Except we didn’t call all of that AI then, and it’s silly to call it AI now. In chess, they’re called “chess engines”. They are highly specialized tools for analyzing chess positions. In medical imaging, that’s called computer vision, which is a specific, well-studied field of computer science.
The problem with using the same meaningless term for everything is the precise issue you’re describing: associating specialized computer programs for solving specific tasks with the misapplication of the generative capabilities of LLMs to areas in which it has no business being applied.
Machine Learning is the general field, and I think if we weren’t wrapped up in the AI hype we could be training models to do important things like diagnosing disease and not writing shitty code or creating fantasy art work.
chess engines are, and always have been called, AI. computer vision is and always has been AI.
the only reason you might think they’re not is because in the most recent AI winter in which those technologies experienced a boom they avoided terminology like “AI” when requesting funding and advertising their work because people like you who had recently decided that they’re the arbiters of what is and isn’t intelligence.
turing once said if we were to gather the meaning of intelligence from a gallup poll it would be patently absurd, and i agree.
but sure, computer vision and chess engines, the two most prominent use cases for AI and ML technologies - aren’t actual artificial intelligence, because you said so. why? idk. i guess because we can do those things well and the moment we understand something well as a society people start getting offended if you call it intelligence rather than computation. can’t break the “i’m a special and unique snowflake” spell for people, god forbid…
Except we didn’t call all of that AI then, and it’s silly to call it AI now. In chess, they’re called “chess engines”. They are highly specialized tools for analyzing chess positions. In medical imaging, that’s called computer vision, which is a specific, well-studied field of computer science.
The problem with using the same meaningless term for everything is the precise issue you’re describing: associating specialized computer programs for solving specific tasks with the misapplication of the generative capabilities of LLMs to areas in which it has no business being applied.
Machine Learning is the general field, and I think if we weren’t wrapped up in the AI hype we could be training models to do important things like diagnosing disease and not writing shitty code or creating fantasy art work.
We absolutely did call it “AI” then. The same applies to chess engines when they were being researched.
more like “chess computer” and “computer analysis”
No-one thought of them as intelligences
Game engines were the first algorithms that kickstarted the entire AI field of research at the 50s.
See how you’re not saying “AI started in the 50’s” there?
chess engines are, and always have been called, AI. computer vision is and always has been AI.
the only reason you might think they’re not is because in the most recent AI winter in which those technologies experienced a boom they avoided terminology like “AI” when requesting funding and advertising their work because people like you who had recently decided that they’re the arbiters of what is and isn’t intelligence.
turing once said if we were to gather the meaning of intelligence from a gallup poll it would be patently absurd, and i agree.
but sure, computer vision and chess engines, the two most prominent use cases for AI and ML technologies - aren’t actual artificial intelligence, because you said so. why? idk. i guess because we can do those things well and the moment we understand something well as a society people start getting offended if you call it intelligence rather than computation. can’t break the “i’m a special and unique snowflake” spell for people, god forbid…