Except AI already had a clear definition well before it started being used as a way to inflate valuations and push marketing narratives.

If nothing else it's been a sci-fi topic for more than a century. There's connotations, cultural baggage, and expectations from the general population about what AI is and what it's capable of, most of which isn't possible or applicable to the current crop of "AI" tools.

You can't just change the meaning of a word overnight and toss all that history away, which is why it comes across as an intentionally dishonest choice in the name of profits.

▲

layer8 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe do some reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellig...

	▲	Root_Denied a day ago \| parent [-]
		And you should do some reading into the edit history of that page. Wikipedia isn't immune from concerted efforts to astroturf and push marketing narratives. More to the point, the history of AI up through about 2010 talks about attempts to get it working using different approaches to the problem space, followed by a shift in the definitions of what AI is in the 2005-2015 range (narrow AI vs. AGI). Plenty of talk about the various methods and lines fo research that were being attempted, but very little about publicly pushing to call commercially available deliverables as AI. Once we got to the point where large amounts of VC money was being pumped into these companies there was an incentive to redefine AI in favor of what was within the capabilities and scope of machine learning and LLMs, regardless of whether that fit into the historical definition of AI.

▲

wilg a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I do not care what anyone thinks the definition is, nor should you.