Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

We Can't Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabulary

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.07586 v1 pith:7KMW46NT submitted 2025-02-11 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords conceptsmachinesneologismsexistinghumanunderstandvocabularycannot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This position paper argues that, in order to understand AI, we cannot rely on our existing vocabulary of human words. Instead, we should strive to develop neologisms: new words that represent precise human concepts that we want to teach machines, or machine concepts that we need to learn. We start from the premise that humans and machines have differing concepts. This means interpretability can be framed as a communication problem: humans must be able to reference and control machine concepts, and communicate human concepts to machines. Creating a shared human-machine language through developing neologisms, we believe, could solve this communication problem. Successful neologisms achieve a useful amount of abstraction: not too detailed, so they're reusable in many contexts, and not too high-level, so they convey precise information. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate how a "length neologism" enables controlling LLM response length, while a "diversity neologism" allows sampling more variable responses. Taken together, we argue that we cannot understand AI using our existing vocabulary, and expanding it through neologisms creates opportunities for both controlling and understanding machines better.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Model benchmark performance only weakly predicts how well people learn from AI explanations, with notable outliers across code and math.

  2. Because we have LLMs, we Can and Should Pursue Agentic Interpretability

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Agentic interpretability, using LLMs as proactive conversational teachers that model the user, is offered as a needed complement to black-box interpretability.

  3. Prompting as Scientific Inquiry

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Position paper arguing that prompting LLMs is a form of behavioral science and should be recognized as a core scientific method alongside mechanistic interpretability.

Pith tools