Brian SlettenAccurate definition of AI initiatives expressed as a chiasmus:
Marty Fouts@bsletten Except it’s not a definition of AI, a 60 year old branch of computer science that has produced many useful things. It’s a lazy attempt to demonize an entire field because of one subset of one branch of that field.
It is an excellent example of how social media is used to strip nuance and context in pursuit of rage response.
@MartyFouts Which is why I framed it as AI initiatives and not AI. How it is used, not what it is. Don’t be so eager to make a point that you miss it.
Reading is fundamental.
@bsletten Except you quoted a definition that doesn’t do that; claiming that it was a good definition when it is not. But even “AI initiatives” is over generalized.
Tim McCormack@MartyFouts @bsletten You should complain to the person on Twitter who did the quote-tweet, then.
@MartyFouts Because they never made the claim that the original poster claimed to be defining AI initiatives. They instead made a claim about the supplied definition itself.
It really seems like you just want to fight. I don't get it.
[EDIT: OK, looking at your profile... this is just how you are.]
naught101@MartyFouts @bsletten you're right about the science/knowledge field, but GenAI is surely more than 95% of the interest, funding and comma around AI at the moment.. Be nice if it doesn't stay that way..
@naught101 @bsletten Public interest, certainly; and reported funding apparently; but because of how vocal the hype is, it is hard to judge the percentage of research interest and overall AI funding.
Most of the 70 or so companies doing driving automation research are not using generative models but none are talking about how much money they spend for example.