“AI” is kind of like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. We’ve been through how many cycles of “If a computer can do <this>, it must be AI.” *Make a computer that does <this>.* “That isn’t how I meant. Now, if it can do <this>…” Of course, people have a hard time describing sentience and sapience, so why would it be a surprise that we have a hard time deciding if what we built sufficiently mimics them?
AI don’t think or have feelings (it’s debatable whether they’re even AI or that’s just marketing BS). False equivalency.
“AI” is kind of like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. We’ve been through how many cycles of “If a computer can do <this>, it must be AI.” *Make a computer that does <this>.* “That isn’t how I meant. Now, if it can do <this>…” Of course, people have a hard time describing sentience and sapience, so why would it be a surprise that we have a hard time deciding if what we built sufficiently mimics them?
We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. We haven’t come to it. It’s just a complexified chatbot they’re calling AI for marketing purposes.
If a term is used for decades to describe something, you would assume it is the thing being described
Just because they put a picture of a cherry pie on a crisco can for decades doesn’t mean you should call crisco “cherry pie”.