• thehatfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    In the general population it does. Most people are not using an academic definition of AI, they are using a definition formed from popular science fiction.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Yes, that’s the point. You’d think they could have, at least, looked into a dictionary at some point in the last 2 years. But nope, everyone else is wrong. A round of applause for the paragons of human intelligence.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      You have that backwards. People are using the colloquial definition of AI.

      “Intelligence” is defined by a group of things like pattern recognition, ability to use tools, problem solving, etc. If one of those definitions are met then the thing in question can be said to have intelligence.

      A flat worm has intelligence, just very little of it. An object detection model has intelligence (pattern recognition) just not a lot of it. An LLM has more intelligence than a basic object detection model, but still far less than a human.