Comment on YSK that "AI" in itself is highly unspecific term

• Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The term “Artificial Intelligence” has been around for a long time, 25 years ago AI was an acceptable name for NPC logic in videogames. Arguably that’s still the case, and personally I vastly prefer “Artificial Intelligence” to “Broad Simulation Of Common Sense Powered By Von Neumann Machines”.

  source

  • XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The overuse (and overtrust) of LLMs has made me feel ashamed to reference video game NPCs as AI and I hate it. There was nothing wrong with it. We all understood the ability of the AI to be limited to specific functions. I loved when Forza Horizon introduced “drivatar” AI personalities of actual players, resembling their actual activities. Now it’s a vomit term for shady search engines and confused visualizers.

    source

    • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I don’t share the feeling. I’ll gladly tie a M$ shareholder to a chair, force them to watch me play Perfect Dark, and say “man I love these AI settings, I wish they made AI like they used to”.

      source
• Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  “Understanding requires awareness” isn’t some settled fact - it’s just something you’ve asserted. There’s plenty of debate around what understanding even is, especially in AI, and awareness or consciousness is not a prerequisite in most definitions. Systems can model, translate, infer, and apply concepts without being “aware” of anything - just like humans often do things without conscious thought.

  You don’t need to be self-aware to understand that a sentence is grammatically incorrect or that one molecule binds better than another. It’s fine to critique the hype around AI - a lot of it is overblown - but slipping in homemade definitions like that just muddies the waters.

  source

  • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Do you think “AI” KNOWS/UNDERSTANDS what a grammatically incorrect sentence is or what molecules even are? How?

    source

    • Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      You’re moving the goalposts. First you claimed understanding requires awareness, now you’re asking whether an AI knows what a molecule is - as if that’s even the standard for functional intelligence.

      No, AI doesn’t “know” things the way a human does. But it can still reliably identify ungrammatical sentences or predict molecular interactions based on training data. If your definition of “understanding” requires some kind of inner experience or conscious grasp of meaning, then fine. But that’s a philosophical stance, not a technical one.

      The point is: you don’t need subjective awareness to model relationships in data and produce useful results. That’s what modern AI does, and that’s enough to call it intelligent in the functional sense - whether or not it “knows” anything in the way you’d like it to.

      source

      • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Intelligence, as the word has always been used, requires awareness and understanding, not just spitting out data after input, as dynamic and complex the process might be, through a set of rules. AI, as you just described it, does nothing necessarily different from other computational tools: they speed up processes that can be calculated/algorithmically structured. I don’t see how that particularly makes “AI” deserving of the adjective ‘intelligent’, it seems more of a marketing term the same way ‘smartphones’ were. The disagreement we’re having here is semantic…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • BB84@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Do most humans understand what molecules are? How?

      source