#wanting to make their current giant black box toy language models look older and more researched than they are

[chronologicalimplosion]

[[Screenshot ID: A twitter thread by sjklapecwriting that says:

The fact that "AI = what makes NPCs in video games do things" and "AI = complex scientific models that have been in use for years" and "AI = non-generative tools that automate tedious processes" and "AI = generative tools" are all called AI feels like deliberate obfuscation.

I want good AI in video games but I also don't want AI in video games at all and I think AI is useful in the sciences but don't trust AI at all to be used in science or medicine or law and AI to colour-correct a video or remove greenscreen is cool but AI generating movies sucks.

We talk about things that threaten art and creativity and steal vast quantities of work from artists and burn the amazon and drain the seas to do it all with the same language as something that can track a part of a video so special effects are easier to make and that sucks.

And this obfuscation feels so deliberate to me, because now people freak out if someone talks about wanting to use "AI that learns from the player" or "an AI solution to help me edit video" or "an AI that can be used to generate theoretical materials to test" and they look silly.

Because now "AI" is so firmly wrapped up with the concept of "generative models" that people are, rightfully, on guard against any mention of AI whatsoever to the point where entirely distinct technologies get uselessly criticized under the same umbrella.

Like imagine if we had no other language but "tank" to describe motor vehicles, so if I said we needed "public transit vehicles" everyone thought I wanted M1A1 Abrams for civilian transit. That's what it's like talking about AI.

End ID]]