YSK that "AI" in itself is highly unspecific term

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Perspectivist@feddit.uk⁩ to ⁨youshouldknow@lemmy.world⁩

I see a huge amount of confusion around terminology in discussions about Artificial Intelligence, so here’s my quick attempt to clear some of it up.

Artificial Intelligence is the broadest possible category. It includes everything from the chess opponent on the Atari to hypothetical superintelligent systems piloting spaceships in sci-fi. Both are forms of intelligence - but drastically different.

That chess engine is an example of narrow AI: it may even be superhuman at chess, but it can’t do anything else. In contrast, the sci-fi systems like HAL 9000, JARVIS, Ava, Mother, Samantha, Skynet, or GERTY are imagined as generally intelligent - that is, capable of performing a wide range of cognitive tasks across domains. This is called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

One common misconception I keep running into is the claim that Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are “not AI” or “not intelligent.” That’s simply false. The issue here is mostly about mismatched expectations. LLMs are not generally intelligent - but they are a form of narrow AI. Their intelligence lies in the ability to generate text - not in providing factual answers. They’re trained to do one thing very well: generate natural-sounding text based on patterns in language. And they do that with remarkable fluency.

What they’re not designed to do is give factual answers. That it often seems like they do is a side effect - a reflection of how much factual information was present in their training data. But fundamentally, they’re not knowledge databases - they’re statistical pattern machines trained to continue a given prompt with plausible text.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
In defense of people who say LLMs are not intelligent: they probably mean to say they are not sapient, and I think they’re loosely correct if you consider the literal word “intelligent” to have a different meaning from the denotative “Intelligence” in the context of Artificial Intelligence.

source
- ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  ‘Intelligence’ requires understanding, understanding requires awareness. This is not seen in anything called “AI”, not today at least, but maybe not ever. Again, why not use a different word, one that actually applies to these advanced calculators? Expecting the best out of humanity, it may be because of the added pizzazz or simple semantic confusion… but seeing the people behind it all, it probably is so the dummies get overly excited and buy stuff/make these bots integral parts of their lives. 🤷
  
  source
  - Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨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
    -> View More Comments
  - Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨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
    -> View More Comments
- ramble81@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I remember when “heuristics” were all the rage. Frankly that’s what LLMs are, advanced heuristics. “Intelligence” is nothing more than marketing bingo.
  
  source
Feyd@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Usually the reason we want people to stop calling LLMs AI is because there has been a giant marketing machine constructed designed to (and successfully) tricking laymen into believing that LLMs are adjacent to and one tiny breakthrough away from becoming AGI.

From another angle, your statement that AI is not a specific term is correct. Why, then, should we keep using it in common parlance when it just serves to confuse laymen? Let’s just use the more specific terms.

source
Shanmugha@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
So… not intelligent. In the sense that when someone without enough knowledge of computers and/or LLMs hears “LLM is intelligent” and sees “an LLM tells me X”, they will be likely to believe that X is true, and not without a reason. Exactly this is my main reason against all the use of intelligence-related terms. When spoken by knowledgeable people who do know the difference - yeah, I am all for that. But first we need to cut the crap of advertisement and hype

source
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  “Intelligent” is itself a highly unspecific term which covers quite a lot of different things.
  
  What you’re think is “reasoning” or “rationalizing”, and LLMs can’t do that at all.
  
  However what LLMs (and most Machine Learning implementations) can do is “pattern matching” which is also an element of intelligence: it’s what gives us and most animals the ability to recognize things such as food or predators without actually thinking about it (you just see, say, a cat, and you know without thinking that it’s a cat even though cat’s don’t all look the same), plus in humans it’s also what’s behind intuition.
  
  source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  So… not intelligent.
  
  But they are intelligent - just not in the way people tend to think.
  
  There’s nothing inherently wrong with avoiding certain terminology, but I’d caution against deliberately using incorrect terms, because that only opens the door to more confusion. It might help when explaining something one-on-one in private, but in an online discussion with a broad audience, you should be precise with your choice of words. Otherwise, you end up with what looks like disagreement, when in reality it’s just people talking past each other - using the same terms but with completely different interpretations.
  
  source
  - sanguinepar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    But they are intelligent - just not in the way people tend to think.
    
    Doesn’t that just degenerate into a debate over semantics though? Ie what is "intelligence.
    
    Not having a go, this is a good thread, and useful I think 👍
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - BryceBassitt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    They ain’t intelligent
    
    source
  - Shanmugha@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Great point, thank you:)
    
    source
nulluser@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

What they’re not designed to do is give factual answers

or mental health therapy

source
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
And "intelligence" itself isn't very well defined either. So the only word that remains is "artificial", and we can agree on that.

I usually try to avoid the word "AI". I'll say "LLM" if I talk about chatbots, ChatGPT etc. Or I use the term "machine learning" when broadly speaking about the concept of computers learning and doing such things. It's not exactly the same thing, though. But when reading other people's texts I always think of LLMs when they say AI, because that's currently what they mean almost every time.

source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  In computer science, the term AI at its simplest just refers to a system capable of performing any cognitive task typically done by humans.
  
  That said, you’re right in the sense that when people say “AI” these days, they almost always mean generative AI - not AI in the broader sense.
  
  source
  - hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Yeah, generative AI is a good point.
    
    I'm not sure with the computer scientists, though. It's not any task, that'd be AGI. And it's not necessarily connected to humans either. Sure they're the prime example of intelligence (whatever it is). But I think a search engine is AI as well, depending how it's laid out. And text to speech, old-school expert systems. A thermostat that controls your heating with a machine learning model might count as well, I'm not sure about that. And that's not really like human cognitive tasks. Closer to curve fitting, than anything else. The thermostat includes problem-solving, learning, knowledge, and planning and decision making. But on the human intelligence score it wouldn't even be a thing that compares.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
To add to the confusion, you also have people out there thinking it’s “Al” or “A1”. It’s a real mess.

source
- ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I can’t wait to see what A2 can do!
  
  source
  - riskable@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    We’ve been waiting for that since 1824!
    
    source
- XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Really? Like the steak sauce? I guess I should have seen that coming since the 00s motorcycle communities keep asking about their F1 light. Fuel 1njection
  
  source
  - betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Nobody in a position of any importance, just the US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
    
    source
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I still think intelligence is a marketing term or simply a misnomer. It’s basically an advanced calculator. Intelligence questions, creates rules from nothing, transforms raw data from reality into ideas, has its own volition… And the same goes for a chess engine, of course, it’s just more visible because it’s not spitting out text but chess moves. Intelligence and consciousness don’t seem to be computational processes.

source
- turboshadowcool@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I could follow everything you said up until the conclusion. If consciousness is not computational, then what is going on in our brains instead? I know of course that even neuroscientists don’t know exactly, but just in broad principle. I always thought our brains are still doing computation, just with a different method to computers. I don’t mean to be contrarian, I’m just genuenly curious what other kind of process could support consciousness?
  
  source
  - ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I’m not gonna claim to ‘know’ things here, and I’m too groggy to even attempt to give you a satisfying answer but: applied formal logic as seen in any machine based on logic gates is just an expression/replication of simplified thought and not a copy of our base mental processes. The mind understands truths that cannot even be formalized or derived, such as axiomatic truths. Even if something can be understood and predicted, it doesn’t mean the process could be written down in code. It certainly isn’t today…
    
    My understanding of the topic is closer to Roger Penrose’s postulates so please check this wiki page and maybe watch a couple of vids on the topic, I’m just a peasant with a hunch when it comes to “AI”. 🤷
    
    source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  You’re describing intelligence more like a soul than a system - something that must question, create, and will things into existence. But that’s a human ideal, not a scientific definition. In practice, intelligence is the ability to solve problems, generalize across contexts, and adapt to novel inputs. LLMs and chess engines both do that - they just do it without a sense of self.
  
  A calculator doesn’t qualify because it runs “fixed code” with no learning or generalization. There’s no flexibility to it. It can’t adapt.
  
  source
  - ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Not just human but many other animals too, the only group of entities we have ever used the term ‘intelligence’ for. It could be an entirely physical process, sure (doesn’t imply replication but at least holds a hopeful possibility). I’m not gonna lie and say I understand the ins and outs of these bots, I’m definitely more ignorant on the subject than not, but I don’t see how the word intelligence applies in earnest here. Handheld calculators are programmed to “solve problems” based on given rules too… dynamic code and other advances don’t change the fact that they’re the same logic-gate machine at their core. Having said that, I’m sure they have their uses (idk if they’re worth harming the planet for them with the amount of energy they consume!), I’m just not the biggest fan of the semantics.
    
    source
EvilEdgelord@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
None of this is AI if it doesn’t have the ability to become self-aware.

source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Consciousness - or “self-awareness” - has never been a requirement for something to qualify as artificial intelligence. It’s an important topic about AI, sure, but it’s a separate discussion entirely. You don’t need self-awareness to solve problems, learn patterns, or outperform humans at specific tasks - and that’s what intelligence, in this context, actually means.
  
  source
  - EvilEdgelord@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    It’s not really solving problems or learning patterns now, is it? I don’t see it getting past any captchas or answering health questions accurately, so we’re definitely not there.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Poxlox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    That’s not quite right, the discussion of consciousness, mind, and reasoning are all relevant and have been in the philosophy of artificial intelligence for hundreds of years. You are valid to call it AI within your definitions but those are not exactly agreed on, such as whether you ascribe to Alan Turing or John Searle, for example
    
    source
HK65@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
AGI itself has been made up as a marketing term by LLM companies.

Let’s not forget that the official definition of AGI is that it can make 200 billion dollars.

source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  The term AGI was first used in 1997 by Mark Avrum Gubrud in an article named ‘Nanotechnology and international security’
  
  By advanced artificial general intelligence, I mean AI systems that rival or surpass the human brain in complexity and speed, that can acquire, manipulate and reason with general knowledge, and that are usable in essentially any phase of industrial or military operations where a human intelligence would otherwise be needed. Such systems may be modeled on the human brain, but they do not necessarily have to be, and they do not have to be “conscious” or possess any other competence that is not strictly relevant to their application. What matters is that such systems can be used to replace human brains in tasks ranging from organizing and running a mine or a factory to piloting an airplane, analyzing intelligence data or planning a battle.
  
  source
  - HK65@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    That is true, but it was a term narrowly and incoherently used by scientists. In fact, that one paper used it, and it took ten years for it to be picked up again, again by just a few academic papers. Even the academic community preferred terms like “strong AI” before the current hype.
    
    AGI was not a term that was used to refer to a concept, it had to be explained by each and every article that mentioned it, it was not a general term that had a strict meaning attached to it. It was brought to that level by Google/Deepmind employees two years ago, and then got into the place where every second Medium article is buzzwording around with it when it became a corporate target for OpenAI/Microsoft.
    
    source
victorz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Very good explanation. And important distinctions.

source
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
When someone online claims that LLMs aren’t AI, my immediate response is to ask them to prove they are a real and intelligent life form. It turns out proving you are real is pretty damned hard when it boils down to it. LLMs may be narrow AI, but humans are pretty narrow in our thinking as well.

I started a project back in January. It’s not ready for the public yet, but I’m planning for a early September release. Initially I don’t think it will be capable of much, but I’m going to be training it on various datasets in hopes that it is able to pick up on the basics fairly quickly. Over the next few years I’m aiming to train it on verbal communication and limited problem solving, as well as working on refining motor skills for interaction with its environment. After that, I’ll be handing it off regularly to professionals who have a lot more experience than me when it comes to training. Of course, I’ll still have my own input, but I’ll be relying a lot on the expertise of others for training data. It’s going to be a slow process, but my long term goal is a world wide release sometime in 2043, or maybe 2044, with some limited exposure before then. Of course, the training process never ends and new data is always becoming available, so I expect that to continue well beyond 2044.

source
- brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I’m describing raising a child…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Poxlox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
There’s also a philosophical definition, which I think is hotly contested so depending on your school of thought your belief of is LLM AI can vary. Usually many people take issue with the thought over questions like does it have a mind, think, or have consciousness?

source
Xaphanos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
What would you call systems that are used for discovery of new drugs or treatments? For example, companies using “AI” for Parkinson’s research.

source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Both that and LLMs fall under the umbrella of machine learning, but they branch in different directions. LLMs are optimized for generating language, while the systems used in drug discovery focus on pattern recognition, prediction, and simulations. Same foundation - different tools for different jobs.
  
  source
  - Xaphanos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Is there a specific name? Or just “non-LLM ML systems”?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
multifariace@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The way you describe LLM sounds exactly like a large portion of humans I see.

source
skisnow@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  The issue here is that machine learning also falls under the umbrella of AI.
  
  Image
  
  source
  - navatar@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    This visual is a bit misleading. LLMs are not a subset of genAI and they aren’t really comparable, because LLMs refer to a vague model type (usually transformers with hundreds of millions of parameters) and genAI is a buzzword for the task of language generation. LLMs can be fine tuned for a variety of other tasks, like sequence and token classification, and there are other model architectures that can do language generation.
    
    Unrelated, but it’s disappointing how marketing and hype lead to so much confusion and information muddying. Even Wikipedia declaratively states that the most capable LLMs are generative, which academically is simply not the case.
    
    Source: computational linguist who works on LLMs
    
    source