• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just wish people stopped calling these things AI.

    As far as I’m aware there’s a difference between true AI and what these things are which would VI (virtual intelligence)

    AI can think entirely on it’s own whereas a VI is just selecting from a set list of information with no real thought behind it other than basic computations.

    With all that said I could be wrong and would love for someone to explain it to me.

    • dovah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      In computer science, AI refers to any machine (likely software) that is capable of doing tasks that only an intelligent being could. Algorithms that can solve search problems, such as path finding, linear regression, and perception are all said to be AI. I believe what you are referring to as “true AI” is known as AGI (artificial general intelligence).

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The history of AI research doesn’t go that way. It tends to be about pushing computers to do things they currently can’t. Chess was once a major focus. Then an AI could beat a specific grandmaster in a six game match, and then any grandmaster, and then so good that no human stands a chance. Then it wasn’t really AI anymore, but a piece of software you can run on a laptop.

      Getting to a machine that thinks at a human level is an asperational goal. One where we create a bunch of useful tools along the way.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Historically AI has been the term for algorithm much much more simple than LLMs. I agree that it’s not the best term, but that’s what we’ve got and have had since the 60s so… Probably not changing it now Therebis a term for the distinction you appear to be wanting to draw: AGIs - Artifical General INTELLIGENCE. LLMs are AIs but not AGIs

    • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You were never into video games, right? The reason I ask, is because games use a lot of AI. One might see “AI” in the game settings, or if the game has some editing tool/level builder/ … one might see it there. If one takes an interest, one might pick up on people talking about the AI of one game or another.

      I am always surprised, when I hear people say that LLMs are too simple to be real AI, because I’m thinking that most people who grew up in the last ~20 years would have interacted a lot with these much simpler game AIs. I would have thought that this knowledge would diffuse to parents and peers.

      Non-rhetorical question: Any idea why that didn’t happen?

      • ylaiOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My impression is that game AI (and I mean in FPS, not board games) were not considered as serious AI in the computer science sense. Most game AI even till this day are “cheating” in the sense that they are not end-to-end (i.e. cannot operate using screen capture, vs. engine information), and often also need additional advantages to hold ground. For example, virtually all these FPS game AI are quite useless once you actually want to interface it with some form of robotics and do open world exploration. So game AI is somewhat separate from the public’s obsession with the term AI, that suddenly turn nit-picky/moving-the-goalposty once AI became performant on end-to-end tasks.

        The Wikipedia article AI effect (not super-polished) has many good references where people discussed how this is related to anthropocentrism, and people can also be very pushy with that view in the context of animal cognition:

        Michael Kearns suggests that “people subconsciously are trying to preserve for themselves some special role in the universe”.[20] By discounting artificial intelligence people can continue to feel unique and special. Kearns argues that the change in perception known as the AI effect can be traced to the mystery being removed from the system. In being able to trace the cause of events implies that it’s a form of automation rather than intelligence.

        A related effect has been noted in the history of animal cognition and in consciousness studies, where every time a capacity formerly thought as uniquely human is discovered in animals, (e.g. the ability to make tools, or passing the mirror test), the overall importance of that capacity is deprecated.[citation needed]

        Note that there is also a similar effect, not explicitly discussed by that article, where people like to depict ancient societies dumber than they actually are (e.g. the today discounted notion of “Dark Ages”).

        • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The purpose of game AI is to make games fun, not to advance serious research, but it certainly is real AI. Making computers play chess was a subject of much serious research. AI opponents in video games are not fundamentally different from that.

          As humans, we have an unfortunate tendency to aggrandize our own group and denigrate others. I see anthropocentrism as just one aspect of that, beside nationalism, racism and such. This psychological goal could be equally well achieved by saying things like: “This is not real intelligence. It’s just artificial, like game AI.”

          But I don’t see that take being made. I only see pseudo-smart assertions about how AI is just a marketing term.


          I think anthropocentrism may have something to do with why the idea of “emergent abilities” (as step-changes in performance/parameters) is alluring. We like to believe that we are categorically different from animals; or at least, that is the traditional belief in many western cultures. We now know, though, that the brain does the thinking, and that human and other mammal brains only show differences in degree, not in kind. If you believe in some categorical difference between animals and humans, you would expect to find step-changes of that sort. Personally, I would find it nice, if I could believe that, somewhere along that continuum between animal and human brain, something goes click and makes it ok to eat them.