Inspired by a recent talk from Richard Stallman.
From Slashdot:
Speaking about AI, Stallman warned that “nowadays, people often use the term artificial intelligence for things that aren’t intelligent at all…” He makes a point of calling large language models “generators” because “They generate text and they don’t understand really what that text means.” (And they also make mistakes “without batting a virtual eyelash. So you can’t trust anything that they generate.”) Stallman says “Every time you call them AI, you are endorsing the claim that they are intelligent and they’re not. So let’s let’s refuse to do that.”
Sometimes I think that even though we are in a “FuckAI” community, we’re still helping the “AI” companies by tacitly agreeing that their LLMs and image generators are in fact “AI” when they’re not. It’s similar to how the people saying “AI will destroy humanity” give an outsized aura to LLMs that they don’t deserve.
Personally I like the term “generators” and will make an effort to use it, but I’m curious to hear everyone else’s thoughts.
No
Exhibit A people are beginning to describe empty, hollow mass produced corporate slop as AI, it has become an adjective to describe worthless trash and I love it.
I like calling them “Bullshit Generators”, because that’s what they actually are.
I like calling them regurgitative idiots, or artificial idiots, though really anything that makes fun of them works
Yes we say Fuck AI, but when we see it in the wild we call it slop, bot, clanker, or vibe coded, etc.
And starting splitting hairs about naming is very geeky but it doesn’t help, as 90% of people have very little concept about what AI or LLM’s are in the first place.
90% of people have very little concept about what AI or LLM’s are in the first place.
Yeah I mean I agree, I think that’s why there needs to be a term that describes them.
The term “Artificial Intelligence” has historically been used by computer scientists to refer to any “decision making” program of any complexity, even something extremely simple, like solving a maze by following the left wall.
I like LLMbeciles myself.
AI has a very broad definition. Their products are AI.
Well, according to the broad definition, a Google search or recommendation systems like those on Netflix or Instagram would also be considered AI. And we don’t call them that, but rather by their proper name.
And language shouldn’t be underestimated. It has a profound impact on our thinking, feeling, and actions. Many people associate AI with intelligence and “human thinking”. That alone is enough to mislead many, because the usefulness of the technology in a given application is no longer questioned. After all, it’s “intelligent”. However, when “LLM” is used, a lot more people wouldn’t grant it intelligence or one might be more inclined to ask whether a language model, for example in Excel, is truly useful. After all, that’s exactly what it is: a model of our language. Not more, not less.a Google search or recommendation systems like those on Netflix or Instagram would also be considered AI
Yes, correct.
Why would any honest person agree to promote this kind of garbage disinformation? There is nothing “intelligent” about a search engine or any other computer program. These lies are a huge part of the problem.
Just because a lie has become a “definition” to some people that doesn’t make it the truth.
It is not a lie but a widely accepted and agreed on definition that precedes LLMs by years, and had been created by people way smarter then you and I combined, and who have spent more time in AI research than most people here.
An LLM is an ANI (artificial narrow intelligence), and any ANI is an AI, the broader term for any artificial intelligence. An ANI operates not on intelligence as a human intelligence, its intelligence is a set of rules. A search engine algorithm is a set of rules. Your phone’s keyboard is a set of rules. T9 typing on your old Nokia is a set of rules and can be classified as an ANI. An LLM has rules how it spits out the next token.
There is no universal definition of AI, because we would need to have a universal definition of human intelligence for that first. Since there is no single universal definition, it’s free for you to disagree on that definition. But calling it disinformation, that no computer program is intelligent, or a lie is simply wrong.
Nah, it is just correct.
search engines are definitely more intelligent than the video game AI i have seen
And we don’t call them that
i have seen people do
Well said! Echos my feelings exactly.
But even so- surely you don’t believe that Generative AI programs and Hal 9000 are functionally identical? I just think it would be helpful to have a word that doesn’t lump those things together.
AI has a very broad definition.
Even more so… It has no definition. It’s fake. It’s a phony term used by grifters. It’s not helpful at all to encourage them and participate.
Nah, words actually don’t stop having definitions just because you are upset about them, and LLMs do appropriately fall within its real definition.
Perhaps educate yourself before commenting on things you do not understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence The problem here is that you have confused AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) with AI (Artificial Intelligence).
someone said to call it “computer rendered anonymized plagiarism” so i have that in my clipboard.
A little cumbersome but gets the job done lol
Just call it by its acronym, CRAP.
“AI” was around way before LLMs, and they were used for good stuff, like discovering new proteins and amino acids among many other specialized uses.
I would say there are different categories of AI and I disagree with the statement that LLMs are not AI.
All LLMs are AI, but not all AI are LLMs.
LLMs are trash.
What’s a problem, make people realise how stupid this artifical intelligence is.
This is why I call chatbots “LLMs” and refer to image and video generators as “slop generators”. It isn’t AI, a software can’t be intelligent.
That’s what I do, too. I’ve also taken to call the “bubble” a scam, because that’s what it really is.
I disagree with this post and with Stallman.
LLMs are AI. What people are actually confused about is what AI is and what the difference between AI and AGI is.
There is no universal definition for AI, but multiple definitions which are mostly very similar: AI is the ability of a software system to perform tasks that typically would involve human intelligence like learning, problem solving, decision making, etc. Since the basic idea is basically that artificial intelligence imitates human intelligence, we would need a universal definition of human intelligence - which we don’t have.
Since this definition is rather broad, there is an additional classification: ANI, artificial narrow intelligence, or weak AI, is an intelligence inferior to human intelligence, which operates purely rule-based and for specific, narrow use cases. This is what LLMs, self-driving cars, assistants like Siri or Alexa fall into. AGI, artificial general intelligence, or strong AI, is an intelligence equal to or comparable to human intelligence, which operates autonomously, based on its perception and knowledge. It can transfer past knowledge to new situations, and learn. It’s a theoretical construct, that we have not achieved yet, and no one knows when or if we will even achieve that, and unfortunately also one of the first things people think about when AI is mentioned. ASI, artificial super intelligence, is basically an AGI but with an intelligence that is superior to a human in all aspects. It’s basically the apex predator of all AI, it’s better, smarter, faster in anything than a human could ever be. Even more theoretical.
Saying LLMs are not AI is plain wrong, and if our goal is a realistic, proper way of working with AI, we shouldn’t be doing the same as the tech bros.
If I’m reading correctly it sounds like you do agree with Stallman’s main point that a casual distinction is needed, you just disagree on the word itself (“ANI” vs “generator”).
No, I think the distinction is already made and there are words for that. Adding additional terms like “generators” or “pretend intelligence” does not help in creating clarity. In my opinion, the current definitions/classifications are enough. I get Stallman’s point, and his definition of intelligence seems to be different from how I would define intelligence, which is probably the main disagreement.
I definitely would call a LLM intelligent. Even though it does not understand the context like a human could do, it is intelligent enough to create an answer that is correct. Doing this by basically pure stochastics is pretty intelligent in my books. My car’s driving assistant, even if it’s not fully self driving, is pretty damn intelligent and understands the situation I’m in, adapting speed, understanding signs, reacting to what other drivers do. I definitely would call that intelligent. Is it human-like intelligence? Absolutely not. But for this specific, narrow use-case it does work pretty damn good.
His main point seems to be breaking the hype, but I do not think that it will or can be achieved like that. This will not convince the tech bros or investors. People who are simply uninformed, will not understand an even more abstract concept.
In my opinion, we should educate people more on where the hype is actually coming from: NVIDIA. Personally, I hate Jensen Huang, but he’s been doing a terrific job as a CEO for NVIDIA, unfortunately. They’ve positioned themselves as a hardware supplier and infrastructure layer for the core component for AI, and are investing/partnering widely into AI providers, hyperscalers, other component suppliers in a circle of cashflow. Any investment they do, they get back multiplied, which also boosts all other related entities. The only thing that went “10x” as promised by AI is NVIDIA stock. They are bringing capex to a whole new level currently.
And that’s what we should be discussing more, instead of clinging to words. Every word that any company claims about AI should automatically be assumed to be a lie, especially for any AI claim from any hyperscaler, AI provider, hardware supplier, and especially-especially from NVIDIA. Every single claim they do directly relates to revenue. Every positive claim is revenue. Every negative word is loss. In this circle of money they are running - we’re talking about thousands of billions USD. People have done way worse, for way less money.
Can you share the prompt you gave to ChatGPT to get this, I have questions and I want to cut out the middle man.
Feel free to ask your questions, I’ll gladly answer them. Before making stupid and smug claims, maybe you should’ve ran my post through literally any AI text detector before embarrassing yourself.
Speaking about AI, Stallman warned that “nowadays, people often use the term artificial intelligence for things that aren’t intelligent at all…”
Ah… Something just dawned on me.
Didn’t he … I think I’ll just quote Wackypedia for this:
In 1971, near the end of his first year at Harvard, he became a programmer at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory …
In 1971 there was nothing that was intelligent at all in the world of computing. (And, as is normal, in 99.44% of humanity. This is a constant. 😉) It’s almost as if the term “Artificial Intelligence” has never meant, you know, actual intelligence. And it goes on:
He pursued a doctorate in physics for one year, but left the program to focus on his programming at the MIT AI Laboratory.
[…] in September 1983. Since then, he had remained affiliated with MIT as an unpaid “visiting scientist” in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Until “around 1998”, he maintained an office at the Institute that doubled as his legal residence.
That’s an awful lot of “not intelligent at all” places he’s worked for or been affiliated with that use the term artificial intelligence…
Yeah “AI” was always a marketing term to drum up grant money and investor interest.
It was always and only meant to trick people into thinking that it meant “actual intelligence”
Standard disclaimer: I do not want to grow up to be like Stallman.
That said, every time I have thought that Stallman was too pedantic about terminology and the risks involved, I have been wrong, so far.
He’s a good barometer to check in with and guage how far we’ve strayed from a lot of the idealism of the 1980s. Someone has to keep the flame alive.
Ive started solely referring to them as LLM
“Slop Constructors” is what I call them. It’s good to remember that calling them “AI” helps with the fake hype.
I like slop constructors lol
