My favorite is when someone tells me that they are too old to learn about new technology, or that they can’t use a device because they aren’t very tech-y. No, you just refuse to learn.
My favorite is when someone tells me that they are too old to learn about new technology, or that they can’t use a device because they aren’t very tech-y. No, you just refuse to learn.
LLMs are AI—always have been. The term “artificial intelligence” has always been broad in computer science: it covers anything that performs a cognitive task normally requiring human intelligence. A chess engine from 1999 is AI. A spam filter is AI. An LLM is AI. Narrow AI, sure, but still AI.
The confusion comes from people equating “AI” with sci-fi AGI (human-level general intelligence, HAL/JARVIS/Skynet/etc.). That’s a specific subset, not the whole category. When companies say “AI-powered” they’re not claiming AGI—they’re saying the product uses machine learning or pattern recognition in some way. Marketing inflates the language, yes, but the underlying tech is real and fits the definition.
If/when we reach actual AGI, it will be a civilization-level shift—far beyond today’s spell-checker-that-sometimes-hallucinates. People will look back and say “we had AI for years,” but they’ll mean narrow tools, not the thing that can invent new science or run a company autonomously. The goalposts aren’t moving; the hype is just using the broad term loosely.
On the contrary, it’s not “AI” unless it’s a fuckton of hand-programmed
ifstatements. I dunno what this newfangled “neural network” shit is, but it’s way too brain-like to be AI! \s