Am I the only one getting agitated by the word AI (Artificial Intelligence)?

Real AI does not exist yet,
atm we only have LLMs (Large Language Models),
which do not think on their own,
but pass turing tests
(fool humans into thinking that they can think).

Imo AI is just a marketing buzzword,
created by rich capitalistic a-holes,
who already invested in LLM stocks,
and now are looking for a profit.

  • UnityDevice@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    These arguments are so overly tired and so cyclic that AI researchers coined a name for them decades ago - the AI effect. Or succinctly just: “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”

    • 9bananas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      i looked it over and … holy mother of strawman.

      that’s so NOT related to what I’ve been saying at all.

      i never said anything about the advances in AI, or how it’s not really AI because it’s just a computer program, or anything of the sort.

      my entire argument is that the definition you are using for intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is wrong.

      my argument isn’t even related to algorithms, programs, or machines.

      what these tools do is not intelligence: it’s mimicry.

      that’s the correct word for what these systems are capable of. mimicry.

      intelligence has properties that are simply not exhibited by these systems, THAT’S why it’s not AI.

      call it what it is, not what it could become, might become, will become. because that’s what the wiki article you linked bases its arguments on: future development, instead of current achievement, which is an incredibly shitty argument.

      the wiki talks about people using shifting goal posts in order to “dismiss the advances in AI development”, but that’s not what this is. i haven’t changed what intelligence means; you did! you moved the goal posts!

      I’m not denying progress, I’m denying the claim that the goal has been reached!

      that’s an entirely different argument!

      all of the current systems, ML, LLM, DNN, etc., exhibit a massive advancement in computational statistics, and possibly, eventually, in AI.

      calling what we have currently AI is wrong, by definition; it’s like saying a single neuron is a brain, or that a drop of water is an ocean!

      just because two things share some characteristics, some traits, or because one is a subset of the other, doesn’t mean that they are the exact same thing! that’s ridiculous!

      the definition of AI hasn’t changed, people like you have simply dismissed it because its meaning has been eroded by people trying to sell you their products. that’s not ME moving goal posts, it’s you.

      you said a definition of 70 years ago is “old” and therefore irrelevant, but that’s a laughably weak argument for anything, but even weaker in a scientific context.

      is the Pythagorean Theorem suddenly wrong because it’s ~2500 years old?

      ridiculous.