you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 137 points 2 years ago (9 children)

We really need to stop calling things "AI" like it's an algorithm. There's image recognition, collective intelligence, neural networks, path finding, and pattern recognition, sure, and they've all been called AI, but functionally they have almost nothing to do with each other.

For computer scientists this year has been a sonofabitch to communicate through.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

    But "AI" is the umbrella term for all of them. What you said is the equivalent of saying:

    we really need to stop calling things "vehicles". There's cars, trucks, airplanes, submarines, and space shuttles and they've all been called vehicles, but functionally they have almost nothing to do with each other

    All of the things you've mentioned are correctly referred to as AI, and since most people do not understand the nuances of neural networks vs hard coded algorithms (and anything in-between), AI is an acceptable term for something that demonstrates results that comes about from a computer "thinking" and making shaved intelligent decisions.

    Btw, just about every image recognition system out there is a neural network itself or has a neural network in the processing chain.

    Edit: fixed an autocorrect typo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (21 children)
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    What I've learned as a huge nerd is that people will take a term and use it as an umbrella term for shit and they're always incorrect but there's never any point in correcting the use because that's the way the collective has decided words work and it's how they will work.

    Now the collective has decided that AI is an umbrella term for executing "more complex tasks" which we cannot understand the technical workings of but need to get done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is in fact how common language works, and also how jargon develops. No one in this thread outside of the specific people pointing out the problem cares what it is beyond the colloquial use, keep jargon to the in group, or you'll just alienate the out-group and your entire point will be missed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No computer scientist will ever genuinely call basic algorithmic tasks "AI". Stop saying things you literally do not know.

    Speak for yourself. Many of us fought that battle literally years ago and then accepted reality and moved on with our lives. Show me an actual computer scientist still hung up on this little bit of not-so-new-anymore language and I'll show you a dying curmudgeon who has let the world pass them by. We frequently use AI to refer to these technologies that we have today and we've started to use more descriptive language such as post-singularity AI or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Hard agree. I don't consider myself a "computer scientist", but I do have a CS degree. The public use of AI is so far gone it's just what it is now. I still wouldn't consider path finding AI, but when you say an AI image creator, or AI chat bot it gets the point across well enough since we all know what is meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (16 replies)
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think you're fighting a losing battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It isn't human-level, but you could argue it's still intelligence of a sort, just erstatz

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I dunno... I've heard that argument, but when something gives you >1000 answers, among which the correct answer might be buried somewhere, and a human is paid to dig through it and return something that looks vaguely presentable, is that really "intelligence", of any sort?

    Aka, 1 + 1 = 13, which is a real result that AI can and almost certainly has recently offer(ed).

    People are right to be excited about the potential that generative AI offers in the future, but we are far from that atm. Also it is vulnerable to misinformation presented in the training data - though some say that that process might even affect humans too (I know, you are shocked, right? well, hopefully not that shocked:-P).

    Oh wait, nevermind I take it all back: I forgot that Steven Huffman / Elon Musk / etc. exist, and if that is considered intelligence, then AI has definitely passed that level of Turing equivalence, so you're absolutely right, erstatz it is, apparently!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's the human digging through answers thing? I haven't heard anything about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    ChatGPT was caught, and I think later admitted, to not actually using fully automated processes to determine those answers, iirc. Instead, a real human would curate the answers first before they went out. That human might reject answers to a question like "Computer: what is 1+1?" ten times before finally accepting one of the given answers ("you're mother", hehe with improper apostrophe intact:-P). So really, when you were asking for an "AI answer", what you were asking was another human on the other end of that conversation!!!

    Then again, I think that was a feature for an earlier version of the program, that might no longer be necessary? On the other hand, if they SAY that they aren't using human curation, but that is also what they said earlier before they admitted that they had lied, do we really believe it? Watch any video of these "tech Bros" and it's obvious in less than a minute - these people are slimy.

    And to some extent it doesn't matter bc you can download some open source AI programs and run them yourself, but in general from what I understand, when people say things nowadays like "this was made from an AI", it seems like it is always a hand-picked item from among the set of answers returned. So like, "oooh" and "aaaahhhhh" and all that, that such a thing could come from AI, but it's not quite the same thing as simply asking a computer for an answer and it returning the correct answer right away! "1+1=?" giving the correct answer of 13 is MUCH less impressive when you find that out of a thousand attempts at asking, it was only returned a couple times. And the situation gets even worse(-r) when you find out that ChatGPT has been getting stupider(-est?) for awhile now - https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/07/ai-supposed-become-smarter-over-time-chatgpt-can-become-dumber/388826/.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's no way that's the case now, the answers are generated way too quickly for a human to formulate. I can certainly believe it did happen at one point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yes, and the fact that the quality suddenly declined awhile back - e.g. that article I linked to explained more - tracks along with those lines as well: when humans were curating the answers it took longer, whereas now the algorithm is unchained, hence able to move faster, and yet with far less accuracy than before.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    This problem was kinda solved by adding AGI term meaning "AI but not what is now AI, what we imagined AI to be"

    Not going to say that this helps with confusion much 😅 and to be fair, stuff like autocomplete in office soft was called AI long time ago but it was far from LLMs of now

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Computer vision is AI. If they literally want a robot eye to scan their cluttered pantry and figure out what is there, that'll require some hefty neural net.

    Edit: seeing these downvotes and surprised at the tech illiteracy on lemmy. I thought this was a better informed community. Look for computer vision papers in CVPR, IJCNN, and AAAI and try to tell me that being able to understand the 3D world isn't AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're very wrong.

    Computer vision is scanning the differentials of an image and determining the statistical likelihood of two three-dimensional objects being the same base mesh from a different angle, then making a boolean decision on it. It requires a database, not a neutral net, though sometimes they are used.

    A neutral net is a tool used to compare an input sequence to previous reinforced sequences and determine a likely ideal output sequence based on its training. It can be applied, carefully, for computer vision. It usually actually isn't to any significant extent; we were identifying faces from camera footage back in the 90s with no such element in sight. Computer vision is about differential geometry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Computer vision deals with how computers can gain high level understanding of images and videos. It involves much more than just object reconstruction. And more importantly, neural networks are a core component is just about any computer vision application since deep learning took off in the 2010s. Most computer vision is powered by some convolutional neural network or another.

    Your comment contains several misconceptions and overlooks the critical role of neural networks, particularly CNNs, which are fundamental to most contemporary computer vision applications.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Thanks, you saved me the trouble of writing out a rant. I wonder if the other guy is actually a computer scientist or just a programmer who got a CS degree. Imagine attending a CV track at AAAI or the whole of CVPR and then saying CV isn't a sub field of AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Shouldn’t there be a catch all term to explain the broader scope of the specifics?

    Science is a broad term for multiple different studies, vehicle is a broad term for cars and trucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Glorified chatbots. Tops. But definitely not something with any kind of intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Is that not a type of AI already?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Language is fluid, and there is plenty of terminology that is dumb or imprecise to someone in the field, but A-ok to the wider populace. "Cloud" is also not actually a formation of water droplets, but someone's else's datacenter, but to some people the cloud is everything from Gmail to AWS.

    If I say AI today and most people associate the same thing with it (these days that usually means generative AI , i.e. mostly diffusion or transformer models) then that's fine for me. Call it Plumbus for all I care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)