The issue is that what is considered AI in the general population is a floating definition, with only the newest advances being called AI in media etc. Is internet search AI? Is route planning?

Technology as a term has the same problem, “technology companies” are developing the newest digital technologies.

A spoon or a pencil is also technology according to definition, but a pencil making company is not considered a technology company. There is some quote by Alan Kay about this, but can’t find it now.

I try to avoid both terms as they change meaning depending on the receiver.

>I really don't get this argument. I see it all the time, but the term AI has been used for over half a century for algorithms far less sophisticated than modern LLMs.

And it was fine there, because nobody, not even a layman, would mixup those with regular human intelligence (or AGI).

And laymen didn't care about those AI products or algorithms except as novelties, specicialized tools (like chess engines), or objects of ridicule (like the Clippy).

So we might be using AI as a term, but it was either as a techical term in the field, or as a vague term the average layman didn't care about much, and whose fruits would never conflate with general intelligence.

But now people attribute intelligence of the human kind to LLMs all the time, and not just laymen either.

That's the issue the parent wants to point.

I, and im willing to bet many other people, also had an issue with previous things being called AI too. Just none of it became a prevalent enough topic for many people to hear complaints about its usage because the people who were actually talking about algorithms and AI already knew the limitations of what they were talking about, unless it was marketing materials but most people ignore marketing material claims because they are almost always complete bullshit.

LLMs were the first introduction to AI for a lot of people. And AI effect is as strong as it ever was.

So now, there's a lot of "not ackhtually intelligent" going around!

It depends on how intelligence is defined. In the traditional AI sense it is usually "doing things that, when done by people, would be thought of as requiring intelligence". So you get things like planning, forecasting, interpreting texts falling into "AI" even though you might be using a combinatorial solver for one, curve fitting for the other and training a language model for the third. People say that this muddies the definition of AI, but it doesn't really need to be the case.

Sentience as in having some form of self-awareness, identity, personal goals, rankings of future outcomes and current states, a sense that things have "meaning" isn't part of the definition. Some argue that this lack of experience about what something feels like (I think this might be termed "qualia" but I'm not sure) is why artificial intelligence shouldn't be considered intelligence at all.

Shifting goalposts of AI aside, intelligence as a general faculty does not require sentience, consciousness, awareness, qualia, valence or any of the things traditionally associated with a high level of biological intelligence.

But what it does require: the ability to produce useful output beyond the sum total of past experience and present (sensory) input. An LLM does only this. Where as a human-like intelligence has some form on internal randomness, plus an internal world model against which such randomized output could get validated.

Nope they started an AI company and then started messing around with robotics and then landing on LLMs as a runway.

Meh. People have been calling much dumber algorithms "AI" for decades. You guys are just pedants.