zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
What winds me up is the mis-branding, sometimes deliberate sometimes not (which one is worse?!), of basic computer processing as "AI".

It's not AI it's an IF statement for crying out loud :-(

But this is the industry we're in, and buzzword-driven headlines and investment are how it goes.

Actual proper AI getting some attention makes a pleasant change tbh :-)

>>brianm+69
I feel like AI-scientists themselves are partially to blame for this. For starters, AI does not 'learn' like a human learns. But still many of the main terms of the field are based on learning: terms like 'learning rate', 'neural networks', or 'deep learning' are implying that there's some kind of being which learns, not just a very complicated decision tree. It's not all the fault of hype marketing people!

>>a_bono+da
> AI-scientists themselves are partially to blame for this

They are not addressing the public or swaying opinion