Even yesteryear’s code completion systems (that didn’t rely on LLMs) are technically speaking, AI systems.
While the term “AI” became the next “crypto” or “Blockchain”, in reality we’ve been using various AI products for the better part of the past 30 years.
And honestly lightweight neural nets can make for some interesting enemy behavior as well. I’ve seen a couple games using that and wouldn’t be surprised if it caught on in the future.
You mean code completion that just parses a file into an AST and does fuzzy string matching against tokens used to build that AST? I would not personally classify that as AI. It’s code that was written by humans and is perfectly understandable by humans. There is no probabilistic component present, there is no generated matrix, there’s no training process, it’s just simple parsing and string matching.
It’s early and I’m tired and probably in a poor mood and being needlessly fussy, so I apologize if this completely misses the point of your comment. I agree that there’s other stuff we’ve been using for ages which could be reasonably classified as “AI,” but I don’t feel like traditional code completion systems fit there.
AI doesn’t have to be probabilistic, a classical computer science definition of AI states that it has to be an actor that reacts to some percepts according to some policy
yes we could definitely say that a calculator, technically, is an AI. but we usually don’t think of the calculator as an agent, and it doesn’t really make any decisions, as it just displays the result when prompted
That’s my point. These random definitions of AI that have been come up with by the most pedantic people in existence are not in any way helpful. We should ignore them.
They seek to redefine AI as basically anything that a computer does. This is entirely unhealthful and is only happening because they need to be right on the internet.
These irritating idiots need to go away for they serve no purpose.
but that’s not a redefinition, it was originally defined that way, like back in the 60s, by the people who started this field of research. I think a calculator is a bit of an absurd example, but an NPC that pathfinds towards the player to attack them is still AI, no matter how you look at it
People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define a eye as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.
Even yesteryear’s code completion systems (that didn’t rely on LLMs) are technically speaking, AI systems.
While the term “AI” became the next “crypto” or “Blockchain”, in reality we’ve been using various AI products for the better part of the past 30 years.
They were technically Expert Systems.
AI was was the Marketing Term even then.
Now they are LLMs and AI is still the marketing term.
We used to call the code that determined NPC behaviour AI.
It wasn’t AI as we know it now but it was intended to give vaguely realistic behaviour (such as taking a sensible route from A to B).
Used to?
Lol gramps here thinks bots are AI skullemoji skullemoji bro
And honestly lightweight neural nets can make for some interesting enemy behavior as well. I’ve seen a couple games using that and wouldn’t be surprised if it caught on in the future.
“AI” has become synonymous with “Generative AI”
You mean code completion that just parses a file into an AST and does fuzzy string matching against tokens used to build that AST? I would not personally classify that as AI. It’s code that was written by humans and is perfectly understandable by humans. There is no probabilistic component present, there is no generated matrix, there’s no training process, it’s just simple parsing and string matching.
It’s early and I’m tired and probably in a poor mood and being needlessly fussy, so I apologize if this completely misses the point of your comment. I agree that there’s other stuff we’ve been using for ages which could be reasonably classified as “AI,” but I don’t feel like traditional code completion systems fit there.
AI doesn’t have to be probabilistic, a classical computer science definition of AI states that it has to be an actor that reacts to some percepts according to some policy
By that definition a calculator is AI.
yes we could definitely say that a calculator, technically, is an AI. but we usually don’t think of the calculator as an agent, and it doesn’t really make any decisions, as it just displays the result when prompted
That’s my point. These random definitions of AI that have been come up with by the most pedantic people in existence are not in any way helpful. We should ignore them.
They seek to redefine AI as basically anything that a computer does. This is entirely unhealthful and is only happening because they need to be right on the internet.
These irritating idiots need to go away for they serve no purpose.
but that’s not a redefinition, it was originally defined that way, like back in the 60s, by the people who started this field of research. I think a calculator is a bit of an absurd example, but an NPC that pathfinds towards the player to attack them is still AI, no matter how you look at it
People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define a eye as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.