There are also threshold functions and gradient calculations.

Rightly so, as decision trees are also considered AI, which are very dumb in comparison to LLMs. People have way too high expectations for AI.

Pick a number from 1 to 2^63 - 1 ~= 9 x 10^19 randomly. See AI is easy /s

We never called if statements AI until the last year or so. It's all marketing buzz words. It has to be more than just "it makes a decision" to be AI, or else rivers would be AI because they "make a decision" on which path to take to the ocean based on which dirt is in the way.

Yeah, and highlighting that difference is what is important right now.

This is the first AI to masquerade as general artificial intelligence and people are getting confused.

This current thing doesn't have or need rights or ethics. It can't produce new intellectual property. It's not going to save Timmy when he falls into the well. We're going to need a new Timmy before all this is over

I've seen this argument so many times and it makes zero sense to me. I don't think by predicting the next word, I think by imagining things both physical and metaphysical, basically running a world simulation in my head. I don't think "I just said predicting, what's the next likely word to come after it". That's not even remotely similar to how I think at all.

Machine learning is still AI. Specifically, it's a subset of AI.

I thought this was an inciteful comment. Language is a kind of 'view' (in the model view controller sense) of intelligence. It signifies a thought or meme. But, language is imprecise and flawed. It's a poor representation since it can be misinterpreted or distorted. I wonder if language based AIs are inherently flawed, too.

Edit: grammar, ironically

Sorry, but you oversimplify a lot here, it hurts. Language can express and communicate human thought, sure, but human thought is more than language. Human thought includes emotions, experiences, abstract concepts, etc. that go beyond what can be expressed through language alone. LLMs are excellent at generating text, often more skilled than the average person, but training data and algorithms limit LLMs. They can lack nuances of context, tone, or intent. TL;DR.: Understanding language doesn't imply understanding human thought.

I'd love to know how you even came to your conclusion.

"Mastery of language is mastery of human thought." is easy to prove false.

The current batch of AIs is an excellent data point. These things are very good at language, and they still can't even count.

The average celebrity provides evidence that it is false. People who excel at science often suck at talking, and vice-versa.

We didn't talk our way to the moon.

Even when these LLMs master language, it's not evidence that they're doing any actual thinking, yet.

There's a difference between "this is AI that could be better!" and "this could one day turn into AI."

Everyone is calling their algorithms AI because it's a buzzword that trends well.

It usually also gets worse while it gets better.

But I take your point. This stuff will continue to advance.

But the important argument today isn't over what it can be, it's an attempt to clarify for confused people.

While the current LLMs are an important and exciting step, they're also largely just a math trick, and they are not a sign that thinking machines are almost here.

Some people are being fooled into thinking general artificial intelligence has already arrived.

If we give these unthinking LLMs human rights today, we expand orporate control over us all.

These LLMs can't yet take a useful ethical stand, and so we need to not rely on then that way, if we don't want things to go really badly.