AI is like a hammer
AI is like a hammer
Any tool can be a hammer if you use it wrong enough.
A good hammer is designed to be a hammer and only used like a hammer.
If you have a fancy new hammer, everything looks like a nail.
You're viewing a single thread.
calling (mm)LLMs AI is just corpo bullshit. But hey, it's fancy, right?
I don't see the "is not actual AI" argument.
Since the 80 AI has just been algorithms and proposals for neural networks.
It never has need to have a "soul" or "be sentient" to be Artificial Intelligence.
Even a simple Tic Tac Toc opponent algorithm has been called AI without much complaining about it.
Also AI didn't got called AI by corporations. That naming for the technology dates from where it was being proposed as concepts in universities.
you not liking it doesn't make it any less ai. I don't remember that many people complaining when we called the code controlling video game characters ai.
Or called our mobile phones "cell phones", despite not being organic. Tsk.
Except cell phones or cellular phones refer to the structure a mobile network is built on: a mesh of cell towers.
pretty sure that they were and still are called Bots though, atleast in the context of first person shooter.
look at the NBT tags for bats for example. it means artificial intelligence.
next thing you gonna say that boids are AI too...
just because Mojang decided to name that flag noAI doesn't mean it uses AI to govern its behavior.
Descriptivism advocates when AI smhingmyheads
That's because in that context it stands for Action Instruction, not Artificial Intelligence.
probably wrong. https://www.digminecraft.com/data_tags/bat.php look at the nbt tags, specifically the description of the no AI nbt tag
I have no idea what you just said.
I showed you proof that AI is sometimes used to mean artificial intelligence when describing code that controls video game enemies.
Ok, so this one specific fan wiki used it wrong. When I was in college they definitely called it "Action Instruction".
In video games, artificial intelligence (AI) is used to generate responsive, adaptive or intelligent behaviors primarily in non-playable characters (NPCs) similar to human-like intelligence. Artificial intelligence has been an integral part of video games since their inception in the 1950s
literally wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_video_games
AI in video games is a distinct subfield and differs from academic AI. It serves to improve the game-player experience rather than machine learning or decision making. During the golden age of arcade video games the idea of AI opponents was largely popularized in the form of graduated difficulty levels, distinct movement patterns, and in-game events dependent on the player's input.
In general, game AI does not, as might be thought and sometimes is depicted to be the case, mean a realization of an artificial person corresponding to an NPC in the manner of the Turing test or an artificial general intelligence.
Look further down to see what currently understood AI, aka generative AI, is used for in video games
I don't really see your argument? it seems that you agree with me. ai doesn't always refer to AGI. sometimes it refers to AGI, sometimes it refers to the code controlling the little ghosts in pacman, or the code controlling the bats in Minecraft. sometimes it refers to the machine learning algorithm that can detect numbers in an image, and sometimes it refers to generative AI like stable diffusion. my point is that ai is a very broad term that refers to many different things.
Read it again, they clearly disagree with you on the very last point.
Yeah but it shouldn't be used for many different things as it would diminish the meaning and would then just boils down to advance if statements.
Software developer, here.
It's not actually AI. A large language model is essentially autocomplete on steroids. Very useful in some contexts, but it doesn't "learn" the way a neural network can. When you're feeding corrections into, say, ChatGPT, you're making small, temporary, cached adjustments to its data model, but you're not actually teaching it anything, because by its nature, it can't learn.
I'm not trying to diss LLMs, by the way. Like I said, they can be very useful in some contexts. I use Copilot to assist with coding, for example. Don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate code? Copilot is excellent for speeding that process up.
LLMs are part of AI, which is a fairly large research domain of math/info, including machine learning among other. God, even linear regression can be classified as AI : that term is reeeally large
I mean, I guess the way people use the term "AI" these days, sure, but we're really beating all specificity out of the term.
This is a domain research domain that contain statistic methods and knowledge modeling among other. That's not new, but the fact that this is marketed like that everywhere is new
AI is really not a specific term. You may refer as global AI, and I suspect that's what you refer to when you say AI?
it's always been this broad, and that's a good thing. if you want to talk about AGI then say AGI.
I know that they're "autocorrect on steroids" and what that means, I don't see how that makes it any less ai. I'm not saying that LLMs have that magic sauce that is needed to be considered truly "intelligent", I'm saying that ai doesn't need any magic sauce to be ai. the code controlling bats in Minecraft is called ai, and no one complained about that.
Very useful in some contexts, but it doesn’t “learn” the way a neural network can. When you’re feeding corrections into, say, ChatGPT, you’re making small, temporary, cached adjustments to its data model, but you’re not actually teaching it anything, because by its nature, it can’t learn.
But that's true of all (most ?) neural networks ? Are you saying Neural Networks are not AI and that they can't learn ?
NNs don't retrain while they are being used, they are trained once then they cannot learn new behaviour or correct existing behaviour. If you want to make them better you need to run them a bunch of times, collect and annotate good/bad runs, then re-train them from scratch (or fine-tune them) with this new data. Just like LLMs because LLMs are neural networks.
They are neural networks which are some of the oldest AI tech we have.
You can hate them, but they are by definition AI.
uhm no, AI is relaying on neural networks (which are just weighted gates) but Neural Networks are not by definition AI.
I'm sorry but they absolutely are.
sorry, but I disagree.
Complaining that it's called AI is like complaining that smartphones are called smart. There's no stopping it, you just end up sounding like an old man yelling at the cloud. (Which isn't really a cloud, but we still call it that)
Nah, smartphones being actually "smarter" than feature phones as in you can do way more than just basic stuff like calling, messaging people, run a simple calculation, having a calendar etc.