| >> 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? |
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.