[samhuk]

Odd statement, as it is of course always the thinker that gets the attribution, i.e. the manipulator of tools and the interpreter of results.

E.g.1: Galileo saw Jupiter, not The telescope saw Jupiter.

E.g.2: Joe built the wall, not The crane built the wall.

In this case, AI is the thinker, not a human, hence the phrasing.

A human creating the AI does not remove the attribution either, just as we never say Joe's mother built the wall just because Joe was created by his mother.

[tomrod]

AI does not think. It filters data to identify patterns (ML) or accomplish objectives (AI generally), or generates output based on prior patterns or rulesets under nondeterminism.

It is a tool.

[paulmd]

Sounds like the ideal employee - does what it's told, generates output based on prior examples and patterns.

the average code monkey cranking out web microservices is not exactly plato either here, after all. look at the existing codebase, try to mimic the style, can you have the PR by friday?

[mrguyorama]

Yes, a job is when someone tells you what to do and pays you for it, what's your point?

[mensetmanusman]

You are a bad user. I am a good Bing!

[deepsun]

> AI is the thinker

As an AI specialist, I strongly object that statement. There's usually very little surprise in what "AI has discovered", usually we spend months of hard work to make it discover that one thing. But all the credit goes to "AI" :)

PS: I'm yet to see an AI (in any area) that's the thinker.