Ask Lemmy

When I was doing my applied math PhD, the vast majority of people in my discipline used either "machine learning", "statistical learning", "deep learning", but almost never "AI" (at least not in a paper or a conference). Once I finished my PhD and took on my first quant job at a bank, management insisted that I should use the word AI more in my communications. I make a neural network that simply interpolates between prices? That's AI.

The point is that top management and shareholders don't want the accurate terminology, they want to hear that you're implementing AI and that the company is investing in it, because that's what pumps the company's stock as long as we're in the current AI bubble.

I remember the term AI being in use long before the current wave of LLMs. When I was a child, it was used to describe the code behind the behaviour of NPC in computer games, which I think is still used today. So, me, no, I don't get agitated when I hear it, I don't think it's a marketing buzzword invented by capitalistic a-holes. I do think that using "intelligence" in AI is far too generous, whichever context it's used in, but we needed some word to describe computers pretending to think and someone, a long time ago, came up with "artificial intelligence".

You are misunderstanding what AI means, probably due to its overuse in pop culture. What you are think of is a subcategory of AI. It goes: AI > Machine Learning > Artificial Life

Of course we have “real” AI. We can literally be surprised while talking to these things.

People who claim it’s not general AI consistently, 100% of the time, fail to answer this question: what can a human mind do that these cannot?

In precise terms. You say “a human mind can understand” then I need a precise technical definition of “understand”. Because the people making this claim that “it’s not general AI” are always trying to wave their own flag of technical expertise. So, in technical terms, what can a general AI do, that an LLM cannot?

People keep saying this, but AI has been used for subroutines nowhere near actual artificial intelligence since at LEAST as long as video games have existed

My coworker just gave me this rant the other day about AI.

you are not alone, it annoys me to no avail and I keep correcting & explaining to people who have no clue about how computers and LLMs work.

NFT

No, it's just a buzzword, just saw a joke today that AI means "absent indian".

Not even driverless cars are actually driverless: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/01/driverless-cars-always-have-a-driver/

Humans possess an esoteric ability to create new ideas out of nowhere, never before thought of. Humans are also capable of inspiration, which may appear similar to the way that AI's remix old inputs into "new" outputs, but the rules of creativity aren't bound by any set parameters the way a LLM is. I'm going to risk making a comment that ages like milk and just spitball: true artificial intelligence that matches a human is impossible.

We do have A.I. The Turing test is there for a reason. We just don't have what movies told us A.I. would be like. Corporations don't need an A.I. that can think for itself to replace you. In fact, that's one of the reasons to replace you.

Title: Unpopular Opinion: The Term "AI" is Just a Marketing Buzzword!

Hey fellow Redditors, let's talk about the elephant in the room: AI. 🤖💬

I can't be the only one feeling a bit agitated by how the term "Artificial Intelligence" gets thrown around, right? Real AI seems like a distant dream, and what we have right now are these Large Language Models (LLMs). They're good at passing Turing tests, but let's be real – they're not thinking on their own.

Am I the only one who thinks "AI" is just a fancy label created by those rich, capitalistic individuals already knee-deep in LLM stocks? It feels like a slick way to boost investments and make us believe these machines are more intelligent than they really are. Thoughts? 🔍🧠💭