Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news-vm.kithrup.com!kithrup.com!djheydt
From: djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Subject: Re: AI isn't
Message-ID: <sLCtG2.1vJ5@kithrup.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:21:38 GMT
References: <lomggjdgr9uo147ijjh6kr3bhikg6hgfis@4ax.com> <vea3a7$3c88g$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org> <vea9el$hvu$1@reader1.panix.com> <vei8di$12ono$1@dont-email.me>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 1443
Lines: 20

In article <vei8di$12ono$1@dont-email.me>,
Mike Van Pelt  <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>In article <vea9el$hvu$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Am I the only one here who is annoyed by the use of "AI" to mean
>>anything other than human-level (or better) machine intelligence?
>
>(raises hand)
>
>I'd settle for 70-ish IQ intelligence.
>
>What the marketroids are pleased to call "Artificial
>Intelligence" is not intelligence of any kind, just pattern
>matching.  (With amusing results where it breaks down
>and includes nonexistent scientific references or legal
>citations.) I've been lobbying for everyone to call it
>"Simulated Intelligence", but not gotten much traction.

[Hal Heydt]
Dorothy's--and my--usual snark about anything claiming the be
"AI" is that it was mostly "A" and very little "I".