For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
For those unaware, Linus Torvalds this year has deeply cast his lot with the hyperscale LLMs for development of Linux code, dismissing arguments that this is an abdication of responsibility over that code base.
AI still doesn’t actually exist. Weird how you claim it’s been around fifty years… It hasn’t. At all. Ever. That is the ELIZA effect, which is distinctly NOT “AI”.
You’re still right in that it is effectively a joke being played on the world, though.
Is there a reason you insist on using a different definition than people who actually work in the field and then loudly claim they’re the ones using their own terms incorrectly
The professionals use specific terms, like LLM or neural network. Most aren’t buffoons suffering from the ELIZA effect.
They also use “AI” to refer to things more generally when they need to refer to the whole group of technologies. This does not imply they think AI is conscious or whatever; that correlation is entirely a consequence of you using an incorrect definition of AI.
lol no. Sure, THEY know what they’re talking about when they say AI, but you have to be such a clown failing to pay attention if you think they’re immune to the ELIZA effect or that the execs trying to sell this aren’t willingly falling for it. They need it to be more capable than the technology actually is to justify their insane upset of the economy burning trillions on this BS.
I don’t consider executives to be professionals or experts in AI in any sense of the words. For engineers, we agree they use AI to refer to the field generally. I don’t know why you’re bringing up the ELIZA effect, that doesn’t really have anything to do with this unless you think AI = conscious or something similar.
Again, this problem only exists because you are redefining AI to mean something that it doesn’t. Engineers use it to refer to the field in general, and (usually) don’t have any delusions about it meaning the AI is conscious. Executives say whatever they want to get as much money as possible and I don’t care how they’re using the term. Only you, incongruously using it to mean something beyond what the field is today, are getting confused when engineers use it to refer to the field’s current capabilities.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
Yes, ‘Artificial Intelligence [AI]’ was literally conjured as a marketing term with the motivation of seeking funding.
Just because there’s a label invoked to encompass an area of research, doesn’t make it legitimate. There’s plenty of pseudoscientific fields that practitioners believe are worthy, like economics or cryptozoology.
that’s really not fair. not every practitioner is from the Austrian School of Cryptids