I know there’s a significant anti-AI presence here. I’m not promoting it. I found it interesting to read how it was used, it’s strengths and limitations.
I know there’s a significant anti-AI presence here. I’m not promoting it. I found it interesting to read how it was used, it’s strengths and limitations.
In pop culture, perhaps.
I would say more the opposite, in pop culture, LLM == AI. In the technical world, both in university and industry, AI has covered a lot of areas, and machine vision based on ML was absolutely under the category of AI. If you said you used pytorch to train an AI model no one in the industry or academia would have batted an eye.
No, not at all. AI has always meant more than just ML or any subset. Crack Russell and Norvig’s book. Yes, it was written from an intelligent agent perspective, but absolutely not limited to any form of ML.
You go to the major AI conferences—AAAI or IJCAI, perhaps, and you will find a wide assortment of studies that have nothing to do with machine learning. Logic foundations of AI? Knowledge representation/reasoning? Decision-theoretic planning? NLP? AI has a ton of relevant subfields, and entire conferences that have nothing to do with ML.
Hell, for years at major conferences we’ve seen live contests in areas like SAT solving and game playing (based on planning not matchine learning).
I’ve spent my entire career studying artificial intelligence, and very little of it would be classified as machine learning.
Ok, so you weren’t countering that ML wasn’t AI, just contending that ML wasn’t “the” AI in the AI field, that’s fine. Keep in mind this thread kicked off from an assertion that ML wasn’t AI. Fine, ML wasn’t all of AI, but definitely was AI and in the popular understanding, it was pretty much “the” AI in the same way LLM is “the” AI now.
Which circles us back around to my original “pop culture” claim.