[glassounds]

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

Artificial is an adjective here, as in a type of intelligence that is artificial. It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.

You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't". That's not what I think people mean when they refer to AI in this context.

If e.g. humans are living in a simulation then it's completely fair to say they're AIs. If humans are a product of nature then they're not.

[randomdata]

>> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally

Implying that humans don't produce humans, or that human intelligence is artificial?

> It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.

So, again, for what reason would anyone take the time to call it "artificial intelligence"/"AI" when, as a subcategory, the intent is already captured by "intelligence"? Terms need to have useful meaning to stand up, and we are still not clear on where you see "artificial" as being useful.

Perhaps the problem here is that you misunderstood the original question? It asked how you would define "AI" as a single term, not how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. I think you've done a reasonable job of the latter, but that doesn't justify the "AI moniker" as described originally.

> You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't".

I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?

[glassounds]

> I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?

I mistook you for another commenter.

What's your end goal here? You're welcome to share your own definition of AI but this feels like sealioning. I think I've been clear enough, if I haven't this comment thread will just have to live without another ultra clarification of my "off the top of my head" comment.

[randomdata]

> What's your end goal here?

To understand the missing gaps you have left open. I assume you took the time to respond to the original comment because you wanted others to understand you. But, with those gaps still open, we don't yet. If my assumption is wrong, I'll accept it, but then if you don't want to interact why bring your personal musings here and not to your private journal?

> I think I've been clear enough

Okay. Perhaps you could explain your interpretation of my questions towards you to help me understand how I didn't make myself clear when asking them? I had hoped my questions and associated explanations made clear what I didn't understand, but obviously not. Happy to rephrase it in a way that is clear once I have a grasp of what is missing.

> You're welcome to share your own definition of AI

I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.

[robertlagrant]

> I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.

Why not just say "In this context, this is what AI would be"? You can supply a context.

[randomdata]

Because communication requires understanding, and arbitrarily making up a random context gives no understanding to what the other person is thinking? If I wanted to communicate with myself, I could simply write in my private journal. Is this not the same reason you have asked the question you did?