You have a point with most of the things you said, it’s mostly a matter of perspective and how you define stuff. the only thing I really fundamentally disagree with is equating AI to AGI.
Why do you disagree with that? No, that’s a stupid question. How do you disagree with that? Can you elaborate your point?
AI refers to lots of things, including image recognition or generation models. AGI only refers to artificial general intelligence, aka the kind of AI you would see in science fiction movies. we have ai, we don’t have AGI
Yeah, I see how this looks. I was trying to comment about how for some people an AI (as in LLM) seems like a real person (or something different, but sentient), so I was reducing the category “AI” to LLMs.
AI is also, as you said, used for ie pathfinding algorithms in games. I never liked the word “AI” for that. But I came to terms with it as the AI got more sophisticated and rounded, making the figurines in games appear more natural in their behaviour. Also I don’t have a better word for it.
I used AGI because that is the only subpath of AI that I can consider having a chance of being/becoming sentient. That’s why I went into that direction, to oppose LLMs, despite LLMs being perceived by some as being sentient.
So yeah, the categorization was a bit off to drive home a point. I didn’t realize you wanted to discuss semantics (I know this sounds sarcastic, but I also tend to correct people on semantics if I can, therefore I don’t intend to be sarcastic.)
