I don’t understand that argument. We invented a term to describe a certain technology. But you’re arguing that this term should not be used to describe such technology, as it should be reserved for another mythical tech that may or may not exist some time in the future. What exactly is your point here?
I think its more the case that its too general, ie ‘all humans that died have drank water’ type of vibe, except in this case people start thinking their AI is gonna mold with alien technology and have sex with a super hero a-la Jarvis
I don’t mean to throw shade but that explanation makes me understand even less. Yes, it is a generic term used to describe a whole array of technologies - is that a bad thing now ? I understand that some people might misunderstand if they don’t know much about the subject but isn’t that true of all technical terms ?
Do you have information that any AI company is currently money ? AFAIK all foundational models are still bleeding money and are subsidized by VC money. There is even the distinct possibility that these companies may never be profitable at the current pricing.
You’re right in the semantics there, as a whole I can’t say many AI companies are net positive, but that’s exactly why they have the money to spend on marketing - its really all they got
Perhaps, but it’s not a technical term. And it’s not the correct term from a technical perspective either.
AI is a pop culture term that has been in use long before practical machine learning or large language models. It already has a known definition which resembles artificial general intelligence or AGI. It is being applied to ML and LLMs for marketing purposes.
That’s even richer. So the term AI should be reserved for the future tech that may or may not come to exist, even though that mythical technology already has a perfectly suitable name (AGI) ? That sounds… useful ! But also very interesting, and intellectually stimulating ! After all, who doesn’t love those little semantics games ?
AI is a technical term that has been used by researchers and product developers for 50 years, with a fairly consistent definition. I know it hurts because it contradicts your pedestrian opinion on how Big Words should be used, but that’s just the way it is. We’re not at a point yet where humanity recognizes your legitimacy to decide how words are used.
It’s the term that researchers use, so does that not make it a technical term? It’s also the only term we have for describing this line of work and its outputs, so until we have a replacement, it’ll continue to be called AI.
I don’t understand that argument. We invented a term to describe a certain technology. But you’re arguing that this term should not be used to describe such technology, as it should be reserved for another mythical tech that may or may not exist some time in the future. What exactly is your point here?
I think its more the case that its too general, ie ‘all humans that died have drank water’ type of vibe, except in this case people start thinking their AI is gonna mold with alien technology and have sex with a super hero a-la Jarvis
I don’t mean to throw shade but that explanation makes me understand even less. Yes, it is a generic term used to describe a whole array of technologies - is that a bad thing now ? I understand that some people might misunderstand if they don’t know much about the subject but isn’t that true of all technical terms ?
It’s to me intentional misdirection via generality I suppose.
Which I’d attribute to malice considering the amount of money its currently making
Do you have information that any AI company is currently money ? AFAIK all foundational models are still bleeding money and are subsidized by VC money. There is even the distinct possibility that these companies may never be profitable at the current pricing.
You’re right in the semantics there, as a whole I can’t say many AI companies are net positive, but that’s exactly why they have the money to spend on marketing - its really all they got
Perhaps, but it’s not a technical term. And it’s not the correct term from a technical perspective either.
AI is a pop culture term that has been in use long before practical machine learning or large language models. It already has a known definition which resembles artificial general intelligence or AGI. It is being applied to ML and LLMs for marketing purposes.
That’s even richer. So the term AI should be reserved for the future tech that may or may not come to exist, even though that mythical technology already has a perfectly suitable name (AGI) ? That sounds… useful ! But also very interesting, and intellectually stimulating ! After all, who doesn’t love those little semantics games ?
AI is a technical term that has been used by researchers and product developers for 50 years, with a fairly consistent definition. I know it hurts because it contradicts your pedestrian opinion on how Big Words should be used, but that’s just the way it is. We’re not at a point yet where humanity recognizes your legitimacy to decide how words are used.
It’s the term that researchers use, so does that not make it a technical term? It’s also the only term we have for describing this line of work and its outputs, so until we have a replacement, it’ll continue to be called AI.