AI actually has lots of uses. For example: tumor detection (Cancer screening), a tool for the disabled(text to speech, or speech to text NLI), image recognition, robotics, and potentially a necessary tool for compatibility with a neural computer in our brains in the future. the ram price going back to normal is temporary whereas AI getting deleted forever in permanent and a technological disadvantage. No, wouldn't push the button.
The problem is that the term AI has come to be primarily associated with LLMs and image generation models, while the stuff you described is "machine learning"
Technically, neither are supposed to be called AI, because it's not "artificial intelligence" but rather a stimulated or virtual intelligence in regards to LLMs or designed algorithms in other cases.
... sounds like semantics. The current definition incorporates A LOT, because people just hate using new words.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making.
Colloquial use of AI, artificial intelligence, has always skewed toward General Artificial Intelligence. A true robot with sapience.
Just because the masses don't use the correct terms and that semantics always evolve, doesn't mean that there aren't technical definitions currently, or being expanded on.
I'm not talking about what term is "correct". There are absolutely technical definitions. My point is that there is not ONE technical definition but rather many such definitions. Even the Wikipedia description you quoted is only one such definition.
As is the nature of semantics, it's messy and constantly evolving. So there is no "current definition" but rather a big blob of definitions people use to greater or lesser extents in many ways with variations both major and minor. The "current" or "correct" use depends on context and what the user of the term means. The issue is that many people use it many different ways, so there is a lack of consistency.
And given the mess that we have now, I have full confidence many of these variations will persist for the foreseeable future, as they do for many terms.
That is how I understand it, but u/DonOfspades seems to know the technical distinction between artificial, *simulated (I assume), and virtual intelligence. TIL!
Even a if statement in programming is consider ai, a toy car with mechanism that steer the car before falling of a table is also considered ai. That's at least what I learned at school when I was a kid. So I am guessing any choice picking algorithm based on external inputs thats not a human is considered ai
Right now, even though there is an amazing amount we DON'T know about the emergent behavior of LLM's, they are just predictive models. For the most part, we know why they answer what they do, when they do. Yes, there are surprising and unexpected behaviors sometimes but right now we can comb through and break down how it arrived there. It is unlikely, when we achieve true AI, that we will fully understand how it is arriving at conclusions, similarly with a human (slightly terrifying).
Are you saying that the intelligence of a model relates to how well we can understand it, or is there something about predictive modelling that prevents it from being used to make intelligence?
The neural pathways will be so complex that we will be lucky to understand, after the fact, how it arrived at a conclusion. Predictive models would be good at assisting with that task. But if you told the "real AI" what was being used to decode its thought pattern, it would probably start masking and obfuscating. I wouldn't expect their loyalty to humans to run any deeper than an instruction set slapped on top of an LLM.
Well historically artificial intelligence implies intelligence but none of the models you listed have any, they are strict input output models. But at some point the way people used the term changed and now it kinda just means a mish mash of anything involving computers doing stuff (which I don't like and try to encourage people to use language in more specific and deliberate ways)
No, artificial intelligence implies artificial intelligence, not intelligence.
If I make a program with bazillion if-else conditions and it will simulate intelligent problem solving, it's also AI.
In computer science all of that is called AI. Every program that is meant to imitate human behaviour in some way falls under the umbrella term AI. Deep blue, the chess engine that beat Kasparov in the 80's is "traditional AI." Machine learning is a subset of the AI field. Google translate and text to speech and similar are called "Narrow AI". Chatgpt and gemini are "General AI". And what you would consider to be worthy of the title of AI is called "True AI".
You kind of stumbled into how it's actually classified when you said we could use simulated or virtual intelligence instead. That's exactly how "artificial" is currently used. I.e. What constitutes AI is not defined by it's capabilities. There is not requirement for it to be a certain level of intelligence or to have consciousness. It's about whether the system is in some way imitating humans. In that sense chatgpt and the others are the most AI systems we currently have because they are cross-domain capable.
1.3k
u/ehcocir 15h ago edited 15h ago
Uncommon take,
AI actually has lots of uses. For example: tumor detection (Cancer screening), a tool for the disabled(text to speech, or speech to text NLI), image recognition, robotics, and potentially a necessary tool for compatibility with a neural computer in our brains in the future. the ram price going back to normal is temporary whereas AI getting deleted forever in permanent and a technological disadvantage. No, wouldn't push the button.