4 ms·
> There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years? That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and peop
by drb91 7y ago
> There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?
That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).
- IanCal 7y agoPeople absolutely use it usefully, that it can be used as marketing fluff is a far more recent thing. If it's never been used usefully and isn't now, there's no point arguing about it because that war has been lost and if it has been used usefully redefining it makes no sense. Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion so I'll leave it here. I just wish AI topics didn't always have someone say it wasn't "real AI".
- drb91 7y ago> Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion Ahh silicon valley, never change, this comedy can't be bought. I hope the linguistic turn hits you on the ass on the way down.