3 ms·

It’s almost like ‘artificial intelligence’ is the simulation of intelligence using artifice. Do people just gloss over the ‘artificial’ part of ‘AI’?

Izkata 3y ago
I think most people read it as artificially created intelligence, not faked intelligence.
- jameshart 3y ago
  I don’t understand the distinction. Doesn’t artificiality imply both ‘fakeness’ as well as ‘being man made’? Artificial flavorings are both. Artificial limbs are both. Artificial turf is both. Artificial intelligence is faked, manufactured intelligence.
  - Izkata 3y ago
    Look at the sibling comment to your own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848768 That's describing faked intelligence, not artificially created (actual) intelligence. It's using cheats that kinda look like intelligence if you don't know what's really going on. Artificial turf is actually a good example itself - it's plastic (or other materials), it's fake grass. Artificially created grass would be more like https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/genetically-modified-grass-doesnt-need-mowing https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/genetically-mo... Quick edit with another example using terms we already have: An android is a fake human, while a clone is an artificially created human.
    - jameshart 3y ago
      no, see, that's my point: you wouldn't call genetically modified grass 'artificial grass'. As you did, you have to qualify it as 'artificially created'. Because apart from being 'artificially created' it's real grass. Likewise your clone is a real human. So 'artificially created' things are not automatically 'artificial'. They're only 'artificial' if the artifice is still apparent in the end result. If they aren't real. So my point: if we're describing something as 'artificial' intelligence, we should expect it to be a fake substitute for real intelligence, that has been manufactured to serve that purpose. If you said you had 'artificially created intelligence', that is a different - and much bigger - claim than that you have 'created artificial intelligence'. Much like if you said you had 'artificially created life' that is a much bigger claim than that you have 'created artificial life'.
      - Izkata 3y ago
        > So my point: if we're describing something as 'artificial' intelligence, we should expect it to be a fake substitute for real intelligence, that has been manufactured to serve that purpose. And my point is that I don't think most people are reading it that way. We're in a hype cycle where people are treating it like true general AI, like you'd see in sci-fi, instead of what it is: fake/simulated intelligence. I think you're putting too much weight on the components of a term, instead of seeing the term as a whole.

Izkata 3y ago

I think most people read it as artificially created intelligence, not faked intelligence.

jameshart 3y ago
I don’t understand the distinction. Doesn’t artificiality imply both ‘fakeness’ as well as ‘being man made’? Artificial flavorings are both. Artificial limbs are both. Artificial turf is both. Artificial intelligence is faked, manufactured intelligence.
- Izkata 3y ago
  Look at the sibling comment to your own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848768 That's describing faked intelligence, not artificially created (actual) intelligence. It's using cheats that kinda look like intelligence if you don't know what's really going on. Artificial turf is actually a good example itself - it's plastic (or other materials), it's fake grass. Artificially created grass would be more like https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/genetically-modified-grass-doesnt-need-mowing https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/genetically-mo... Quick edit with another example using terms we already have: An android is a fake human, while a clone is an artificially created human.
  - jameshart 3y ago
    no, see, that's my point: you wouldn't call genetically modified grass 'artificial grass'. As you did, you have to qualify it as 'artificially created'. Because apart from being 'artificially created' it's real grass. Likewise your clone is a real human. So 'artificially created' things are not automatically 'artificial'. They're only 'artificial' if the artifice is still apparent in the end result. If they aren't real. So my point: if we're describing something as 'artificial' intelligence, we should expect it to be a fake substitute for real intelligence, that has been manufactured to serve that purpose. If you said you had 'artificially created intelligence', that is a different - and much bigger - claim than that you have 'created artificial intelligence'. Much like if you said you had 'artificially created life' that is a much bigger claim than that you have 'created artificial life'.
    - Izkata 3y ago
      > So my point: if we're describing something as 'artificial' intelligence, we should expect it to be a fake substitute for real intelligence, that has been manufactured to serve that purpose. And my point is that I don't think most people are reading it that way. We're in a hype cycle where people are treating it like true general AI, like you'd see in sci-fi, instead of what it is: fake/simulated intelligence. I think you're putting too much weight on the components of a term, instead of seeing the term as a whole.