I get why marketing calls machine learning “AI”. I don’t get why engineers would think this is.
Dumb.
Dumb.
This claim that "AI" only means artificial general / human-equivalent intelligence completely ignores the long history of how that term has been used, by computer science researchers, for the last 70-odd years, to include everything from Shannon's maze-solving algorithms, to Prolog-y systems, to simple reinforcement learning, and so on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070103222615/http://www.engagi...
It's true that there has been linguistic drift in the direction of the definition getting narrower (to the point where it's a joke that some people use 'AI' to mean whatever computers can't do _yet_). And you can have reasons to prefer your own very-narrow definition. But claiming that your own definition is the only valid one to the point that anyone using a wider definition (one that has a long etymological history, and which remains in widespread use) are "dumb" is... not how language works.
The clever OpenAI marketing hype squad on HN and Twitter know that they are re-selling a snake oil contraption. This 'thing' completely needs assistance from a human since it is producing insecure code, code that is also copyrighted and most of the times garbage from other sources, which is again totally dangerous.
Just look at this [0] Do a simple 'typo' in the signature and the whole implementation is wrong.
I have to say that OpenAI, GitHub and Microsoft are very clever in selling this scam to engineers who use the code produced by this contraption as 'safe to use' in their projects; especially since GPT-3 still cannot explain why it is generating the code its generating, or if the code is under a license that is non-commercial or under a restrictive licence.
No thanks and most certainly no deal.