The reason I'm drawing a distinction between "language model" and "AI" is because when you say "AI", it means absolutely nothing. Like you just pointed out, a c

The reason I'm drawing a distinction between "language model" and "AI" is because when you say "AI", it means absolutely nothing. Like you just pointed out, a chess engine also qualifies as "AI", but you can't use a chess AI to write you a marketing copy. So what is the difference? Obviously, you would object if someone tried to tell you that this chess AI can answer your questions. And I'm telling you that LLM's can't be used for educational purposes because they're chatbots. >My scenario would be that for a particular hammering job, I can hire either a human or a hammering AI This is why it's 100% analogous: you don't have a hammering AI. You have a screwdriver AI and the salesman is telling you that you can use it as a hammer! These companies are trying to get you to use LLM's for things they are not built to do, because it's hard for the layman to tell the difference. It's a language model. It has no knowledge base. It doesn't even understand "true" from "false". It only generates plausible-sounding text, but it learned from a massive corpus of human-generated text, so it seems intelligent.