[ppod]

I completely agree with you. Dreams, imagination, or hallucination are appropriate terms for an agent working through solutions within its own world-model without using new external input. Would we reserve the verb 'to fly' only for birds? As Dijkstra said, "the question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than whether a submarine can swim".

[therein]

I guess the question is, why did we need to move away from `to generate` or `to permutate` on feedback with no additional input?

It seems to have coincided with the re-emergence of neural networks and the only way I can see it is that it romanticizes the field in the expense of some accuracy of statement.

I however definitely can't claim to be immune to the charm of this romanticization, it surely appeals to something inside me.

[ppod]

'generate' and 'permutate' are more semantically general words. To convey what you mean you have to add "on feedback with no additional input". 'imagine' or 'dream' fully includes this specific meaning: it is more accurate. The only difficulty is that we are not used to applying these verbs to non-animal subjects. It is just like going out of your way to say "the submarine propelled itself through the water" or "the plane propelled itself through the air" because you don't want to use the verbs swim or fly with inanimate subjects. Why the distinction in those two particular cases; I have no idea. Maybe we're used to seeing birds glide without moving while you don't really see fish swimming without that distinctive wriggling-flapping motion.