The way to tell so often seems to be if someone has called it AI or Machine Learning.

AI? "I put this through chatgpt" (or "The media department has us by the balls")

ML? "I crunched a huge amount of data in a huge amount of ways, and found something interesting"

omg what is even the point of scientific progress and the advancement of human knowledge unless one specific person gets all the glory. What is science even for if not the validation of some human's individual ego.

Agreed. Which is why we should call it Machine Learning (or Data Science) and continue to torch OpenAI until it is no more.

'AI hate' is usually connected with insane claims like 'we have "reasoning" model'.

That shit needs to die in fire.

I'm still waiting for the full-planet weather model. That will be something.

Generative AI is really causing a negative association with AI in general to the point where a proper rebranding is probably in order.

You sir or madam give me hope that there are still reasonable people on the internet. Well written.

Wait, are you an AI bot defending itself...?

The problem with AI isn't the tech itself. It's what capitalism is doing with it. Alongside what you say, using AI to achieve fully automated luxury gay space communism would be wonderful.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to everything that's happened since the industrial revolution but that's not how it's going to work

Had me in the first half, not gonna lie

I don't get the ai hate sentiment.

I don't get what's not to get. AI is a heap of bullshit that's piled on top of a decade of cryptobros.

it's not even impressive enough to make a positive world impact in the 2-3 years it's been publicly available.

shit is going to crash and burn like web3.

I've seen people put full on contracts that are behind NDAs through a public content trained AI.

I've seen developers use cuck-pilot for a year and "never" code again... until the PR is sent back over and over and over again and they have to rewrite it.

I've seen the AI news about new chemicals, new science, new _fill-in-the-blank and it all be PR bullshit.

so yeah, I don't believe AI is our savior. can it make some convincing porn? sure. can it do my taxes? probably not.

I would love AI. Still waiting for it. Probably 50 years away (if human society lasts that long).

What I hate is the term being yet another scientific term to get stolen and watered down by brainless capitalists so they can scam money out of other brainless capitalists.

they will automate all menial jobs, fire %90 of the workers and ask remaining %10 to oversee the AI automated tasks while also doing all other tasks which can not be automated. all so that shareholders can add some more billions on top of their existing stack of billions.

Its more like intelligience is very poorly defined so a less controversial statement is that Artificial General Intelligience doesn't exist.

Also Generative AI such as LLMs are very very far from it, and machine learning in general haven't yielded much result in the persuit of sophonce and sapience.

Although they technically can pass a turing test as long as the turing test has a very short time limit and turing testers are chosen at random.

I work in an ML-adjacent field (CV) and I thought I'd add that AI and ML aren't quite the same thing. You can have non-learning based methods that fall under the field of AI - for instance, tree search methods can be pretty effective algorithms to define an agent for relatively simple games like checkers, and they don't require any learning whatsoever.

Normally, we say Deep Learning (the subfield of ML that relates to deep neural networks, including LLMs) is a subset of Machine Learning, which in turn is a subset of AI.

Like others have mentioned, AI is just a poorly defined term unfortunately, largely because intelligence isn't a well defined term either. In my undergrad we defined an AI system as a programmed system that has the capacity to do tasks that are considered to require intelligence. Obviously, this definition gets flaky since not everyone agrees on what tasks would be considered to require intelligence. This also has the problem where when the field solves a problem, people (including those in the field) tend to think "well, if we could solve it, surely it couldn't have really required intelligence" and then move the goal posts. We've seen that already with games like Chess and Go, as well as CV tasks like image recognition and object detection at super-human accuracy.

that heavily depends on how you define "intelligence". if you insist on "think, reason and behave like a human", then no, we don't have "Artificial Intelligence" yet (although there are plenty of people that would argue that we do). on the other hand if you consider the ability to play chess or go intelligence, the answer is different.