[keiferski]

Yes I find myself wishing that "AI" wasn't the term chosen for generative text and image tools, as this term has been pushed by culture/movies/games for the last half-century to mean something specific, not just (still very impressive) tools to generate images and text.

Of course, this could have never happened, as the temptation of "AI" for marketing products is irresistible and the confusion between "real AI" and "new generative LLM tools" is actually beneficial for companies.

I don't know what will happen to the term "AI" after this hype cycle dies down.

[komali2]

"crypto means cryptography" is bouncing around in my head.

I guess we'll enjoy adding "AI means artificial intelligence, not generative text" to that statement for the rest of our lives.

[suoduandao2]

Serious question, do you think the current generation of llm cannot pass the Turing test?

If you think it can, did you not put much stock on the Turing test before they passed it?

[keiferski]

Yes I think they can pass the Turing test, yes I think this was a poor test to begin with if we are attempting to clarify what machine intelligence is and how it compares to human intelligence.

[suoduandao2]

I genuinely do not understand how this attitude is so common on a site with so many experts. Surely two things being indistinguishable is a step change if we’re trying to compare them?

[keiferski]

The Turing Test is a test of mimicry, not of identity. It's based on a metaphysics that says appearance = reality, which has all sorts of issues. There are plenty of ways we can distinguish humans from machines and I expect this other "background information" (primarily biological in nature) will play an increasingly important role. Especially embedded cognition and the gradual realization that intelligence is embedded in its environment, not some kind of abstract, external entity.

I wrote this comment a few weeks ago, maybe relevant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37221294

[famouswaffles]

Lol who cares whatever fiction people imagined to be "real" ai ? Logic general intelligence doesn't work. This does. Get over it.

[keiferski]

Not sure why I’m responding to a comment that says “get over it lol”, but:

Artificial Intelligence is an academic field that goes back nearly a century. It’s kind of a serious thing that intelligent people have spent careers thinking about, you know?

[famouswaffles]

There are only two things necessary for something to be called Artificial Intelligence and it's pretty obvious what those things are.

There is no evidence, basically none whatsoever that logic can model general intelligence, narrow real world intelligence or that general "perfect logical reasoning" is a thing that actually exists in the real world in real world relationships. None.

No animal we've observed does it. Humans certainly don't do it. The only realm this idea actually seems to work is Fiction. And this was not like for a lack of trying. Some of the greatest minds worked on this for decades and some people still don't seem to get it. Logic doesn't scale to all reality. It just breaks. Anything other than clear definitions and unambiguous axioms and it falls apart.

I'm not saying Logic wasn't useful or that the things it did produce that worked shouldn't be called AI but the idea that you shouldn't call LLMs AI because of some hoped scenario that never seemed to leave the realm of fiction is just extremely silly.

In this instance, Logic systems are that guy in the stands yelling that he could've made the shot, while he's not even on the field.