[alephnerd]

Read the article.

It's talking about how what we can "AI" today will be treated as bog standard - the same way this happened with Recommender systems 3-4 years ago, Neural networks 4-7 years ago, statistical learning (eg. SVM) 7-10 years ago, etc.

The title is a reference to a fairly prominent article about "Big Data" that was based on the same premise.

[jwarden]

Read the article but I still think the criticism of the title is valid. The claim is that the way we talk about AI will be different in 5 years, not that AI will be dead. Likewise recommender systems, Neural Networks, and Statistical Learning are not certainly not dead. It's an abuse of a term to grab clicks.

[alephnerd]

I strongly disagree - especially because the title is itself a reference to "Big Data Will Be Dead In 5 Years" which itself talked about this same phenomenon, albeit for Data Engineering.

Titles are not arguments. Some people may want them to be, but they are not.

Engaging with a title just distracts a discussion from the core thesis of a post.

[keybored]

Have these AI True Believers heard of the phrase: sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? What’s magical about a recommendation system? Or statistical learning?

Well maybe they are? But they are all very specialized tools. And it’s not difficult to understand how they conceptually work. I guess...

Meanwhile a conversational partner in a box that can answer any of my questions? (If they eventually live up to the promise) Umm, how the hell would a normal person not call that magical and indeed “AI”?

I’m sorry but the True Believers haven’t made anything before which is remotely close to AI. Not until contemporary LLMs. That’s why people don’t call it that.