3 ms·

so it's not really AI, right?

gbin 2y ago
If you squint hard enough any trial and error converging along a function is AI.
Shorel 2y ago
For a long time, evolutionary and genetic algorithms were part of AI. It is not a language model, and it doesn't run on a GPU, but it is definitely a mechanical implementation of searching a solution in a space.
jerrygenser 2y ago
AI used to be autonomously controlled systems. Now AI is re-brand of machine learning by marketing departments, etc. This seems more like AI than the very recent rebrand of ML. Machine learning can be a sub-system of AI systems but in itself was not thought of as AI for a long time.
suoduandao3 2y ago
isn't it? I think it might be. It's definitely artificial so it depends on your definition of intelligence. And that's a rather confused subject. I favor a model of intelligence where one measures problem-solving capability along multiple axes and defines an N-dimensional shape that describes a hypervolume of 'general' intelligence. One could certainly argue that because this program solves problems that can only meaningfully be measured along one axis that it has too few dimensions to be called intelligence. The trouble with that is software generally works best when specialized for problems with a single axis, so by that definition 'general intelligence' is either unlikely to happen in that space at all or won't be energy efficient if it does. What would likely have a higher intelligence is a 'cyborg' - which could just be a human accessing this program via conventional means - who adds this program's problem solving capability along one axis to their existing hypervolume of intelligence. So maybe not artificial intelligence, but definitely an artificial intelligence expander.
entropygiggles 2y ago
If you mean the particular subtype of AI that is the currently fashionable shiny object people are chasing, then no, it is not. If you mean it's AGI, then no, definitely not, but then, nothing is. (Whoever was about to stand up and say "how do you know that ChatGPT isn't AGI", don't. You'll thank me in three years that those words are not attached to your name in public.) If you mean, does it fall into what people would have described as AI before marketers, executives, and other similarly ignorant people started using "AI" to refer specifically to generative models, then yes, it absolutely is.
- ajuc 2y ago
  AI was never well defined. AB tree pruning chess engines were called AI at one point. Game programmers call A* and behaviour trees - AI. At this point it means nothing. Call it machine learning or automated optimization. Arguably you could do the same thing with a greedy algorithm iterating over all solutions. Would that be AI too?
  - entropygiggles 2y ago
    > At this point it means nothing. Which is why we should stop using it, and refer to A* as A*, LLMs as LLMs, evolutionary algorithms as evolutionary algorithms, et cetera. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.
    - short_sells_poo 2y ago
      Unfortunately the moment you get dollar bills attached to particular words, everyone starts using them. AI sells. Evolutionary algorithms do not. So everyone chasing the sweet dollar will say AI and other buzzwords.
      - entropygiggles 2y ago
        I regret to inform you that you are correct.
bilekas 2y ago
I have to agree. To me this seems more like machine learning. Try, test, fail, change parameters, repeat. The 'AI', to me at least would suggest some kind of intelligence to 'make informed assumptions' at least.. But not sure. Its confusing.

gbin 2y ago

If you squint hard enough any trial and error converging along a function is AI.

For a long time, evolutionary and genetic algorithms were part of AI. It is not a language model, and it doesn't run on a GPU, but it is definitely a mechanical implementation of searching a solution in a space.

jerrygenser 2y ago

AI used to be autonomously controlled systems. Now AI is re-brand of machine learning by marketing departments, etc. This seems more like AI than the very recent rebrand of ML. Machine learning can be a sub-system of AI systems but in itself was not thought of as AI for a long time.

suoduandao3 2y ago

isn't it? I think it might be. It's definitely artificial so it depends on your definition of intelligence. And that's a rather confused subject. I favor a model of intelligence where one measures problem-solving capability along multiple axes and defines an N-dimensional shape that describes a hypervolume of 'general' intelligence. One could certainly argue that because this program solves problems that can only meaningfully be measured along one axis that it has too few dimensions to be called intelligence. The trouble with that is software generally works best when specialized for problems with a single axis, so by that definition 'general intelligence' is either unlikely to happen in that space at all or won't be energy efficient if it does. What would likely have a higher intelligence is a 'cyborg' - which could just be a human accessing this program via conventional means - who adds this program's problem solving capability along one axis to their existing hypervolume of intelligence. So maybe not artificial intelligence, but definitely an artificial intelligence expander.

entropygiggles 2y ago

If you mean the particular subtype of AI that is the currently fashionable shiny object people are chasing, then no, it is not. If you mean it's AGI, then no, definitely not, but then, nothing is. (Whoever was about to stand up and say "how do you know that ChatGPT isn't AGI", don't. You'll thank me in three years that those words are not attached to your name in public.) If you mean, does it fall into what people would have described as AI before marketers, executives, and other similarly ignorant people started using "AI" to refer specifically to generative models, then yes, it absolutely is.

ajuc 2y ago
AI was never well defined. AB tree pruning chess engines were called AI at one point. Game programmers call A* and behaviour trees - AI. At this point it means nothing. Call it machine learning or automated optimization. Arguably you could do the same thing with a greedy algorithm iterating over all solutions. Would that be AI too?
- entropygiggles 2y ago
  > At this point it means nothing. Which is why we should stop using it, and refer to A* as A*, LLMs as LLMs, evolutionary algorithms as evolutionary algorithms, et cetera. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    Unfortunately the moment you get dollar bills attached to particular words, everyone starts using them. AI sells. Evolutionary algorithms do not. So everyone chasing the sweet dollar will say AI and other buzzwords.
    - entropygiggles 2y ago
      I regret to inform you that you are correct.

bilekas 2y ago

I have to agree. To me this seems more like machine learning. Try, test, fail, change parameters, repeat. The 'AI', to me at least would suggest some kind of intelligence to 'make informed assumptions' at least.. But not sure. Its confusing.