That’s a weak argument without substance. “No, you!” is not exactly a good counter.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).
That’s a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent. The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.
I’m sorry, but that’s the worst possible conclusion you can get from that paragraph.
Again, think your argument to the end. What would not fall under AI in your world? If A* counts, then literally everything with a simple ‘if’ statement would also count. That’s delusional.
Do actually read the article and the articles linked. Are you really, really implying that a simple math equation, that can be solved by a handful transistors and capacitors if need be, is doing something “typically associated with human intelligence”? Really?
And you’d argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence.
Extend your logic a bit. Playing an instrument requires intelligence. Is a drum computer intelligent? A mechanical music box?
Yes, the definition of intelligence is vague, but that doesn’t mean you can extend it indefinitely.
To a certain extent, yes.
ChatGPT was never explicitly trained to produce code or translate text, but it can do it. Not super good, but it manages some reasonable output most of the time.
No, it does not.
A deterministic, narrow algorithm that solves exactly one problem is not an AI. Otherwise Pythagoras would count as AI, or any other mathematical formula for that matter.
Intelligence, even in terms of AI, means being able to solve new problems. An autopilot can’t do anything else than piloting a specific aircraft - and that’s a good thing.
If that’s what you actually intended to type, you might have a stroke.
A finely refined model based on an actual understanding of physics and not a glorified Markov chain.
Actually watch the video, you’re way too generous in your analysis.
The metric is essentially lines of code. That’s it.
So everyone who isn’t hacking away ultra verbose code is considered useless. Lead devs and architects often don’t write any code at all. They’re not unproductive.
I use Karch, btw.
Or at least reasonable.
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
No, I’m saying you’re wrong in your understanding of Wikipedia.
Also, I did not miss anything out, your self defined definition is simply so broad that it’s meaningless. Again, what is not AI following your definition? An if statement does not mimic intelligence, especially not human intelligence.