If they are talking about LLMs then they should be specific about it because LLMs in no way exemplify the whole field of AI. It makes no sense to "define" AI as LLMs, that's like making assertions about the universe by talking only about the moon.
Replies
That’s explicitly a problem with people pushing llms, who literally advertise it as ai If everyone else in the conversation knows what they are talking about except you, the convo isn’t the problem
aug 6, 2025, 2:16 pm • 5 0 • view
You wanna defend the honor of machine learning against confusion with the really fancy Markov chains, take it up with the LLM boosters who are selling it as AI Doing it here just makes it look like you’re trying to defend LLMs by conflating them with shit that actually does things
aug 6, 2025, 2:19 pm • 1 0 • view
Saying that an imperfect tool can still be useful is not the same as defending LLMs. I'm trying to point out that AI is a broad field (much much more than LLMs), AI is nascent and still developing, and AI is not well understood by the general public.
aug 6, 2025, 2:29 pm • 0 0 • view
At some point you should probably try to realize that "the broad field" is Not, and was Never, what was being criticized here. Because the amount of time you continue to fail to do that does not help your cause, at all.
aug 6, 2025, 4:14 pm • 1 0 • view
When people use the term "AI" they need to be aware that it is a broad field. It's not a machine, it's not a specific app, it's not specifically LLMs. If the subject of discussion is specifically LLMs then that needs to be clear too, otherwise misunderstandings are inevitable.
aug 6, 2025, 4:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Dude, when you see someone complaining about the brain-melting qualities of useless tools that are horribly inaccurate, it is up to you to figure out that they are Not, and Never Were, talking about cancer-identifying pattern-seeking software. Otherwise, you keep hurting *your own stated purpose*
aug 6, 2025, 4:19 pm • 1 0 • view
Having just done a quick skim of his reply feed, I have to say his actual purpose is trying to defuse criticism of the “AI” biz through topic conflation, “it’ll get better” arguments, etc.
aug 6, 2025, 4:35 pm • 2 0 • view
If you mean the politics around AI I don't think they'll get better. I think we're in for a world of hurt. As far as the accuracy and reliability of the technology itself, yes, I believe it will get better. But those are two different issues.
aug 6, 2025, 4:39 pm • 0 0 • view
At this point, I have to assume you’re either arguing in complete bad faith, or you’d be saying “the AI murder drones may use image recognition techniques, but the field is much broader than that, and you shouldn’t be calling them that”
aug 6, 2025, 5:43 pm • 1 0 • view
I think the Ai drone swarms are very dangerous.
aug 6, 2025, 5:49 pm • 0 0 • view
Its not rocket science to figure that out, and wading into a complaint about LLMs and the marketing of the term AI to argue *some other things* might be useful is a really, really, really bad way to get *your own stated point* across
aug 6, 2025, 4:20 pm • 1 0 • view
The only person in this thread that was confused about what was being complained about was you, and that's not a problem with OP's presentation.
aug 6, 2025, 4:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Not to mention that OP didn't use "AI" as the umbrella term covering a whole swath of things: You did. The conflating of what OP was complaining about and things that aren't LLM was *yours*
aug 6, 2025, 4:24 pm • 1 0 • view
Are you done? Four posts in a row saying essentially the same thing isn't informing, it's berating. I got the message the first time. Now let's shake hands and part friends.
aug 6, 2025, 4:26 pm • 0 0 • view
Apologies for typing fast. And if you had gotten the message the first time, you could have said so. Would have prevented confusion.
aug 6, 2025, 4:28 pm • 1 0 • view