Comment on High school student uses AI to reveal 1.5 million previously unknown objects in space.

• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Because that’s what the buzzword has come to mean. It’s not Lemmings’ fault, it’s the shitty capitalists pushing this slop.

  source

  • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s both

    source
  • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Half of the user base spend their entire time complaining about AI on the other half go around trying to get everyone to understand that AI ≠ LLMs

    People like to get old bent out of shape and claim that it’s going to take everyone’s jobs and then they completely ignore things like Alpha Fold.

    source

    • Pirata@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      People like to get old bent out of shape and claim that it’s going to take everyone’s jobs and then they completely ignore things like Alpha Fold.

      So, is AI gonna take everyone’s jobs or not?

      source
    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Hey, I do both

      source
• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Because actual presentation of analytical and practical AI here is rare. AI conducting analysis of medical imaging to catch tumors early isn’t something we discuss very much here, for example.

  What we do get is the marketing hype, AI images, crappy AI search results, ridiculous investment in AI to get rid of human workers, AI’s wasteful power requirements, and everything else under the sun with corporations basically trying to make a buck off AI while screwing over workers. This is the AI we see day to day. Not the ones making interesting and useful scientific discoveries.

  source
• hihi24522@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The term “artificial intelligence” is supposed to refer to a computer simulating the actions/behavior of a human.

  LLMs can mimic human communication and therefore fits the AI definition.

  Generative AI for images is a much looser fit but it still fulfills a purpose that was until recently something most or thought only humans could do, so some people think it counts as AI

  However some of the earliest AI’s in computer programs were just NPCs in video games, looong before deep learning became a widespread thing.

  Enemies in video games (typically referring to the algorithms used for their pathfinding) are AI whether they use neural networks or not.

  Deep learning neural networks are predictive mathematic models that can be tuned from data like in linear regression. This, in itself, is not AI.

  Transformers are a special structure that can be implemented in a neural network to attenuate certain inputs. (This is how ChatGPT can act like it has object permanence or any sort of memory when it doesn’t) Again, this kind of predictive model is not AI any more than using Simpson’s Rule to calculate a missing coordinate in a dataset would be AI.

  Neural networks can be used to mimic human actions, and when they do, that fits the definition. But the techniques and math behind the models is not AI.

  The only people who refer to non-AI things as AI are people who don’t know what they’re talking about, or people who are using it as a buzzword for financial gain (in the case of most corporate executives and tech-bros it is both)

  source

  • adespoton@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The term “Artificial Intelligence” has been bandied around for over 50 years to mean all sorts of things.

    These days, all sorts of machine learning are generally classified as AI.

    But I used to work with Cyc and expert systems back in the 90s, and those were considered AI back then, even though they often weren’t trying to mimic human thought.

    For that matter, the use of Lisp in the 1970s to perform recursive logic was considered AI all by itself.

    So while you may personally prefer a more restrictive definition, just as many were up in arms with “hacker” being co-opted to refer to people doing digital burglary, AI as the term is used by the English speaking world encompasses generative and diffusive creation models and also other less human-centric computing models that rely on machine learning principles.

    source

    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      According to gamedevs, 1-player pong (that is, vs computer) involves AI. It’s a description of role within the game world, not implementation, or indeed degree of intelligence, or amount of power. Could be a rabbit doing little more than running away scared, a general strategising, or a right-out god toying with the world, a story-telling AI. Key aspect though is reacting to and influence on the game itself or at least some sense of internal goals, agency, that set it apart from mere physics, it can’t just follow a blind script. The computer paddle in pong fits the bill: It reacts dynamically to the ball position, it wants to score points against the player, thus, AI. The ball is also simulated, possibly even using more complex maths than the paddle, but it doesn’t have that role of independent agent.

      source
    • hihi24522@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Valid point, though I’m surprised that cyc was used for non-AI purposes since, in my very very limited knowledge of the project, I thought the whole thing was based around the ability to reason and infer from an encyclopedic data set.

      Regardless, I suppose the original topic of this discussion is heading towards a prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate:

      Should the term Artificial Intelligence have the more literal meaning it held when it first was discussed, like by Turing or in the sci-fi of Isaac Asimov?

      OR

      Should society’s use of the term in reference to advances in problem solving tech in general or specifically its most prevalent use in reference to any neural network or learning algorithm in general be the definition of Artificial Intelligence?

      Should we shift our definition of a term based on how it is used to match popular use regardless of its original intended meaning or should we try to keep the meaning of the phrase specific/direct/literal and fight the natural shift in language?

      Personally, I prefer the latter because I think keeping the meaning as close to literal as possible increases the clarity of the words and because the term AI is now thrown about so often these days as a buzzword for clicks or money, typically by people pushing lies about the capabilities or functionality of the systems they’re referring to as AI.

      The lumping together of models trained by scientists to solve novel problems and the models that are using the energy of a small country to plagiarize artwork also is not something I view fondly as I’ve seen people assume the two are one in the same despite the fact one has redeeming qualities and the other is mostly bullshit.

      However, it seems that many others are fine with or in support of a descriptivist definition where words have the meaning they are used for even if that meaning goes beyond their original intent or definitions.

      To each their own I suppose. These preferences are opinions so there really isn’t an objectively right or wrong answer for this debate

      source