Hacker News Reader

Comment by input_sh | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that the word "AI" is in the headline, which nowadays makes people auto-assume chatbots, even though literally the first three words below the headline are "Using machine learning, ..."

I feel sorry for the author, he didn't use the word "AI" once in these 3000+ words.

View on HN

Machine learning is part of the field of AI.

Blaming a word for the monkeypile is just silly.

You cannot find use of decision tree (aka "bunch of IFs") deduction and use in the current field of AI.

You can find use of neural networks training and inference in the current field of machine learning.

And crypto used to refer to cryptography, not cryptocurrencies. If you use the word crypto today, most people will auto-assume cryptocurrencies.

I completely agree with you that machine learning is a subset of AI, but if you just say AI, yes, it's not technically wrong, but we're gonna lose this battle again. AI is already just LLMs in most people's heads, as evidenced by this discussion.

AI is part of the machine learning field.

That is to say all AI is machine learning, but not all machine learning is AI. The fine line, as I understand it, is AI must be unsupervised and use weight matrices of some kind.

I suppose it's possible that's where the terms are heading, but it's exactly backwards. AI is a very broad and old term; at least historically it even included all search algorithms for example. There is definitely no requirement for either matrices or unsupervised learning.

Take an "Intro to AI" class at any of the top universities, and you're almost guaranteed to be using this textbook: https://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

Check out that table of contents. There's more to the field of AI than Machine Learning, even if neural networks are the current hot thing.

I think its more accurate to say there's a substantial and growing overlap between the two fields.

I think we should create lots of examples of mapping natural language statements into predicate calculus, or some similar formal language. Then add lots of symbolic deduction statements, perhaps generate tons of them. Then train a LLM with that.

Then AI should be able to handle both symbolic and "neural" reasoning?

Why do you feel sorry for the author? If he hadn't have put "AI" in the title, would it have led to a similar number of clicks/views?

Some people are more interested in communicating clearly and being understood than getting clicks.

You're assuming it was the author who made that decision.

Because the author probably didn’t write the headline, their editor did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com