It’s more specific, sure, but there’s nothing dishonest about using the same terminology that has been used for almost 100 years.
The disconnect is that average people have a different understanding of the term than is used in computer science, probably because of sci-fi films and whatnot. When I hear “AI,” I think of the CS term, because that’s my background, but when my family hears “AI,” they think of androids and whatnot like in Bicentennial Man.
I don’t know how to square that circle. Neither group here is wrong, but classifying something like ChatGPT as “AI,” while correct, is misinterpreted by the public, who assume it’s doing more than it is.
It’s more specific, sure, but there’s nothing dishonest about using the same terminology that has been used for almost 100 years.
The disconnect is that average people have a different understanding of the term than is used in computer science, probably because of sci-fi films and whatnot. When I hear “AI,” I think of the CS term, because that’s my background, but when my family hears “AI,” they think of androids and whatnot like in Bicentennial Man.
I don’t know how to square that circle. Neither group here is wrong, but classifying something like ChatGPT as “AI,” while correct, is misinterpreted by the public, who assume it’s doing more than it is.