I’m not arguing that LLMs are not AI. The problem is that “AI” itself is a nonsense term. It’s been around since forever and used to describe a whole plethora of different behaviours.
My point is that to the average user of Gemini or ChatGPT, LLMs are like AGI. Whereas they’re actually more closer to intellisense or text-completions.
And this is where the problem lies. People will read the output of LLMs and think it has read content on the topic (which is correct) and then deduced an answer (which is technically incorrect).
It also doesn’t help that OpenAI keep using terms like “reasoning” which sounds a lot like general intelligence. But it’s actually just a bunch of scales based on words.
AI doesn’t understand any of the core concepts it is reasoning about. So its reasoning is akin to asking a Hollywood script writer to throw a bunch of medical terms together for a new medical drama. Sure the words might be correct on their own, but that doesn’t mean the sentences are correct. And any subject matter expert who watches a drama that features their specialist subject will tell you that there’s more to understanding a subject than simply knowing the words.
over the last year, i’ve mentally split the two separate concepts like so
* ML - actual backend models etc
* AI - user interface that appears “intelligent” to humans
LLMs UIs tend to have more appearance of intelligence because their interface is natural language — it’s basically the Eliza Effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
i know it’s not the classic definition of the terms, but it’s helped me with my frustration around the bs marketing hype
