Something that pretends or looks like intelligence, but actually isn’t at all is a perfectly valid interpretation of the word artificial - fake intelligence.
Thats because it wasnt originally called AI. It was called an LLM. Techbros trying to sell it and articles wanting to fan the flames started called it AI and eventually it became common dialect. No one in the field seriously calls it AI, they generally save that terms to refer to general AI or at least narrow ai. Of which an llm is neither.
Artificial sugar is still sugar.
Artificial intelligence implies there is intelligence in some shape or form.
Something that pretends or looks like intelligence, but actually isn’t at all is a perfectly valid interpretation of the word artificial - fake intelligence.
Because it contains sucrose, fructose or glucose? Because it metabolises the same and matches the glycemic index of sugar?
Because those are all wrong. What’s your criteria?
In this example a sugar is something that is sweet.
Another example is artificial flavours still being a flavour.
Or like artificial light being in fact light.
Exactly. The naming of the technology would make you assume it’s intelligent. It’s not.
Thats because it wasnt originally called AI. It was called an LLM. Techbros trying to sell it and articles wanting to fan the flames started called it AI and eventually it became common dialect. No one in the field seriously calls it AI, they generally save that terms to refer to general AI or at least narrow ai. Of which an llm is neither.
LLM is a type of a machine learning model, which is a type of artificial intelligence.
Saying LLMs aren’t AI is just the AI Effect in action.