> If the thing is intelligent, then there’s nothing artificial about it… it’s almost an oxymoron.
Artificial means human made, if we made a thing that is intelligent, then it is artificial intelligence.
It is like "artificial insemination" means a human designed system to inseminate rather than the natural way. It is still a proper insemination, artificial doesn't mean "fake", it just means unnatural/human made.
> Artificial means human made, if we made a thing that is intelligent, then it is artificial intelligence.
Aren't humans themselves essentially human made?
Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
Personally, I have no time for gen-AI in pretty much any context, at least given the current landscape.
And plenty of people seem to accept, if not love, gen-AI art. I don't get it, but it's true.
> While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.”
My reflex whenever I encounter gen-AI output in any form: text, code, image, music, video, what have you. I find all off it mid in the best of cases, and usually think it's quite terrible. I regularly see posts of the form "you'll never believe this amazing AI generated picture/video/paper/program, and when I check it out I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I just don't see the magic.
Just my $.02, not inflation adjusted. You (and many others) may well feel differently.
I get a kick out of generating photos with family and friends in different styles like Play-Doh, Simpsons, Ghibli, etc. All of them like it, too. Maybe that's what people like, a very relatable use of the technology.