[yarg]

> It's not an intelligence, artificial or otherwise

That's what artificial means (even Pong had AI). If it ever becomes intelligent, it will be a synthetic intelligence (not an AGI).

For example, artificial vs synthetic diamonds; the former just looks the part, the latter is the genuine article - but manufactured as opposed to naturally formed.

[glassounds]

That's not the usage I'm familiar with, e.g. sci-fi novels will frequently use AI for actually intelligent and possibly sentient beings that just aren't biological (see Skippy in Expeditionary Force), the intelligence isn't usually a party trick or something that just looks like intelligence. While it's true that people use "AI" to describe e.g. enemy behavior in games, I don't think people fundamentally mean the same thing when they discuss AI in the context of AGI, which some people fully believe LLMs will become.

The term is fuzzy though and people mean different things by it.

Although your analogy does make sense, but I've never run into "synthetic intelligence" used as a term.

[AnimalMuppet]

In Schlock Mercenary, an AI is truly sapient, and therefore has rights. A "synthetic intelligence" is below that threshold ("synthetic intelligence means 'kinda stupid'" is one line), and therefore can be used as guidance for missiles and such, where their survival is not expected.

That's how one sci-fi universe draws the distinction. I'm not sure that that's binding on anyone else, but it was an interesting distinction.

[yarg]

Yes, because our society rampantly abuses language ignoring the actual meanings of words.

As far as science fiction goes, it's irrelevant - we live in the real world and have had AI for a long time now (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertie_the_Brain).

[glassounds]

My point is that when people say AGI they don't mean a super sophisticated version of a game engine's enemy behavioral mechanics.

Sci-fi is many times a speculative guess about the possible future of technology, IMO its not completely irrelevant as an insight into what people mean or expect when they say certain things about future tech.

[robertlagrant]

No, the meanings are just different. 60 years ago AI was a clever imperfect search of an array. There are multiple meanings. Yours is not the only one.

[AnimalMuppet]

Yeah, I think you're the one that's abusing the meaning of words, if you're calling that an AI. AI does not mean "a very simple program that responds to human input in some way".

[glassounds]

By the way artificial diamonds and synthetic diamonds are the exact same thing:

> A synthetic diamond or laboratory-grown diamond (LGD), also called a lab-grown diamond, laboratory-created, man-made, artisan-created, artificial, synthetic, or cultured diamond.

Artificial also means non natural, not necessarily a mock or something that behaves like something else:

> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural

[yarg]

> artificial diamonds and synthetic diamonds are the exact same thing

No, they aren't. Artificial diamond generally refers to cubic zirconia - which is not a diamond.

Synthetic diamond refers to genuine diamonds produced by humans (rather than natural forces).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_simulant#Artificial_si...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond

[rimunroe]

> By the way artificial diamonds and synthetic diamonds are the exact same thing

I think that was their exact point. The terms are equivalent but carry different connotations

[AnimalMuppet]

No, Pong had "artificial". It did not have "intelligence".

I mean, I guess if you insist on the 1950s definition of AI, perhaps it did. I'm not sure it did even by the 1970s definition, though, and it absolutely did not have it by the 2020s definition.

And if you're going to claim that we should keep using the 1950s definition, well, languages change over time. If you want to communicate with people in the 2020s, use definitions from the 2020s.

[yarg]

Of course it didn't have intelligence, as I stated - it's artificial.

[AnimalMuppet]

Artificial not-intelligence is not artificial intelligence.

I don't know why you're defining words the way you are, but it's leading you to an absurd position. As I said elsewhere, if you want to communicate with the rest of us, you need to use the same definitions we do. Otherwise you're talking, not about AI, but about trying to re-define words, and that's a really uninteresting conversation.

[yarg]

Artificial not-intelligence would be an actual intelligence pretending not to be.

Like a cuttlefish disguised as a rock.