpose (Biden and Clinton in the 90s authorized it). The East German Stasi used this knowledge on their public to control political dissent through Zersetzung. The Chinese following Mao of course had a head-start. The Russians have followed as well.
Today, whether its for nation-state sponsored subversion, or corporate sponsored subversion (for profit), the basics of these things exist to impose psychological stress which induces involuntary hypnotic states and act on people at a pre-cognition level, using these psychological blindspots to leverage outcomes. Without knowledge of these things, and a certain degree of self-associated responses to critically look at certain stimuli, people trend towards fixed action patterns and are easily manipulated without any cognition or perception that it happened.
Cialdini covers all but distorted reflected appraisal in his book on Influence. Robert Lifton and Joost Meerloo cover this dark history and the foundations of torture in their many books.
Current adtech techniques such as associative priming for addiction triggers, have basis in the narco-synthesis/narco-analysis origins of this subject matter. It was found that making people more susceptible was easily done when under the effects of barbituates and drugs that flooded dopamine. Rational thought tends to break down prior to the involuntary hypnosis, and or psychological break which is just a function of time and exposure.
To save you a read, the elements of torture are isolation, cognitive dissonance, coercion with perceived or real loss forcing participation, and lack of agency to remove. The structures are trauma loops that turn the mind back in on itself running in a circle, with periods of leniency or relaxation between to fracture. Clustering is multiple different versions of these type of structures or elements happening concurrently or within a narrow period of time.
Reading this, you might notice a commonality between these elements and certain teaching pedagogy done in schools (K-12). Yes its there, the teaching by rote system uses torture and a reversal of the greeks approach to first principles, following a structure also found under gnosticism, that pedagogy has been used since the late 1970s and the structure was openly called by its name today, "Lying to Children", starting in the 90s. You see a sharp drop-off of academic first-principled approach published material starting in the late 1970s, replacing it with this pedagogy. If you've ever tried to learn electronics I'm sure you've heard the pipe analogy to electricity, this is based in that latter approach. It takes a flawed model that you learn, then forces you to unlearn parts of it while keeping other parts of it, and torture/frustration occurs in the process. Irrational response or PTSD-like symptoms related to math or other induced material is a common outcome.
Hopefully you find this post enlightening. The drive for this originated with Sputnik, and the massive reduction in standards in academia following the push for engineers and math. Bad actors apparently snuck in and propagated these things forward.
Very interesting.
It might just be me, but even after reading the article I find it hard to remember which is which. Some also look like typos or are difficult to distinguish when said out loud ("Praste").
Just spitballing, but here are some attempts at simpler ideas for the same terms (it's evident I don't love using the acronym "GPT", either):
- Promptsplain - "We were just trying to pick a time to meet, but then Jamie promptsplained with three paragraphs and a table". (If not, I like "aijacked" more than "chatjacked")
- Promptdumping - "You can tell he didn’t write that - straight up promptdumped from Claude."
- I already like prompt pong as a metaphor.... one alternative could be "promptfencing" for the back and forth, but I'm not sure.
- Ghostbotting / Ghostprompting (Having an AI "ghostwrite"). "Now he’s writing 1,200-word think pieces on storytelling and tweeting like Naval Ravikant. Totally ghostbotting.”
- Promptholism - (addiction to offloading thinking to AI prompts rather than developing original ideas) "He didn’t contribute much on his own - a promptoholic". I've seen this in the wild already. It doesn't imply the emptiness of their engagement, though, so perhaps "botbrain" or something? AIcrutching ("using it as a crutch")?
- Promptstalking or Overscraping- (stalker-level personal details from prompts) "The recruiter congratulated me on finishing the Providence half-marathon in 2017. Promptstalking alert! How did she even know?"
- Promptwash (or we just reuse "autotune" directly in the new context?) - Washing away personality through AI writing enhancement. "He promptwashed all the personality out of the AI vocabulary suggestions"
I worked with an Indian software engineer who recently left my company. English was (obviously) his second language and you could tell this from his writing. No problems there; that’s simply who he was. But his leaving message on Slack was written in perfect English, structured like a PR statement, in overly formal/professional tone. You could tell it came straight from GPT and not from him, which was a shame because it just erased his personality. It was like someone else had entered the room to say goodbye for him.