The "truth", for what that's worth, is that GPUs haven't been about graphics as a primary concern for quite a while now and the terminology hasn't kept pace.
Besides, we're apparently here talking about GPUs that can't do graphics.
I think the confusion is between the nature of the acronyms, GPUs are Graphic Processing Units as a hardware concept, GPGPU is a software concept to use GPUs for general processing.
If the primary use case of Graphics Processing Units no longer concern graphics per se, would it not be prudent to rename them to something more appropriate?
Personally, if we could use a new acronym all together I would prefer to just call them PPUs: Parallel Processing Units. That way we won't ever have to rename them ever again as the sands of time shift onwards.
Dalewyn simply posted a substantial truth in imprecise terms. Some interpreted it fixated with its literality - which was irrelevant.
A search for the use of 'Generative Processing Unit' can reveal that the expression may be far from widespread. Nonetheless, GPUs today are importantly that. Explicit adoption of that expression matters little in this context - it is not the point. In fact, I initially misread the text in the post as "General Processing Unit", and it still made sense.
...Usual exhausting snipers. No wonder the whole world is going to hell. Is any relevant vandal also thinking of a reply? Because the impression left is that you have something like "feelings to express". Which remains as collectively constructive as performance dance in your closet.
Besides, we're apparently here talking about GPUs that can't do graphics.