The Impact of Naming on AI

During the 1940s, breakthroughs in neuroscience and computer science sparked a new wave of inquiry, spawning various disciplines. These included cybernetics, focused on self-regulating systems through feedback, artificial neural networks inspired by neurophysiology, and the study of how intelligent agents interact with their environments.

Back then, these fields were not yet clearly defined. It wasn't until 1956 that John McCarthy and his colleagues diverged from cybernetics to establish a distinct area of research, coining the term "artificial intelligence." Although other names were considered, AI proved to be a magnet for attention and funding, overshadowing cybernetics and leaving artificial neural networks in relative obscurity for decades.

AI's original objective of achieving AGI transformed into a pursuit of understanding intelligence itself. Headlines featuring the term "artificial intelligence" remain commonplace, yet the field has yet to deliver on its foundational promise.

In a piece for The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott criticized the term, noting that it leads people to draw parallels between these systems and their own cognitive abilities. He points out that laypersons often project their own expectations onto AI technologies. Similarly, MIT economist Daron Acemoglu believes that the term is somewhat misleading, as popular culture often associates it with fictional narratives like Terminator or The Matrix, skewing public perception.

However, not everyone agrees on the significance of the name. Viral Shah, CEO of Julia Computing, suggests that we should not get "hung up on semantics." But is it simply a semantic issue? Would AI have garnered the same level of interest had it been labeled, as Herbert Simon proposed, "complex information processing"?

The Role of Language in Shaping Reality

Why did McCarthy settle on "artificial intelligence"? In his book Defending AI Research, he provides an unexpected rationale:

> “One of the reasons for inventing the term ‘artificial intelligence’ was to escape association with ‘cybernetics.’ Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him.”

Initially, AI was developed within the broader context of cybernetics alongside early neural networks. McCarthy's choice of name aimed to distance his work from Wiener, a prominent figure in cybernetics, rather than accurately reflecting their research goals. This strategic naming successfully attracted funding and attention, shaping the trajectory of the field.

Language profoundly affects our perception and behavior. Historical studies show that the absence of a word in a language can limit cognitive abilities regarding that concept. For instance, ancient Greeks lacked a term for the color blue, influencing their perception of the world.

Similarly, the recent renaming of the "Indian variant" of COVID-19 to "delta variant" aimed to mitigate stigma associated with its country of origin, illustrating the power of language in shaping public behavior and attitudes.

Imagining a World with "Complex Information Processing"

In 1956, Herbert Simon suggested an alternative term for the discipline: "complex information processing." Though less glamorous, this name might more accurately represent the work being done within the field. If AI had been branded as complex information processing (CIP), several things could have played out differently.

Firstly, the lack of direct association with human intelligence might have shaped public expectations. CIP does not evoke promises of solving human intelligence and does not inherently imply a future filled with groundbreaking advancements. Unlike AI, which constantly reminds us of our biological roots, CIP sounds more mundane and administrative.

The term "artificial intelligence" has an alluring quality that has historically attracted funding and interest. In contrast, CIP might not have drawn the same level of attention or investment, limiting the scope of research and development in the field.

Furthermore, CIP might have provided a more accurate representation of the actual work being conducted. The field does not revolve around creating sentient beings or super-intelligent machines; it is fundamentally about processing complex information. A more straightforward name could have kept expectations in check, perhaps even preventing the cyclical funding crises known as "AI winters."

Ultimately, finding a balance between a captivating name and an honest representation of the field is crucial. While ambitious promises may secure funding, they can also lead to disillusionment when those expectations are not met.

Final Reflections

While we cannot definitively ascertain how the landscape of AI would differ if McCarthy had never introduced the term "artificial intelligence," this thought experiment encourages reflection on the implications of naming conventions.

Many are drawn to the field due to its futuristic connotations, yet as AI continues to evolve and become more understood, it risks losing its mysterious allure. The challenge lies in reconciling the desire for advancement with the reality of what can be achieved.

In the end, as Clark aptly noted, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we treat AI as an elusive solution, we may be disappointed when the underlying realities are revealed.

For more insights on artificial intelligence, consider subscribing to my free weekly newsletter, Minds of Tomorrow! Additionally, feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn or Twitter!