A papyrus scroll that was burned and carbonized when Mount Vesuvius erupted almost 2,000 years ago has been virtually unrolled and partially deciphered with the help of artificial intelligence.
All AI is actual AI. It doesn’t need to be real intelligence to be artificial, should be obvious. Are you telling me artificial grass shouldn’t be called that because a goat can’t eat it?
Except it is a fairly good artifice of grass. “AI” is not a good artifice of intelligence. GAI would be, but not LLMs or anything else we have today. They aren’t trying to mimic intelligence. They’re trying to mimic the output of intelligence. They don’t think; they reproduce.
Good for what? Looking at? It’s not gonna satisfy a goat.
We only care for the look (“the output”), and we don’t expect more of it, or sell it for more than it is. That’s why it’s not a controversial term for astroturf. It wasn’t controversial for AI either until very recently. In 60 years of AI nobody has split hairs over output of intelligence. It’s justified but weirdly misdirected anger.
Mostly for the thing we care about grass for: looking at and touching. We don’t grow grass to feed goats. We grow grass for the appearance of grass. It serves no practical purpose in most places where grass is grown. Obviously it does have a place in nature, but not where you’re putting artificial grass. The only purpose in those places was touch and appearance. It handles that fine.
AI is a perfectly good term. It’s just an overused one. It was great when it was in academia, and everyone knew what it meant, or in a sci-fi story, and people didn’t think it existed. It’s currently been used as a marketing term. People hear it and think it’s intelligent. It isn’t. The goal of using it for marketing was to create this distortion. They don’t care to inform people of the meaning because the only reason it’s valuable is because of the confusion.
All AI is actual AI. It doesn’t need to be real intelligence to be artificial, should be obvious. Are you telling me artificial grass shouldn’t be called that because a goat can’t eat it?
No, he’s questioning the intelligence part and not if it’s artificial or not.
Do you question the grass part of artificial grass? It’s obviously not grass.
Except it is a fairly good artifice of grass. “AI” is not a good artifice of intelligence. GAI would be, but not LLMs or anything else we have today. They aren’t trying to mimic intelligence. They’re trying to mimic the output of intelligence. They don’t think; they reproduce.
Good for what? Looking at? It’s not gonna satisfy a goat.
We only care for the look (“the output”), and we don’t expect more of it, or sell it for more than it is. That’s why it’s not a controversial term for astroturf. It wasn’t controversial for AI either until very recently. In 60 years of AI nobody has split hairs over output of intelligence. It’s justified but weirdly misdirected anger.
AI is a perfectly cromulent word for the thing.
Mostly for the thing we care about grass for: looking at and touching. We don’t grow grass to feed goats. We grow grass for the appearance of grass. It serves no practical purpose in most places where grass is grown. Obviously it does have a place in nature, but not where you’re putting artificial grass. The only purpose in those places was touch and appearance. It handles that fine.
AI is a perfectly good term. It’s just an overused one. It was great when it was in academia, and everyone knew what it meant, or in a sci-fi story, and people didn’t think it existed. It’s currently been used as a marketing term. People hear it and think it’s intelligent. It isn’t. The goal of using it for marketing was to create this distortion. They don’t care to inform people of the meaning because the only reason it’s valuable is because of the confusion.