“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” 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”.