3 ms·

I really don't understand why you were downvoted. There's a flowchart from MIT about what AI is[1] since so people here seem to have an incorrect idea about it

I really don't understand why you were downvoted. There's a flowchart from MIT about what AI is[1] since so people here seem to have an incorrect idea about it, and disappointingly hn is not immune from that. [1]:https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612404/is-this-ai-we-drew-you-a-flowchart-to-work-it-out/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612404/is-this-ai-we-drew...

andrewzah 7y ago
This argument basically ignores how language works. When people say AI, they generally mean AGI or something resembling an artificial human. If enough people consider AI to have this meaning, then it has that meaning. Language does not care about smart-aleck charts or being correct at all. And regular people are correct here, because calling things like smart speakers "artificial intelligence" is a bastardization of the term, in my humble opinion. We shouldn't need another term like AGI (which by itself makes no sense, intelligence vs general intelligence? ok...). > disappointingly hn is not immune from that What HN lacks is people who understand how linguistics and languages work. You can't point to a chart and go "see? you're saying it wrong", and actually have the language change. It just does not work that way, and I can point to many examples in the English language that are simple mistakes. The initial definition of AI is terrible for the combination of the words "artificial" and "intelligence". You can't blame people for wanting to go with a more intuitive definition that actually matches the words.
- betenoire 7y ago
  "Regular people" (myself included) can't even really define intelligence, so why would they be right in defining artificial intelligence? What if I were to say that my speaker uses AI algorithms to help understand my voice? It is not a bastardization of the term, it just reveals the depth of the conversation you are having with someone. Adjust accordingly.
  - andrewzah 7y ago
    > so why would they be right in defining artificial intelligence? Because that's simply how language works. It doesn't really matter if you're "right", what matters is usage. If most people apply AI to mean "artificial intelligence" in the sense of "intelligent like a human or close to that", then that's the meaning. > What if I were to say that my speaker uses AI algorithms to help understand my voice? Then I would ask why you would think that to be the case, then go over why AI doesn't exist yet and move on.

andrewzah 7y ago

This argument basically ignores how language works. When people say AI, they generally mean AGI or something resembling an artificial human. If enough people consider AI to have this meaning, then it has that meaning. Language does not care about smart-aleck charts or being correct at all. And regular people are correct here, because calling things like smart speakers "artificial intelligence" is a bastardization of the term, in my humble opinion. We shouldn't need another term like AGI (which by itself makes no sense, intelligence vs general intelligence? ok...). > disappointingly hn is not immune from that What HN lacks is people who understand how linguistics and languages work. You can't point to a chart and go "see? you're saying it wrong", and actually have the language change. It just does not work that way, and I can point to many examples in the English language that are simple mistakes. The initial definition of AI is terrible for the combination of the words "artificial" and "intelligence". You can't blame people for wanting to go with a more intuitive definition that actually matches the words.

betenoire 7y ago
"Regular people" (myself included) can't even really define intelligence, so why would they be right in defining artificial intelligence? What if I were to say that my speaker uses AI algorithms to help understand my voice? It is not a bastardization of the term, it just reveals the depth of the conversation you are having with someone. Adjust accordingly.
- andrewzah 7y ago
  > so why would they be right in defining artificial intelligence? Because that's simply how language works. It doesn't really matter if you're "right", what matters is usage. If most people apply AI to mean "artificial intelligence" in the sense of "intelligent like a human or close to that", then that's the meaning. > What if I were to say that my speaker uses AI algorithms to help understand my voice? Then I would ask why you would think that to be the case, then go over why AI doesn't exist yet and move on.