Having discussions about what is "AI" without first defining it explicitly is usually a fruitless effort.
Eventually someone will claim the goal posts are being moved and they will probably be right because there were never any to start with.
Eventually someone will claim the goal posts are being moved and they will probably be right because there were never any to start with.
Oh nonsense. AI: Artificial Intelligence.
Artifical - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
ChatGPT is certainly artificial, but it lacks the ability to apply knowledge and skills. It will do it, KIND OF, on the knowledge front, if you ASK it to, but we wouldn't call a car that moves when the accelerator is pressed a creature, nor would we call google intelligent because it can respond to queries when prompted. It's a machine. Firmly in the realm of a machine that responds to input from other actors to accomplish a task presented it.
You can leave a ChatGPT instance running for a thousand years and it will never do anything until prompted. That's not intelligence.
There's simply no debate here to be had. It's a CLEVER machine, and it does things a lot of previous machines could not, but a machine it remains nonetheless.
Hell, ELIZA still beat ChatGPT 3.5 in terms of % of people that believed they were interacting with a human in a recent study! [1] Notice that we only properly identified humans about 60% of the time too.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/real-...
That's what I mean by autonomous.
I do not see how this requirement you have stated is an inherent property of how you have defined "artificial" or "intelligence". I think what you have described fits more with the traditional depiction of AI, but I don't agree that it is inherent.
Which I why I agree with the person you responded to: I think there is no consensus view on what is and isn't AI because people seem to have different tests, weights, etc. in their mind for what "counts". I think it's a bit of a pointless exercise, but a mildly interesting one at least.
Because we've had software since the inception of computers that only does things as it's told and when it's told, and that's called... software, programs, apps, etc. Intelligence belies something entirely different in the minds of laypeople and many tech people alike. To assert otherwise is to upend an entire understood element of our shared culture for the purposes of marketing. It's ridiculous.