• thinkingofyouihaveananxietydisorder@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    no. no because in video games it was understood that the “ai: very hard” was not actually ai, it was computer player. it did actually use some very early research in the field, but it was not ai and even at age ten I knew that. ai would not have so many dumb pathing problems. nobody was trying to tell me the AI from unreal:tournament or starcraft: brood war had feelings or was going to conquer the world, so clarification was not required.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      but it was not ai

      It’s as much AI as when they made the chess computer that beat Kasparov, it’s just not a very sophisticated AI.

      • thinkingofyouihaveananxietydisorder@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        its not ai. its not on the cutting edge of the field of researching ai. its not progress. it does not get us closer. it does not tell us anything about ourselves or information science we didn’t learn from satoshi nakamoto or Adolph Hitler years earlier.

        • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          If we fix the name, it will not change what it does, and it probably won’t fix how people use and feel about it. “Really Good Guessing Machine” is less marketable than “Artificial Intelligence”, and much closer to the truth, but CEOs would be willing to take credit for laying off 20% of their workforce because they have RGGM now.

          Maybe “Predictive Token Gamble”, to convey that all it does is predict tokens, and each output, each use case, and the entire industry as a whole is a gamble… “PTG reduced our human capital expenditure by 20%” still goes a long way, though.