>There are people on this board who fell the "artificial intelligence" meme because they made a computer able to output sentences from a dataset and they think this is "intelligence"

>>16732089 (OP)
It's mostly dumb word-thinkers doing this. All chatbots really prove is that you don't need a mind to do what word-thinkers do.

>There's still people on this board nitpicking on the word "intelligence."
People have been using the word "AI" to describe hard-coded NPC and enemy behavior in video games for decades and nobody was complaining about it.

>>16732106
I am well aware. I always cringe when they do it

2 moar wix until the AI bubble bursts, trust the plan

>>16732089 (OP)
it's on par with a lot of "people"

>>16732132

>>16732111
There's no need to cringe. Just separate your definition of intelligence from the concept of sentience. Intelligence exists on a gradient and measures decision making ability.
"If [player] is [in range]; walk [direction of player]" can be described as monumentally retarded. But this is still a description of the entity's intelligence. Stack a few more of these clauses together about how to avoid taking damage itself and prevent wall collisions then it will reach the approximate intelligence level of a nematode.

>>16732156
at least with the gaming example I can see the point. You need a name to describe it is doing something automatically and in a way it really is artificial intelligence, as it is doing automated tasks generally only done by "intelligent" entities. A chatbot however, it is so disingenuous to call it AI

>>16732163
This could easily turn into nitpicking about what it means to "do" something, so it kinda is what it is.
What these LLM's are "doing" is predicting the next word that it should put in a sentence given an input as context. They can (attempt to) identify an object from an arbitrary image. They can summarize a list of source material. They can copy-paste code it finds on tech forums based on what you ask it to do.
It's about as "intelligent" as your average dalit tech support guy.

>>16732186

>>16732142

>>16732106
>People have been using the word "AI" to describe hard-coded NPC and enemy behavior in video games for decades and nobody was complaining about it.
Because no one believed or tried to imply that video game NPCs were intelligent.

>>16732191
See >>16732156
I agree that people that think these LLM's are some kind of skynet shit are retarded though.

>>16732089 (OP)
Yes, but I later realized it's not that great. Part of not being retarded is realizing you were wrong and changing your opinion based on careful analysis

>>16732206
you watched the arkham video didnt you

>>16732213
no, I realized it when trying to perform anything of real use with AI

>>16732228
it can be fine for automating tasks, if you give it enough data to be able to associate words with actions. However it will never actually be "intelligent."