2 ms·

> that doesn't mean other kinds of AI are not AI I kind of agree, though I find "AI" to be an almost useless term, in particular these days. I dislike the curr

> that doesn't mean other kinds of AI are not AI I kind of agree, though I find "AI" to be an almost useless term, in particular these days. I dislike the current state of discourse where AI is used to mean inhumanly large models, so I tend to use a specific term like LLMs instead of AI. But the point here wasn't whether this or that form of ML is in fact AI. The term "AI" was almost never used in mainstream media until a few years ago, when it suddenly it was all over the place https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=AI,Biden&hl=no https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=AI,Biden... and nearly without exception referring to very large generative text/image models. So when a news article in 2026 talks about AI without specifying that it's nothing to do with ChatGPT etc. (and in fact using a very different method requiring no large pre-trained model and no dependence on large companies), I find it highly misleading.

YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
I agree it's misleading and it's very frustrating. I blame the lay press and social media that as you say became very suddenly aware of the results of AI research. This happened at different times, e.g. in 2016 with AlphaGo, then in 2017 with OpenAIFive etc etc. And lately again with LLMs. I don't agree that it's a useless term. AI, as a research area, is well-defined by its journals and conferences and the grants that support that research. It's not the fault of the AI research community that OpenAI's app went viral and now there's so much confusion in mainstream discourse about the term. I try to set the record straight whenever I can but it does feel like fighting a pointless rearguard action, even in this community that is better informed than most.