its not ai. its not on the cutting edge of the field of researching ai. its not progress. it does not get us closer. it does not tell us anything about ourselves or information science we didn’t learn from satoshi nakamoto or Adolph Hitler years earlier.
It doesn’t have to be cutting edge or even progress to be AI, how did you get that idea? Obviously Anthropic and OpenAI have cutting edge AI, they are considered the global leaders, even if they go bankrupt in a few months.
I think you are confusing AI with AGI or strong AI.
There is not 1 single way to make an AI, and there are HUGE differences in how good they are, but very very definitely we have had AI since the 80’s. Back then it just wasn’t really usable, that began to a very small degree in the 90’s, with for instance expert systems.
we call it ai when its at the frontier of how close we’re getting to ai. cultural convention.
this shit isn’t and never was.
we also call stuff that is parts of what would be an agi theoretically if we ever build one, kinds of narrow reasoning and the like. this shit isn’t and never will be.
No we don’t, no such definition exist, you clearly don’t know what AI even means. You probably also don’t know what intelligence means. But that’s OK many people don’t.
You clearly didn’t bother educating yourself, either with the link I sent, or looking it up for yourself.
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.
Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses human capabilities
There’s a huge difference between the 2, having some abilities associated with human intelligence, and matching or surpassing are 2 very different things.
Also notice that the Strong AI remains hypothetical, while AI does not because we already have an abundance of that.
If we fix the name, it will not change what it does, and it probably won’t fix how people use and feel about it. “Really Good Guessing Machine” is less marketable than “Artificial Intelligence”, and much closer to the truth, but CEOs would be willing to take credit for laying off 20% of their workforce because they have RGGM now.
Maybe “Predictive Token Gamble”, to convey that all it does is predict tokens, and each output, each use case, and the entire industry as a whole is a gamble… “PTG reduced our human capital expenditure by 20%” still goes a long way, though.
I think it would change how people use it. the people ordering it used are mostly very stupid. the current push, insurability of anything that uses it, and flood of endless vc cash, is based on the bullshit fairy tale.
the people ordering it used are mostly very stupid
We met with my mom’s tax preparer a couple of months ago. He wasn’t able to get anybody’s taxes done on time because his super-expensive tax prep software crashed and burned on him. I told him it was possible (if not probable) that the software had become vibe-coded and his problem was AI. He surprised me by going into raptures of joy over how great AI was. He then told me that he had invested tens of thousands of dollars in some dude who was developing a “reactionless space drive”, and that this guy had solved all the problems he was having with it by using ChatGPT. I asked him if the dude had a working prototype and he said no, but it was sure to work now that ChatGPT had fixed it.
I considered explaining to him how LLMs work and what “confidently wrong” meant, but I thought better of it. Now I have to find a new tax preparer for next year.
It’s as much AI as when they made the chess computer that beat Kasparov, it’s just not a very sophisticated AI.
its not ai. its not on the cutting edge of the field of researching ai. its not progress. it does not get us closer. it does not tell us anything about ourselves or information science we didn’t learn from satoshi nakamoto or Adolph Hitler years earlier.
It doesn’t have to be cutting edge or even progress to be AI, how did you get that idea? Obviously Anthropic and OpenAI have cutting edge AI, they are considered the global leaders, even if they go bankrupt in a few months.
I think you are confusing AI with AGI or strong AI.
There is not 1 single way to make an AI, and there are HUGE differences in how good they are, but very very definitely we have had AI since the 80’s. Back then it just wasn’t really usable, that began to a very small degree in the 90’s, with for instance expert systems.
Maybe read this to become better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intelligence
we call it ai when its at the frontier of how close we’re getting to ai. cultural convention.
this shit isn’t and never was.
we also call stuff that is parts of what would be an agi theoretically if we ever build one, kinds of narrow reasoning and the like. this shit isn’t and never will be.
No we don’t, no such definition exist, you clearly don’t know what AI even means. You probably also don’t know what intelligence means. But that’s OK many people don’t.
You clearly didn’t bother educating yourself, either with the link I sent, or looking it up for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
But you probably don’t understand it, and conflate it with strong AI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
There’s a huge difference between the 2, having some abilities associated with human intelligence, and matching or surpassing are 2 very different things.
Also notice that the Strong AI remains hypothetical, while AI does not because we already have an abundance of that.
If we fix the name, it will not change what it does, and it probably won’t fix how people use and feel about it. “Really Good Guessing Machine” is less marketable than “Artificial Intelligence”, and much closer to the truth, but CEOs would be willing to take credit for laying off 20% of their workforce because they have RGGM now.
Maybe “Predictive Token Gamble”, to convey that all it does is predict tokens, and each output, each use case, and the entire industry as a whole is a gamble… “PTG reduced our human capital expenditure by 20%” still goes a long way, though.
I think it would change how people use it. the people ordering it used are mostly very stupid. the current push, insurability of anything that uses it, and flood of endless vc cash, is based on the bullshit fairy tale.
We met with my mom’s tax preparer a couple of months ago. He wasn’t able to get anybody’s taxes done on time because his super-expensive tax prep software crashed and burned on him. I told him it was possible (if not probable) that the software had become vibe-coded and his problem was AI. He surprised me by going into raptures of joy over how great AI was. He then told me that he had invested tens of thousands of dollars in some dude who was developing a “reactionless space drive”, and that this guy had solved all the problems he was having with it by using ChatGPT. I asked him if the dude had a working prototype and he said no, but it was sure to work now that ChatGPT had fixed it.
I considered explaining to him how LLMs work and what “confidently wrong” meant, but I thought better of it. Now I have to find a new tax preparer for next year.
How is what people do any better or different than the Really Good Guessing Machine?
What is AI to you then? Is the only thing that’s AI a fully working consciousness but running on silicon instead of synapses?
already replied to another that covers this