It’s true that the word has always been used loosely, but there was no issue with it because nobody believed what was called AI to have actual intelligence. Now this is no longer the case, and so it becomes important to be more clear with our words.
I think we should start by not following this marketing speak. The sentence “AI isn’t intelligent” makes no sense. What we mean is “LLMs aren’t intelligent”.
I agree that reddit sucks but why do you think it’s not anime friendly?
It’s not pretty, but you can print one in a single line of python:
print(*["".join(" " if i & j else "MM" for j in range(64)) for i in range(64)], sep="\n")
There’s this Norwegian metal band called Kvelertak and I absolutely love their sound, but have no idea what the lyrics are about as I don’t speak the language.
I think your fundamental misunderstanding is how many people just scroll, lurk and at most comment. Let’s call those passive users. They are many and therefore worth catering to. Reddit, especially the big subreddits, are engagement generators. Their point is not to answer the questions that you as an individual might have. Their point is to maximize engagement. Providing the kind of content that keeps thousands of passive users engaged in the app has more monetary value than letting you as an individual post your personal question. So it’s geared towards letting users with a solid track record of creating engagement post easily, while being careful with users who don’t have that track record.
You can see this in supermarkets too. Hundred different types of sweets but if I simply want nuts roasted without oil, I’m out of luck? Why? Because there’s orders of magnitude more people who will buy stuff without reading the ingredients. The people who care about not having oil added to their nuts are so relatively few that they’re not worth catering to by a mass-appealing supermarket.
At least those are my theories, not that I have any inside knowledge.
class CountToTen is the perfect example of why I dislike Java.
I have no idea. For me it’s a “you recognize it when you see it” kinda thing. Normally I’m in favor of just measuring things with a clearly defined test or benchmark, but it is in the nature of large neural networks that they can be great at scoring on any desired benchmark while failing to be good at the underlying ability that the benchmark was supposed to test (overfitting). I know this sounds like a lazy answer, but it’s a very difficult question to define something based around generalizing and reacting to new challenges.
But whether LLMs do have “actual intelligence” or not was not my point. You can definitely make a case for claiming they do, even though I would disagree with that. My point was that calling them AIs instead of LLMs bypasses the entire discussion on their alleged intelligence as if it wasn’t up for debate. Which is misleading, especially to the general public.