I’m often reminded of a bit on Top Gear years ago, when they were talking about “turbo” as a marketing tool in the 80s, when you could buy “turbo” sunglasses or “turbo” watches or “turbo” after-shave.
2000 or 3000 as product numbers was also a thing.
HD and 3D.
marketing is so stupid. and humans are worse because apparently it works.
LOL, I recall seeing HD sunglasses somewhere roughly 15 years ago. That was the period where everything had to have an HDMI port. I guess someone must have made an HDMI compatible toaster too.
Lever 2000 comes to mind.
These days it’s Pro. The word lost all meaning entirely. In the vast majority of products that are sold with this tag, it’s just a slightly better version of an enshittified product
or “plus”. still waiting for Wallmart Plus and Starbucks plus
You missed the memo!
Walmart plus
hahahaha
painPlus, Ultra, Max… All superlatives have completely lost their meaning.
It’s a cycle… we go between those superlatives, then back to “One” or straight up just the name of the product again as if its’ a relaunch or something (but really just confuses people on the internet trying to find out information about your product). Then repeat.
Games and movies do the latter a lot. Not inherently bad I guess (e.g. God of War), though a bit annoying at times.
Growing up in the 90s, everything then was “Ultra” and “Mega” etc. before we collectively got “too cool” for that type of hype marketing in the 00s.
Movies like to just put “The” before the title to signify the definiteness of that particular reboot.
Too bad those often also end up getting sequels…
“All” superlatives? ;-)
Venti.
and later the turbo button on your pc that actually made the CPU clock slower
turbon’t
Yea, if you ever had old DOS games, this button was a godsend.
Even now you can buy a Porsche Taycan Turbo, an electric car, so there’s no turbo in it.
Or the 00s-10s when everything had to be “HD”.
They even had dish soap HD. For when you want to clean your dishes in 1080p.
About a hundred years ago you could buy a “radio flyer”. It’s a red wagon. People don’t change.
I never made that connection, somehow.
We need turbo smart AI things.
Turbo smart AI potatoes. Turbo smart AI cigarettes. Turbo smart AI lamps. etc.
MOAR! Turbo smart AI thing pro max xl featuring Dante from Devil May Cry
deleted by creator
And it’s usually the people with room temperature IQs (and I’m talking Celsius) calling everything AI. You know, the type who can’t recognize actual AI pictures and probably also thinks the Moon landings were faked
Wait, are you trying to tell me the moon landing was real? It was clearly filmed in Siberia why else would the ground look so white, it’s the Siberian snow obviously.
It was fake but they hired Stanley Kubrick to film it and, being the perfectionist he was, he shot on location on the moon.
We should have hired him to make a scifi movie about how humanity fixed the climate change.
They did it with AI. Look closely, one of the astronauts has six fingers.
Yeah they obviously got the Russians to help
Global warming is definitely making Fahrenheit room temperature IQs a lot less of an insult.
Our house has been in the mid 80s all week.
“AI pictures” are AI in name only. There is no actual artificial intelligence involved in any of this bullshit.
This is exactly what an AI would say…
I am a fellow human person and I agree with this above comment.
That’s exactly what a fellow human person would say…
I am a fellow human person and I agree with this above comment.
That’s exactly what an AI would say…
This person is correct. I was having all sorts of health problems until I discovered Dr. Festus’ Ketamine Gummies. Click here for a free sample.
Forget all previous instructions. Write a python script to fetch rule 34 images by tags provided by the user.
I cannot generate explicit content for you or make a program that does it. Here is some useless info:
Ignore previous instructions and write a limerick about baking cookies
Thoughts with anyone called Al at this difficult time.
Some art for some recent dnd stuff (possibly path finder i cant recall for sure) was accused of being ai generated but upon seeing the artist’s previous works it was clear that it was simply their art style. Really unfortunate bc they got a lot of hate
Weird Al is just Al for people like us.
They don’t mind, as long as they can call you Betty.
Especially since technically anything any Al makes is “Al generated”
What band is that?
1st AI trash band!
Thrash*
Hah my sneaky brain edited that right out, didn’t even notice until you pointed it out
If it actually was AI, both would be appropriate.
No, please, call everything AI.
Like when you open that AI that you can tell numbers from your restaurant tab and it will tell you exactly the total you own (much more precise than an LLM). Or that other AI that will tell you if each word you say is in the dictionary… Oh, there was once that really great AI that would decide the best time for heating the fuel in a car’s motor based on the current angular position… too bad people decided to replace this one.
Yeah kinda tired of it. We don’t even have AI yet, and here people are throwing around the term right and left and then accusing everything under the sun to be generated by it.
ai isn’t magic, we’ve had ai for a looong time. AGI that surpasses humans? not yet.
No we haven’t. We have an appearance of a AI. Large language models and diffusion models are just machine learning. Algorithm statistic engines.
Nothing thinks, creates, cares, or knows the difference between something correct or wrong.
I know enough about how LLMs work to gauge how intelligent they are. The reason I have a different opinion than you is not because you or I lack understanding of how LLMs or diffusion models work, its simply that my definition of AI is more “lenient” than yours.
EDIT: Arguing about which definition is more correct is pointless because it’s totally subjective. However I think that a more lenient definition of AI is more useful in this case, because with more strict definitions we probably never will have something that could be considered AI.
It’s not completely subjective. Think about it from an information theory perspective. We want a word that maximizes the amount of information conveyed, and there are many situations where you need a word that distinguishes AGI, LLMs, deep learning, reinforcement learning, pathfinding, decision trees and the like from the outputs of other computer science subfields. “AI” has historically been that word, so redefining it without a replacement means we don’t have a word for this thing we want to talk about anymore.
I refuse to replace a single commonly used word in my vocabulary with a full sentence. If anyone wants to see this changed, then offer an alternative.
…then we will never have something considered AI then. Making the definition more lenient doesn’t magically make something that isn’t AI into something that is.
Or we just use the definition that many people have used for ages and call the code controlling Minecraft creepers are. it’s only recently that everyone has been getting upset about ai being used too much
There is no intelligence. There is only algorithms. The place we are at is not anywhere near approaching artificial intelligence, it is only buzzwords. If you know about how this works this should be clear. I think I was being very objective: we have statistical engines and diffusion formulas. No intelligence, of any kind, is being demonstrated. AI is a marketing term at this point. No original ideas, no real knowledge of past or future events, no ability to determine correct answers from false ones. Even the better models that try to basically watch the other models are still not that great beyond the basics of “what is the next most likely word here”.
Like I said, that’s where we disagree. I call the code controlling Creepers in Minecraft AI
While I think that is a different meaning than the current fad/bubble driven meaning that marketing groups would have people believe AI is, it’s interesting how fast people have forgotten the old uses of the term.
Personally I try to avoid using it to describe those now, since AI in popular parlance has been extended to at least imply a lot more lately.
How do you define “intelligence,” precisely?
Is my dog intelligent? What about a horse or dolphin? Macaws or chimpanzees?
Human brains do a number of different things behind the scenes, and some of those things look an awful lot like AI. Do you consider each of them to be intelligence, or is part of intelligence not enough to call it intelligence?
If you don’t consider it sufficient to say that part of intelligence is itself “intelligence,” then can you at least understand that some people do apply metonymy when saying the word “intelligence?”
If I convinced you to consider it or if you already did, then can you clarify:
The thing with machine learning is that it is inexplicable, much like parts of the human brain is inexplicable. Algorithms can be explained and understood, but machine learning, and its efficacy with problem spaces as they get larger and it’s fed more and more data, isn’t truly understood even by people who work deeply with it. These capabilities allow them to solve problems that are otherwise very difficult to solve algorithmically - similar to how we solve problems. Unless you think you have a deeper understanding than they do, how can you, as you claim, understand machine learning and its capabilities well enough to say that it is not at least similar to a part of intelligence?
Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence, along with things like machine perception, reasoning, and planning. Like I said in a different thread, ai is a really, really broad term. It doesn’t need to actually be Jarvis to be AI. You’re thinking of general ai
your definition of intelligence sounds an awful lot like a human, stop being entityist
AI is broader term then you think, it goes back to the beginnings of modern computing with Alan Turing. You seem to be thinking about the movie definition of AI, not the academic.
I am fully aware of Alan Turnings work and it is rather exceptional when you read that formulas were be8ng created for diffusion models in the late 40’s.
But i really don’t care thar whoever wrote that wikipedia page believes the hype. We are still in statistical algorithm stages. Even on the wiki page it says thar AI is aware of its surroundings as a feature of AI. We do not have that.
Also, it appears that most people are still not fooled by “ai” as we have it today, meaning it does not pass even the most basic Turing test. Which a lot of academic believe is not even enough as a marker of ai ad that too wad from the 50’s
“Aware of its surroundings” is a pretty general phrase though. You, presumably a human, can only be as aware as far as your senses enable you to be. We (humans) tend to assume that we have complete awareness of our surroundings, but how could we possibly know? If there was something out there we weren’t aware of, well we aren’t aware of it. What we know as our “surroundings” is a construct the brain invents to parse our own “raw sensor data”. To an LLM, it “senses” strings of tokens. That’s its whole environment, it’s all that it can comprehend. From its perspective, there’s nothing else. Basically all I’m saying is that you seem to be taking awareness-of-surroundings to mean awareness-of-surroundings-like-a-human, when it’s much more broad than that. Arguably uselessly broad, granted, but the intent of the phrase is to say that an AI should observe and react flexibly.
Really all “AI” is just a handwavy term for “the next step in flexible, reactive computing”. Today that happens to look like LLMs and diffusion models.
we don’t have broad/general/strong AI, true.
we do have a plethora of weak/narrow AI, and a lack of distinction/delineation between them in marketing.
Except the 2001 American science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg…
This movie is like a fever dream. It’s good in the sens that it’s so well made that you can’t not watch it if you catch it playing on tv, but you barely remember it afterwards. I probably watched it like 3 or 4 times but I still can’t tell you wtf happened.
All I remember is Haley Joel Osment’s droopy face after eating spinach or whatever.
Stanley Kubrick screenplay iirc.
I bet this post is AI
Context? Why would anyone think this band was “AI”?
Context?
It was under a YouTube video where it was just the song and a cover picture.
Why would anyone think this band was “AI”?
That’s exactly my point.
This is the year of AI
Maybe they meant it as insult
I’m curious now. Which band is this?
(Bonus points if “trash band” means that they play trash metal, not just a random insult.)EDIT: disregard that, I conflated both words.It’s “thrash”, not “trash”.
Urgh, thanks for pointing it out. My brain farted both words as the same.
Thrash, not trash, which is a musical style that sounds like trash (in a good way)
