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.
What really bothers me about “just fork it” is that it is a viewpoint fundamentally opposed to collaboration
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
Legalize nuclear bombs
You are not a very serious person
They will just not follow you to whichever app with 5 users you move to tbh
I don’t
This is actually a good idea
Yeah, I love little rules of thumb like that
The wikipedia article on the effect covers this with an awfully blunt aside lol
The Lindy effect applies to non-perishable items, like books, those that do not have an “unavoidable expiration date”.[2] For example, human beings are perishable
It’s also like… libreoffice has done fine so far being developed without AI. You can just keep doing that.
Disagree that it’s an empty phrase though-- it’s a prediction, like any other prediction.
That rule where something is expected to last in the future as long as it already has in the past probably applies here
You have very good taste!
Oh sweet that would’ve been useful to know
I’m sure the 5 seconds spent changing some text strings on their branding will be sorely missed
lmao that’s crazy
I usually encounter it in NPM packages, it’s always like “200 critical vulns in your dependencies!” and then 199 of them are “if you pass a regex bomb it takes a long time lol”
142 critical vulnerabilities
checks inside
denial of service only
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.