[kortex]

> further, you seem to be identifying AI as if it were made of LLMs.

GP is doing nothing of the sort.

LLMs are a form of AI; artificial intelligence has been around since the 60s. They are not AGI (artificial general intelligence), and no one (credible) is claiming LLMs are AGI.

[mdp2021]

> GP is doing nothing of the sort

The poster wrote that «For AI, nothing in can mean garbage out». The poster seems to mean LLMs with «nothing in can mean garbage out». The poster seems to be calling LLMs AI. The poster seems to be attributing to AI properties of LLMs. Hence, the poster seems «to be identifying AI as if it were made of LLMs».

> LLMs are a form of AI

Prove it (or, defend it). I would say that it is arguable that they are not, unless one describes LLMs as "engines that reliably solve the problem of generating convincing text". The issue with that perspective is that «generating convincing text» is hardly per se a problem: it does not define a complete problem - text does not "stand alone" (content remains crucial).

> artificial intelligence has been around since the 60s

I know (and I should know decently well. Pedantically, a few years earlier - specifying just in case): what are you trying to say with that? Which application are you proposing to defend your perspective?

[criddell]

> Prove it (or, defend it)

I’ll try: In English, words mean whatever it is they communicate. You determine meaning by paying attention to usage.

Calling an LLM an AI is expanding as more of the public learns about things like ChatGPT through news reports that refer to them as AI.

Now specific audiences may use words differently. What lawyers call copyright infringement the public might call piracy or theft. Likewise, in some circles, people may say an LLM is not an AI but more broadly it seems to be going the other way. Only time will tell.

[mdp2021]

But what you have proven is just that there is an increasing use of possibly improper terminology (improper in front of an established past and logos, improper out of inattention and unawareness) - which is what I was warning against in the first place.

Of course any group (however large) may implicitly decide that terms will have some new meaning inside said group, but this will just go in a direction similar to ⊥, the "logical explosion" ("epistemic anarchy").

And this in context is not just a "new meaning", but what I point as a sign of misunderstanding.

[criddell]

> improper terminology

But in English, there is no central authority for determining correctness. For the general public, the meaning of words and phrases is entirely determined by usage. In a lecture hall, courtroom, or research lab, definitions may be more precise.

[mdp2021]

> no central authority

That no one is appointed as bearer of the authority does not mean that randomness is as valid as the authoritative facts behind a term.

Only one hour ago I accidentally found myself in front of a definition on a dictionary: «anon (adv.): late Old English Old English anon, earlier on an, literally "into one" [...] By gradual misuse, "soon, in a little while" (1520s)». Repeat: «By gradual misuse». Linguists recognize proper and improper.

> For the general public

But the general public has little importance. We are not necessarily speaking its language. On the contrary... Here we often speak as specialists (supposedly).

There is little use in reapplying 'cube' to something that hardly deserves the name. People do: this does not mean that we should follow. And potentially, with that, lose discrimination. Like, in this context, an awareness about the whole context of AI, replaced by some fog that on the contrary we work to dissipate.

[criddell]

Randomness? The broad use by the general public, mainstream publications, and many experts (e.g. Google calls their Bard LLM an AI) isn't random. Search for "generative ai llm" to see for yourself.