Agreed that people are very likely to misunderstand it—however, even the obvious, naive reading still creates a useful approximation of what it is you guys actually do. I would consider that misreading to be a feature, not a flaw, because the layman’s reading produces a useful layman’s understanding.
The approximation might end up being ‘making androids to be friends with people’, or some kind of therapy-related research. Seriously. Given that even many people involved with AGI research do not seem to understand that Friendliness is a problem, I don’t think that the first impression generated by that word will be favorable.
It would be convenient to find some laymen to test on, since our simulations of a layman’s understanding may be in error.
I have no ability to do any actual random selection, but you raise a good point—some focus group testing on laymen would be a good precaution to take before settling on a name.
Agreed that people are very likely to misunderstand it—however, even the obvious, naive reading still creates a useful approximation of what it is you guys actually do. I would consider that misreading to be a feature, not a flaw, because the layman’s reading produces a useful layman’s understanding.
The approximation might end up being ‘making androids to be friends with people’, or some kind of therapy-related research. Seriously. Given that even many people involved with AGI research do not seem to understand that Friendliness is a problem, I don’t think that the first impression generated by that word will be favorable.
It would be convenient to find some laymen to test on, since our simulations of a layman’s understanding may be in error.
I have no ability to do any actual random selection, but you raise a good point—some focus group testing on laymen would be a good precaution to take before settling on a name.