> I don't like calling it "Artificial Intelligence" because it's not intelligence

A pattern I noticed in a AI[sic] discussions: Handwavily declaring what intelligence is not, while not explaining what is.

> Handwavily declaring what intelligence is not, while not explaining what is.

That goes in the other direction too. Declaring it intelligent without explaining what it is. Or even worse, if any explanations are offered, they are often half truths or exaggerated.

You are right, I thought maybe something interesting in these debates is more education about how an LLM works. I don’t like calling it artificial intelligence because precisely we don’t understand well what “intelligence” is. What we do understand is how we came to build an LLM. Good point, I will keep that in mind for next time; it’s better to give more details and, above all, remove the “no” from assertions and clarify more. Thanks :)