[falcor84]

I thought you were exaggerating, but wow, they really did.

> Among the more troublesome meanings of ‘AI’, perhaps, is as the ideology that it is desirable to replace humans (or, specifically women) by artificial systems (Erscoi et al., 2023) and, generally, ‘AI’ as a way to advance capitalist, kyriarchal, authoritarian and/or white supremacist goals (Birhane & Guest, 2021; Crawford, 2021; Erscoi et al., 2023; Gebru & Torres, 2024; Kalluri, 2020; Spanton & Guest, 2022; Stark & Hutson, 2022; McQuillan, 2022). Contemporary guises of ‘AI’ as idea, system, or field are also sometimes known under the label ‘Machine Learning’ (ML), and a currently dominant view of AI advocates machine learning methods not just as a practical method for generating domain-specific artificial systems, but also as a royal road to AGI (Bubeck et al., 2023; DeepMind, 2023; OpenAI, 2023). Later in the paper, when we refer to AI-as-engineering, we specifically mean the project of trying to create an AGI system through a machine learning approach. [0]

But it did lead me to learn a new word - "Kyriarchy" (apparently being "an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy beyond gender")[1], so I have that going for me today.

[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42113-024-00217-5

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

[somedude895]

> Kyriarchy

I've honestly stopped looking up these modern terms when I come across them because lately any that I've looked up were made up to serve a political or social agenda (always the same one), and reading them always turns out to be a waste of time that has me roll my eyes.

[hmcq6]

I rolled my eyes when I first saw it but I know thats what people want so I looked into it.

> For example, in a context where gender is the primary privileged position (e.g. patriarchy, matriarchy), gender becomes the nodal point through which sexuality, race, and class are experienced. In a context where class is the primary privileged position (i.e. classism), gender and race are experienced through class dynamics.

It actually makes a lot of sense, I just don't know that we need a unique word for this phenomenon.

It's just saying that me as an Irish Catholic doesn't have to fear Anti-Catholic discrimination when surrounded by other Catholics, I'm more likely to face class discrimination or sexism or some other in-group/out-group based hierarchy in that particular situation than I am to face Anti-Catholic discrimination.

Edit: A better example is that you're more likely to face Patriarchal discrimination in say the gym where having XY chromosomes can actually effect the ceiling on your ability and you're more likely to face Anti-LGBT discrimination while you're visiting the Vatican.

Basically, the venue and the composition of participants in an activity or event determine which hierarchical structure will be more likely to present itself.

[castigatio]

I think this is a bit like coming up with words to expand on the concept of poop. Poop is a necessary and useful word. It describes something you get on your shoe. Or something you may have to suddenly rush out to do. However if I became so intensely immersed in the world of poop that I needed to invent new words to describe the subtleties of it - you might not admire my efforts or where I choose to place my attention. We have words like oppression that seem to be understood and to work well. Are we truly doing anything useful by breaking down the idea of oppression into ever more granular descriptions of it? I say - poop works fine.

[BobaFloutist]

So you don't see the value in differentiating between (valuable) manure, (human) wastewater (which can be tested for public health), stool samples, the concept of bullshit, scatting, guano, pet feces, diarrhea, etc? You think those should be all the same word?

What a narrow worldview.

[castigatio]

It was a silly example - though not intended as serious. I agree - the distinctions you describe are useful. So what about the utility of increasingly granular description of oppression? Can you point me to the utility of these?

The people creating new generative AI models are inventing new words. I think their topic of research and the new words they are creating have high utility.

The authors of this paper on the other hand appear to me to not be applying discipline and rigour to solving hard problems. They are however trying to associate the words they have created in a discipline with little objective utility - with the words of a discipline that has high utility.

This strikes me as annoying and absurd. Why try to make the crossover unless you are trying to catch some shine off of a discipline that is getting a lot of well-justified attention?

I'm still waiting for Ilya to publish his first paper on gender studies..

[castigatio]

I now challenge you to use it appropriately in casual conversation tomorrow.