>This is according to whom? Who was it that 'downgraded [AI] to "weak AI"'?
The "who" is all of us. _We_ all collectively watered-down "AI" based on how we _used_ "AI" in mainstream news articles and VC-backed startups or any company today throwing around the word "AI" associated with technology. I was making a descriptive and not prescriptive statement.
See that the gp complains that a "deep generative model neural net" is _not_ "AI". My point is that virtually all uses of naked "AI" is now understood to be examples of "weak AI". Therefore, making a meta-comment on every article that mentions "AI" (instead of "AGI") as "that's not really AI" ... has become superfluous.
Let's imagine if each of those stories was submitted to HN. Do we really need to make a meta-comment in each thread saying, "What they're doing is not really AI and I hate how the AI label is slapped on everything!" ?
We already know that Real Generalized Artificial Intelligence is not actually here (maybe not for decades) -- and yet -- people we don't control keep using the label "AI". Now what do we do? If one remembers they're talking about "weak AI" whenever they use the naked "AI" terminology, we just let it go and move on.
In other words, it's your personal opinion, correct? What you explain above are the reasons for which you hold this particular opinion, but it is still your opinion, yes?
No, it's not my opinion. I'm making factual statements of language evolution which doesn't care about my opinion. A bunch of other people we have no control over have already used "AI" the way it's being used now. I think you're trying to be combative and argumentative about the word "AI" and I don't know why.
I ask you to click on the google link for "YC-backed AI startup". What would be your definition of "AI" such that all those headlines can be interpreted correctly? How is everyone using that term? And when Amazon/Apple/Google/Microsoft announce that they have a new feature "AI assisted this or AI-powered that" ... what do they mean? This thread's article used the term "AI" and "AI system" to refer to DeepMind's GAN neural network. What did the author mean by "AI" in his text? Certainly not AGI. So what's left?
I don't see where I'm being combative, or argumentative?
I'm pointing out that it is your opinion that 'the label "AI" (naked with no
modifiers) has already been downgraded to "weak AI".' You explained why you
think so, but that's just ...why you think so. You're not some kind of authority
on how terms should be used and you have no reason to admonish the other user to
use it in the way you like.
Btw, note that I'm not interested in your disagreement with the OP about "weak"
vs. "strong" AI. As far as I'm concerned, you're both trying to apply what you
know from Science Fiction to the real world. The only thing that exists in the
real world today that's called "AI" by any authoritative source is the field of
research in artificial intelligence. It is common in the lay press to describe
systems created by AI researchers as "AI" or "AIs" and it's even more common to
refer to deep learning reserach synechdochically as "AI", or "machine learning",
but those are terminological mistakes that are to be expected from people
outside a field of research as varied and broad as AI. Researchers in the field,
of course, don't ever call their work "AI"! Well, not in published research at
least. I mean, that's a three-strong-reject offence. One'd be laughed out of the
field...
So I hope this clarifies the confusion and the motivation for my comment. You
have an opinion, strongly held, based on poor, irrelevant knowledge and you
forcefully support it. I thought, since I have a bit of knowledge in the matter,
I should set the record straight: That's just, like, your opinion, man.
>You're not some kind of authority on how terms should be used
Yes, I agree I'm not and I previously said, "I was making a descriptive and not prescriptive statement." If you're not familiar with descriptive-vs-prescriptive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
>to admonish the other user to use it in the way you like.
To be clear, I didn't admonish him. I thought he misunderstood how _others_ were (mis)using the "AI" term. I didn't disagree with the OP about "AI" and did not instruct him to use it differently.
>It is common in the lay press to describe systems created by AI researchers as "AI" or "AIs" and it's even more common to refer to deep learning reserach synechdochically as "AI", or "machine learning", but those are terminological mistakes that are to be expected
When you write, "It is common in the lay press to describe systems created ..." you just restated the same descriptive-vs-prescriptive explanation I did.
And yes! Others we don't control keep repeating "terminological mistakes" as you call it. That's my point and you're restating it in different words. I just happened to use the word "downgraded" instead of "terminological mistakes". Maybe there's a language barrier and it's that particular word that bothers you?
>Researchers in the field, of course, don't ever call their work "AI"!
Exactly! So now we must hold two contradictory facts (not opinions) in our head:
(1) academic researchers don't call their work "AI"
So the reality is that we still have 2 billion pages using "AI" that didn't obey any authority such as academic researchers telling them how to use it. Now what? I guess we can complain, "I wish 2 billion webpages didn't slap "AI" on everything!"
Has that changed anything? Was that complaint about others' language (mis)usage productive to the discussion? In my opinion, I don't think so.
As analogy, if you insist that peanuts/cashews/almonds correct definition is "legumes" and not "nuts" -- you still have to simultaneously hold another contradictory definition in your head to understand that others are still referring to those as "nuts". Descriptive-vs-Prescriptive.
EDIT reply to: >"So we agree that 'the label "AI" (naked with no modifiers) has already been downgraded to "weak AI"' is just your opinion, correct?"
You're playing argument games trying to trap me in "my opinion" instead of noticing that you said the same thing I did. No it's not my opinion; it's a factual observation of what people are doing. It's also not my opinion that you explained what the world does as "terminological mistakes" -- a factual observation -- which was a restatement of what I already said. This means we're going around in circles.
In any case, I would like to ask you why you think academic researchers in AI field don't call their work "AI"?
The "who" is all of us. _We_ all collectively watered-down "AI" based on how we _used_ "AI" in mainstream news articles and VC-backed startups or any company today throwing around the word "AI" associated with technology. I was making a descriptive and not prescriptive statement.
See that the gp complains that a "deep generative model neural net" is _not_ "AI". My point is that virtually all uses of naked "AI" is now understood to be examples of "weak AI". Therefore, making a meta-comment on every article that mentions "AI" (instead of "AGI") as "that's not really AI" ... has become superfluous.
Consider the phrase "YC-backed AI startup": https://www.google.com/search?q=yc-backed+%22ai+startup%22
Let's imagine if each of those stories was submitted to HN. Do we really need to make a meta-comment in each thread saying, "What they're doing is not really AI and I hate how the AI label is slapped on everything!" ?
We already know that Real Generalized Artificial Intelligence is not actually here (maybe not for decades) -- and yet -- people we don't control keep using the label "AI". Now what do we do? If one remembers they're talking about "weak AI" whenever they use the naked "AI" terminology, we just let it go and move on.