Never really understood the gatekeeping around the phrase "AI". At the end of the day the general study itself is difficult to understand for the general public. So shouldn't we actually be happy that it is a mainstream term? That it is educating people on these concepts, that they would otherwise ignore?

If you haven't noticed, the people we're arguing with— including the pope and James Cameron— are people who think this generative pseudo-AI and a Terminator are the same thing. But they're not even remotely similar, or remotely-similarly capable. That's the problem. If you want to call them both "AI", that's technically semantics. But as far as pragmatics goes, generative AI is not intelligent in any capacity; and calling it "AI" is one of the most confusion-causing things we've done in the last few decades, and it can eff off.

We should call them LLMAIs (la-mize, like llamas) to really specify what they are.

And to their point, I think the 'intelligence' in the modern wave of AI is severely lacking. There is no reasoning or learning, just a brute force fuzzy training pass that remains fixed at a specific point in time, and only approximates what an intelligent actor would respond with through referencing massive amounts of "correct response" data. I've heard AGI being bandied about as the thing people really thought when you said AI a few years ago, but I'm kind of hoping the AI term stops being watered down with this nonsense. ML is ML, it's wrong to say that it's a subset of AI when AI has its own separate connotations.

I mean, you make good points.

I'm not the person you asked, but current deep learning models just generate output based on statistic probability from prior inputs. There's no evidence that this is how humans think.

AI should be able to demonstrate some understanding of what it is saying; so far, it fails this test, often spectacularly. AI should be able to demonstrate inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning.

There are some older AI models, attempting to similar neural networks, could extrapolate and come up with novel, often childlike, ideas. That approach is not currently in favor, and was progressing quite slowly, if at all. ML produces spectacular results, but it's not thought, and it only superficially (if often convincingly) resembles such.

It's like having a very junior intern. Not always the smartest but still useful

Hell, I had it write me backup scripts for my switches the other day using a python plugin called Nornir, I had it walk me through the entire process of installing the relevant dependencies in visual studio code (I'm not a programmer, and only know the basics of object oriented scripting with Python) as well as creating the appropriate Path. Then it wrote the damn script for me

And you would have no idea what bugs or unintended behavior it contains. Especially since you're not a programmer. The current models are good for getting results that are hard to create but easy to verify. Any non-trivial code is not in that category. And trivial code is well... trivial to write.

"Limited" is relative to what context you're talking about. God I'm sick of this thread.

Yeah, well, "AGI" is not the end result of this generative crap. You're gonna have to start over with something different one way or another. This simply is not the way.

No? There's a whole lot more to being human than being able to separate one object from another and identify it, recognize that object, and say "my database says that there should only be two of these in this context". Current "AI" can't even do that much-- especially not with art.

Do you know what "sapience" means, by the way?