arguably outer and inner optimizer were better choices given what is being described
“Inner optimizer” pretty consistently led to readers believing we were talking about the possibility of multiple emergent subsystems acting as optimizers rather than what we actually wanted to talk about, which was thinking of the whole learned algorithm as a single optimizer. Mesa-optimizer, on the hand, hasn’t led to this confusion nearly as much. I also think that, if you’re willing to just accept mesa as the opposite of meta, then mesa really does fit the concept—see this comment for an explanation of why I think so. That being said, I agree that the actual justification for why mesa should be the word that means the opposite of meta is somewhat sketchy, but if you just treat it as an English neologism, then I think it’s mostly fine.
I agree that using English words sometimes leads to confusion, and so using jargon taken from a foreign language is helpful in getting people to not drag in unintended associations (I’ve done this myself!). My pick is that it was done poorly (I think the problem starts from having anchored on “meta”), and that the explanations of the reason for choosing the terminology are confusing even if they are the result of an honest misunderstanding of the meaning of the used words and their relationship.
Thanks for raising this. While I basically agree with evhub on this, I think it is unfortunate that the linguistic justification is messed up as it is. I’ll try to amend the post to show a bit more sensitivity to the Greek not really working like intended.
Though I also think that “the opposite of meta”-optimiser is basically the right concept, I feel quite dissatisfied with the current terminology, with respect to both the “mesa” and the “optimiser” parts. This is despite us having spent a substantial amount of time and effort on trying to get the terminology right! My takeaway is that it’s just hard to pick terms that are both non-confusing and evocative, especially when naming abstract concepts. (And I don’t think we did that badly, all things considered.)
If you have ideas on how to improve the terms, I would like to hear them!
I like “mesa optimizer” and “ekta optimizer” since they are simple translations that mean “inside” and “outside” optimizer, but I guess what do you dislike about “optimizer” that you’d like to be better since you say you’re dissatisfied with that part as well?
“Inner optimizer” pretty consistently led to readers believing we were talking about the possibility of multiple emergent subsystems acting as optimizers rather than what we actually wanted to talk about, which was thinking of the whole learned algorithm as a single optimizer. Mesa-optimizer, on the hand, hasn’t led to this confusion nearly as much. I also think that, if you’re willing to just accept mesa as the opposite of meta, then mesa really does fit the concept—see this comment for an explanation of why I think so. That being said, I agree that the actual justification for why mesa should be the word that means the opposite of meta is somewhat sketchy, but if you just treat it as an English neologism, then I think it’s mostly fine.
I agree that using English words sometimes leads to confusion, and so using jargon taken from a foreign language is helpful in getting people to not drag in unintended associations (I’ve done this myself!). My pick is that it was done poorly (I think the problem starts from having anchored on “meta”), and that the explanations of the reason for choosing the terminology are confusing even if they are the result of an honest misunderstanding of the meaning of the used words and their relationship.
Thanks for raising this. While I basically agree with evhub on this, I think it is unfortunate that the linguistic justification is messed up as it is. I’ll try to amend the post to show a bit more sensitivity to the Greek not really working like intended.
Though I also think that “the opposite of meta”-optimiser is basically the right concept, I feel quite dissatisfied with the current terminology, with respect to both the “mesa” and the “optimiser” parts. This is despite us having spent a substantial amount of time and effort on trying to get the terminology right! My takeaway is that it’s just hard to pick terms that are both non-confusing and evocative, especially when naming abstract concepts. (And I don’t think we did that badly, all things considered.)
If you have ideas on how to improve the terms, I would like to hear them!
I like “mesa optimizer” and “ekta optimizer” since they are simple translations that mean “inside” and “outside” optimizer, but I guess what do you dislike about “optimizer” that you’d like to be better since you say you’re dissatisfied with that part as well?