[dev_snd]

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe", as Magritte woyld say. It's always the observer, that makes a thing into what we believe it is. Without an observer nothing has any meaning.

The AI does not have to understand words and objects in the same way as you do to have real world use cases.

[hashimotonomora]

So you would say that The Library of Babel (Borges) as a system is AI because for an observer, some texts make sense?

You can also see faces on clouds, but is that you or is it the cloud representing a face?

[dev_snd]

Interesting question. I guess what makes us call something an AI is that it's an interactive recombination of a corpus of knowledge as opposed to a static one (such is the library). GPT-3 is far from sentient, that's for sure, but it's more interactive than any library.

People used the clouds to tell the future in the past, so there certainly was a value to reading them. Maybe GPT-3 is the next best thing to do the same, maybe it's more, time will tell.