Erm, no.
As noted above, there’s a poster who often asks super specific questions about the Falklands War.
If you aren’t already familiar with the people and events he is discussing, you aren’t gonna contribute anything to his thread.
And if you’re following along and want to learn, that’s great, but in the interest of not reexplaining the basics in every new thread, maybe use the key words in the thread to Google search the topic.
I get where you’re going with this and you’re right that context is important. If this discussion is taking place on a forum specifically devoted to computer science, then it isn’t unreasonable to assume the audience is going to be familiar with the jargon. But if the conversation is taking place on a message board where a wide variety of subjects are covered, especially one whose motto is about fighting ignorance, then I think spelling about acroynms is the right way to go.
To be honest, I’m not a fan of that poster, not because of the questions specific to the Falklands War but because they do not participate in any other way. I still think it’s a general message board and you’re going to get all sorts reading your thread.
But at least you’ve made it clear from the context that you’re talking about editing a certain type of file. That’s different from posting something like “Help with css” or “What’s wrong with my epub?”
I don’t think the issue in the referenced thread is a very good example for those insisting that acronyms be explained.
Googling AGI along with AI (it’s in the effing title!) provides the answer.
Listening to the first thirty seconds of the video at the OP’s link (quoted in the post requesting a definition!) gives the answer,
Clicking the Wiki link in the 1st reply provides the answer,
Any of these takes less time than selecting a quote from the OP (again, one containing a link to the answer!) and composing the post requesting a definition. A post that also says “I read the OP and didn’t bother reading any of the other posts in the thread” (it’s post #6 in the thread!).
Using this as the shining example of why an acronym must be spelled out because of the onerous task it levies on the ignorant reader is…not persuasive.
I agree with you on this one.
Does anyone have a link to the thread in question?
Seriously?
One of the reasons I’ve stuck around reading the SDMB since I was a teenager is that there were discussions of things I didn’t even know existed at the time. When things came up that I knew nothing about, it prompted me to search out more information; it would never have occurred to me to be annoyed that people were discussing things of which I was ignorant… I mean, that’s the whole fucking point of this board, isn’t it?
I can’t wrap my head around the idea of, say, my first foray into one of the many AMAZING etymology threads that have sprung up over the years and being upset that the people who knew what they were discussing weren’t doing it at “my level”… instead, I had to go figure out what PIE was and how it related to etymology, and just like that, the board succeeded at vanquishing my ignorance, with minimal effort on my part; all I needed was the desire to learn.
I agree that, in general, if you didn’t know the term, you most likely won’t be able to contribute.
However, I think politely asking what a term means is acceptable most of the time. The problem would be then trying to discuss it when you don’t know anything about it.
There is room for asking questions about something you don’t know about, but that should probably be a different thread than the one where people alresdy know and are discussing things beyond that.
Perhaps the OP could include a link to the Wikipedia subject, like when referencing AGI. That doesn’t slow down the discussion at all but gives the newbies a pointer to further reading.
You’re missing my point. If someone doesn’t know anything about the field of artificial intelligence, explaining that “AGI” stands for “artificial general intelligence” is not really explaining anything at all. Meanwhile anybody reading the thread with any knowledge of AI at all has seen the acronym a million times. Just like if we had a thread discussing the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, explaining that “ECS” stands for “equilibrium climate sensitivity” doesn’t explain anything at all to someone totally unfamiliar with climate science.
But as others have said, those curious and interested in the topic can Google the acronyms with a bit of context, like “artificial intelligence AGI” or “climate change ECS” and get comprehensive answers a lot more enlightening than just an acronym spelled out in words.
I work for the Canadian Patent Office. The whole point of patents is to make your work accessible to others.
In Canadian Patent law, you’re legally required to spell out your acronyms on the first usage.
And this is the other problem. Sometimes things mean two things, and context isn’t always useful in distinguishing them.
A few years back, someone posted on another board asking if anyone could explain “derivatives” to them. A few of us started explaining calculus, and them it turned out he was talking about some completely different stock market thing.
Sure,they could if they felt like it. And if they happened not to, anyone who is confused can make their own way to Wikipedia on their own, assuming they are capable of navigating through the web at even the most rudimentary level.
Makes sense. And my point is, that’s just the kind of legalistic tedium that is anathema to casual conversation, and I’ve already explained why in technical contexts it’s not likely to be helpful anyway, because expanding a technical acronym is usually not the same thing as explaining it.
And that’s exactly why you have the legal stipulation you mentioned. That doesn’t apply to casual conversations on a message board.
Thank you. That helps. And, seeing what thread prompted this one, I’d say that that’s a borderline case, and quite possibly an example of the old SDMB phenomenon that some people respond to a thread’s title while others respond to its original post.
I think there are lots of people who have enough familiarity with AI in general that they would at least be interested in the general question of “Is AI overhyped?” There is a smaller but still large set of people who know enough to be able to give an answer to that general question that is at least somewhat valuable.
Both groups are larger than the group of people who recognize “AGI” and know what it is enough to respond to the substance of the OP.
I’m not sure what to make of the fact that it was @Darren_Garrison, the starter of this current thread, who, in the first reply to that other thread provided the Wikipedia link and other info that that thread’s OP should ideally have provided.
FWIW, i’m fairly IT literate and follow the AI threads, but i’d never
heard of AGI.
I happen to be bad at acronyms. Just yesterday I spent more than 5 minutes trying to figure out what an acronym meant in a thread and it turned out to be the initials of the OP’s name. I guess I just don’t process language in a way that makes acronyms obvious to me.
So, I’ve read a lot of articles about artificial intelligence, and have been in many discussions with many people about it. Heck, my son did some of the testing of Google’s, um, I think they are calling it Gemini today? And to the extent he’s allowed to talk about it, I’ve learned a lot. This is a topic I am conversant in. But no, I do not see “AGI” and read it as “artificial general intelligence”, and that translation is helpful to me.
Anyway, I just checked out the thread, and I found that question helpful, not destructive. And actually, I might even have something relevant to add to the thread, having a fair amount of understanding of how current iterations of artificial intelligence work and what their current limitations are and what some of the issues are in getting from here to there.
The question was asked in a slightly snarky way. But I think it was a constructive question, both for people who just want to follow the discussion and for at least some of those who might meaningfully participate.
Oh, and by the way, I was pretty annoyed that someone decided to abbreviate a short user-name with an illegible (to me) acronym instead of just spelling it out. Do you know that if you type @ followed by the first couple of letters of a name, discourse will helpfully let you click on the name? And then you can delete the @ is you don’t want to summon the poster. Super easy. Super clear to others.