Without even touching how every other thing you said is wrong (esp. about it being accurate), how is "algorithm" more descriptive than "artificial intelligence"?
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm
>: a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation
>broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end
Right. AI is artificial intelligence. But that's irrelevant; you're answering a question I (explicitly) didn't ask, and not the question I did ask. How is "algorithm" a more descriptive term (your words) than "artificial intelligence"?
> 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm
Do you have a point here? Whatever you think it is, you're not making it—you're making my case. Social media companies' "algorithms" aren't algorithms.
AI is artificial intelligence, "AI" is artificial but it's not intelligence.
ChatGPT, Gemini, Stable Diffusion, LLAMA, et al. are not AI, they are "AI".
>Do you have a point here? ... Social media companies' "algorithms" aren't algorithms.
Social media run on servers, servers run software, software is quite literally "a procedure for solving a mathematical problem in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation" and "a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end"
Please come back when you at least have a basic understanding of how computers work.
> AI is artificial intelligence, "AI" is artificial but it's not intelligence.
And artificial tears aren't tears. Likewise with artificial vanilla, artificial plants, etc. Which is beside the point—because you have yet again attempted to provide a (crummy) response to the question I didn't ask and avoided answering the one I actually did ask.
Please come back when you can demonstrate that you can carry on a conversation without this type of rhetorically dishonest, empty, pigeon-shitting-on-the-chessboard condescending bluster. (And maybe take a course on the theory of computation and the fundamentals of computer science in the meantime.)
K, thanks for the review. It was neither necessary, informative, nor otherwise a response to anything that I asked.
You can make as many bare assertions about being right about the accuracy question as you want. No amount of them is going to transmute these sorts of replies into one that can't be plainly identified as avoiding the question I did ask, but you can keep trying if you want.
>Let's stop with the abuse of the word "algorithm".
I pointed out that it's not an abuse.
If that is not the question you asked, then sincerely: What the fuck did you ask?
That's not a question. For someone with such strong feedback in a discussion about words and their meanings, you sure have a lot of difficulty actually working with them, huh?
* * *
In one double-barreled remark, you managed to pack in four claims—three explicit, and one implicit. The three explicit ones being that, in comparison to "artificial intelligence", "algorithm" is:
- "more accurate"
- "more descriptive"
- a "better"(?) word choice.
Ignoring the dumb false dichotomy that you pulled out of thin air and the ahistoricity of the other claim about "AI" succeeding "algorithm" when it comes to social media, I have repeatedly asked you to defend the second claim. You insist on doing anything but that—mainly by focusing on the first (and then reverting to posting low-effort, overconfident insults like, "Please come back when you at least have a basic understanding of how computers work").
> Without even touching how every other thing you said is wrong (esp. about it being accurate), how is "algorithm" more descriptive than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40235433>
> you're answering a question I (explicitly) didn't ask, and not the question I did ask. How is "algorithm" a more descriptive term (your words) than "artificial intelligence"? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242056>