The kicker:
The system isn’t purely run on AI. It also relies on human input to help it learn and become more accurate.
And then
And so far it’s getting high marks from employees
(no employees interviewed or cited)
Who call it “Bo-Linda”
Love to regurgitate company PR material as fact
I don’t recall it being called “AI” until it became the big new thing to slap onto your product to pump up your company’s value before you run away with the money after the inevitable collapse because you’re trying to invent something that already exists.
The phrase “AI” started out meaning a computer that was actually sentient, and the requirements have become more and more loosened and lax that machine learning now counts as “AI”.
Video game bad guys that follow a simple script have been called AI since forever. Even more than two years ago
Two whole years! Sorry for the sass
It's so annoying. You get headlines like "AI discovers faster matrix multiplication algorithm". Just from the headline, you'd assume researchers spoke to the fucking HAL 9000 and it taught them how to multiply matrices better. When in reality they just trained a neural network
It's like those hoverboards from a few years ago. They took a well known sci-fi concept, stole the name for something that literally no one recognizes as the thing they think about when they hear the term. Except this time with "AI" an entire collapsing economy uses the new fake sci-fi crap to prop itself up and then the news breathlessly reports all the spurious claims about it as true.
When did anybody use it that way?
It's literally impossible to determine for a fact that something or somebody (outside of oneself) is sentient, and our best guess for something being sentient has a requirement for having a nervous system, which artificial computers at least usually do not have, and I'm pretty sure that it did not start getting used in the context of artificial biological computers in mind.
I don't think anybody ever used the word 'AI' that way.
Pretty sure that 'AI' was never an actual term. Just a way to refer to sufficiently capable computers (with standards depending heavily on context, but I'm pretty sure usually including the ability to learn in some way).
In the 90s? I mean, up to the mid to late 00s? By, like, almost everybody?
No, it was used in the context of non-biological, sentient computers. It doesn’t matter whether or not such a thing is actually possible, that’s the way that it was used. I don’t understand why you shifted the topic to artificial biological beings and said that people weren’t using “AI” to describe that.
Pretty sure that most people consider only things with nervous systems to be able to have qualia, which is a requirement for sentience.
This thread is the first time I encounter somebody using 'AI' to refer to something sentient in general.
Because most people don't seem to think that non-biological things can have qualia (well, some religious people do seem to think that some non-biological things do, but, in that case, those things are non-material, so we can add being material to the relevant list of requirements). Unless my assessment is wildly incorrect and there are people who think so, none of them used 'AI' to refer to artificial non-biological things that are sentient.
In the case of people who think that there are material non-biological things that are sentient, I'd like to ask them how they make guesses about this stuff, and whether or not they consider their PCs as sentient, and if not, why not.