AI doesn’t have to be probabilistic, a classical computer science definition of AI states that it has to be an actor that reacts to some percepts according to some policy
yes we could definitely say that a calculator, technically, is an AI. but we usually don’t think of the calculator as an agent, and it doesn’t really make any decisions, as it just displays the result when prompted
That’s my point. These random definitions of AI that have been come up with by the most pedantic people in existence are not in any way helpful. We should ignore them.
They seek to redefine AI as basically anything that a computer does. This is entirely unhealthful and is only happening because they need to be right on the internet.
These irritating idiots need to go away for they serve no purpose.
but that’s not a redefinition, it was originally defined that way, like back in the 60s, by the people who started this field of research. I think a calculator is a bit of an absurd example, but an NPC that pathfinds towards the player to attack them is still AI, no matter how you look at it
People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define AI as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.
AI doesn’t have to be probabilistic, a classical computer science definition of AI states that it has to be an actor that reacts to some percepts according to some policy
By that definition a calculator is AI.
yes we could definitely say that a calculator, technically, is an AI. but we usually don’t think of the calculator as an agent, and it doesn’t really make any decisions, as it just displays the result when prompted
That’s my point. These random definitions of AI that have been come up with by the most pedantic people in existence are not in any way helpful. We should ignore them.
They seek to redefine AI as basically anything that a computer does. This is entirely unhealthful and is only happening because they need to be right on the internet.
These irritating idiots need to go away for they serve no purpose.
but that’s not a redefinition, it was originally defined that way, like back in the 60s, by the people who started this field of research. I think a calculator is a bit of an absurd example, but an NPC that pathfinds towards the player to attack them is still AI, no matter how you look at it
People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define AI as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.