[danaris]

> But you are specifically talking about one type of AI, which is a generative language model.

...Because that's easily and widely understood to be what people mean in recent times when they're talking about "AI", referring to the stuff that's in the news, without further qualifiers.

If you want to talk about something more specific, you are going to need to be explicit about it, rather than expecting everyone else to understand what you've got in your head without actually saying it.

This is like saying "but "crypto" means so much more than just cryptocurrency! there's a whole cryptography field out there that does lots of good stuff!" It's true, but it's not helpful, because it's ignoring the obvious (at least to the other participants in the discussion) context. In this particular case, the context should be even more obvious because it's so clear that's what the article is talking about.

[Eisenstein]

I thought we were on a site where people were knowledgeable and precise about the technical subjects being discussed.

[danaris]

It doesn't matter how knowledgeable and precise the people you're talking with are; you still need to communicate clearly about what you're actually talking about.

[tomrod]

I disagree with your take here. While LLMs also enable significant functionality, we of all categories of service providers should be clearer when we are referencing the specificity of the LLM fad or the adoption of AI to enable services generally, which is the vision that drives the excitement behind the LLM fad.

When people read our comments in 5 years, they will read "AI" and have a much broader topical take than the present excitement about LLMs.