glassounds

They're using the current common terminology for the phenomenon, which does not have the roots you claimed it has.

I can promise you that "the ADL and Israel and the Zionist institutions" are not the only ones using the term "antisemitism". I'd personally prefer that it'd be called anti Jewish racism.

[flagged]

Regardless of whether a group of politicians use it maliciously or not - Antisemitism exists and happens all the time. It has not "lost its value", and if it has then so has western society.

The word has never, in its history, been used for anything other than racism against Jews. There are Semitic languages, not people.

> Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert (in an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is an obsolete historical race concept. Likewise, such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879 as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'), and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone

> I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?

I mistook you for another commenter.

What's your end goal here? You're welcome to share your own definition of AI but this feels like sealioning. I think I've been clear enough, if I haven't this comment thread will just have to live without another ultra clarification of my "off the top of my head" comment.

By the way artificial diamonds and synthetic diamonds are the exact same thing:

> A synthetic diamond or laboratory-grown diamond (LGD), also called a lab-grown diamond, laboratory-created, man-made, artisan-created, artificial, synthetic, or cultured diamond.

Artificial also means non natural, not necessarily a mock or something that behaves like something else:

> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural

> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

Artificial is an adjective here, as in a type of intelligence that is artificial. It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.

You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't". That's not what I think people mean when they refer to AI in this context.

If e.g. humans are living in a simulation then it's completely fair to say they're AIs. If humans are a product of nature then they're not.

In your opinion do people mean the same thing when discussing enemy AI in a game engine and LLMs / AGI?

It's not measurable externally perhaps if the mechanism sufficiently mimics intelligence, but I'd argue that to do that the mechanism actually needs to answer at least some of the criteria above. It's also not necessarily something you can't measure depending on how the AI is built and what it exposes.

Are bees intelligent or do we use the same language in this case as "intelligent design", i.e. the behavior is complex and impressive?

Also this murkier for animals since they do possess some of the traits I mentioned like learning.

Although as I said this was off the top of my head, not an official definition.

I don't understand the question, the comment above asked for a possible definition of an artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence is an intelligence. I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given

Edit: why would I not be trying to answer the question?

My point is that when people say AGI they don't mean a super sophisticated version of a game engine's enemy behavioral mechanics.

Sci-fi is many times a speculative guess about the possible future of technology, IMO its not completely irrelevant as an insight into what people mean or expect when they say certain things about future tech.

I've touched on that in this and another comment, but my main point is that intelligence involves actual understanding rather than association or statistical analysis between input and output. Anything that we define as truly intelligent in nature also has a degree of consciousness though, so it's hard to separate the two completely when speculating.

You've made that point three times now, I understand your disagreement and have addressed it

See my comment above to the original statement

That's not the usage I'm familiar with, e.g. sci-fi novels will frequently use AI for actually intelligent and possibly sentient beings that just aren't biological (see Skippy in Expeditionary Force), the intelligence isn't usually a party trick or something that just looks like intelligence. While it's true that people use "AI" to describe e.g. enemy behavior in games, I don't think people fundamentally mean the same thing when they discuss AI in the context of AGI, which some people fully believe LLMs will become.

The term is fuzzy though and people mean different things by it.

Although your analogy does make sense, but I've never run into "synthetic intelligence" used as a term.

While I agree with the sentiment (this was the case for machine learning before as well), calling it autocomplete is probably an overcorrection since its usefulness as a tool extends beyond that (e.g. summarizing). LLM bubble?

I've touched on this in the sibling comment but this does raise the question of what's the difference between an artificial intelligence and an artificial sentience / consciousness. There's some overlap in our current perception, but I'd argue that LLMs are neither.

I'd argue that LLMs don't have intelligence, they have the ability to match a correct response to a prompt but that's not a product of any internal process that's like what we call intelligence (unless that's used to refer to smart programming / probabilistic models / machine learning).

Parrots are closer but I used them for the example since they also mimic instead of understand.

I'm sure a better philosophical definition exists but off the top of my head:

An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively*, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted**.

Some emotion isn't strictly a requirement but likely a desirable quality for human interaction.

* "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and "I am a Strange Loop" are meant to cover this but I've only started the latter

** A sci-fi book series called Old Man's War features a race of aliens that are intelligent but not sentient due to not having an internal thought process and self awareness, which does raise the question of whether it's possible to have one without the other.

That's part of the problem though: It's not an intelligence, artificial or otherwise, yet we still call it "AI", giving people the impression that LLMs are almost AGI or a step on the way while a true artificial intelligence would be a completely different animal.

A parrot can produce human sounding speech and associate certain prompts with desired responses, but there's no internal process that actually understands the meaning of either the prompt or the response (other than a shallow connection of sounds to a specific thing, rather than understanding human language). You'll never be able to train a parrot well enough to have that process in the same way a human does. Our current terminology would be like calling parrots "artificial humans".

LLMs are still great tools for various tasks, they just shouldn't be categorized as AI.

Zellij perhaps?

privacytools.io is also a good source

Babel doesn't necessarily need to transpile all the way to ES5, you can specify targets. It's a useful tool for using newer features even without supporting IE

Not saying this is "bad", but why not use a module for that?

https://birdeatsbug.com is great for that kind of thing