“Ionized hydrogen gas” wouldn’t this just be protons?

I read that “Prickly muffin” and now I’m debating on whether I should or should not watch Bojack Horseman again

Is there a Lemmy community for comments out of context?

Because even in context this is a wild comment; out of context it would be even better

Valid point, though I’m surprised that cyc was used for non-AI purposes since, in my very very limited knowledge of the project, I thought the whole thing was based around the ability to reason and infer from an encyclopedic data set.

Regardless, I suppose the original topic of this discussion is heading towards a prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate:

Should the term Artificial Intelligence have the more literal meaning it held when it first was discussed, like by Turing or in the sci-fi of Isaac Asimov?

OR

Should society’s use of the term in reference to advances in problem solving tech in general or specifically its most prevalent use in reference to any neural network or learning algorithm in general be the definition of Artificial Intelligence?

Should we shift our definition of a term based on how it is used to match popular use regardless of its original intended meaning or should we try to keep the meaning of the phrase specific/direct/literal and fight the natural shift in language?

Personally, I prefer the latter because I think keeping the meaning as close to literal as possible increases the clarity of the words and because the term AI is now thrown about so often these days as a buzzword for clicks or money, typically by people pushing lies about the capabilities or functionality of the systems they’re referring to as AI.

The lumping together of models trained by scientists to solve novel problems and the models that are using the energy of a small country to plagiarize artwork also is not something I view fondly as I’ve seen people assume the two are one in the same despite the fact one has redeeming qualities and the other is mostly bullshit.

However, it seems that many others are fine with or in support of a descriptivist definition where words have the meaning they are used for even if that meaning goes beyond their original intent or definitions.

To each their own I suppose. These preferences are opinions so there really isn’t an objectively right or wrong answer for this debate

The term “artificial intelligence” is supposed to refer to a computer simulating the actions/behavior of a human.

LLMs can mimic human communication and therefore fits the AI definition.

Generative AI for images is a much looser fit but it still fulfills a purpose that was until recently something most or thought only humans could do, so some people think it counts as AI

However some of the earliest AI’s in computer programs were just NPCs in video games, looong before deep learning became a widespread thing.

Enemies in video games (typically referring to the algorithms used for their pathfinding) are AI whether they use neural networks or not.

Deep learning neural networks are predictive mathematic models that can be tuned from data like in linear regression. This, in itself, is not AI.

Transformers are a special structure that can be implemented in a neural network to attenuate certain inputs. (This is how ChatGPT can act like it has object permanence or any sort of memory when it doesn’t) Again, this kind of predictive model is not AI any more than using Simpson’s Rule to calculate a missing coordinate in a dataset would be AI.

Neural networks can be used to mimic human actions, and when they do, that fits the definition. But the techniques and math behind the models is not AI.

The only people who refer to non-AI things as AI are people who don’t know what they’re talking about, or people who are using it as a buzzword for financial gain (in the case of most corporate executives and tech-bros it is both)

Well the svg file itself wouldn’t be, but whatever tries to render the image might think the file is infinite since it’d loop around forever. Come to think of it, I’d imaging there are probably safeguards in place to prevent svg files like this hypothetical one from being opened because they’d run as an infinite loop

Wait, is it possible to create a real infinite droste effect with vector graphics since they aren’t limited by resolution?

As long as you can do recursion in the xml it should be possible to make an svg that’s “infinitely” recursive yes?

(I have no experience on this topic)

“Shut the Hell up!”

Matches (No I’m not a pyromaniac)

“As luck would have it, I still have the career chips of the last crew”

Reaches for envelope labeled “Contents of space wasp’s stomach”

Username checks out lol

I’m fine, everything’s fine…

Damnit! And bravo my friend, I guess I need to watch the whole series again

“You see nowadays we can easily take a unique and beautiful object and easily reduce it to a formula for mass production, I call the process science”

This is a long forgotten fever dream I still don’t know how to process

Nope, gen z, and I haven’t actually read any of the Harry Potter books myself.

But you’re on the right track; I think it was reading The Hobbit that did me in lol

Well, that doesn’t make it clearer so I’m guessing it’s an episode from the new(ish) seasons that I haven’t gotten around to watching yet

When I am talking about fibrous material, like individual strands of carbon in a composite, I naturally type “fibre” but when I talk about nutrition or the internet it’s “fiber”

I also tend to spell armor armour and color colour despite being American.

Oh and I write grey instead of gray.

I also catch myself writing units like metre and litre instead of meter and liter sometimes.

It really all depends on if there’s a spellchecker turned on that will tell me I’m spelling things wrong.

I have literally started to add every thought in my head into obsidian and already it feels like someone could probably recreate my mind from it lol

The best ADHD feature is the ability to link notes, even ones that done exist. So if you have a really specific idea about some topic you can just write it down, link it to the topic, and then get back to whatever task you were doing when the thought arose. Then when you have time you can find the idea again as long as you remember the topic or topics you linked it too

Damn, I think this is the first one (that I’ve seen) that I haven’t been able to guess and find a quote for.

My first guess was Leela and the Genestalk, which from the other comments seems incorrect.

Second was beast with a billion backs but I don’t think yivo actually leaves many suction marks mostly just “Yivo touched me in a bad place, my spinal cord!”

From the hint in the comments that they were indeed tentacle marks, I thought maybe it was a head in the polls where Fry activates the thought activated “magic tentacles” of the hotel bed, but I don’t think those leave marks and fry is wearing black in that scene not his red jacket.

The only other one I could think of was Farewell to Arms in which leela gets covered in tentacle marks from the monster in the puddle but if I recall correctly in the next scene fry is only wearing his underwear, no red jacket.

I have been beaten but as a wise old polygamist once said: “You can crush me but you can never crush my spirit! … Ahh my spirit!”

If anyone wants to read up more on “Governments were formed and exist to protect property rights” you might want to read The State and Revolution. It is pretty short and very relevant to this discussion