I work in an ML-adjacent field (CV) and I thought I'd add that AI and ML aren't quite the same thing. You can have non-learning based methods that fall under the field of AI - for instance, tree search methods can be pretty effective algorithms to define an agent for relatively simple games like checkers, and they don't require any learning whatsoever.

Normally, we say Deep Learning (the subfield of ML that relates to deep neural networks, including LLMs) is a subset of Machine Learning, which in turn is a subset of AI.

Like others have mentioned, AI is just a poorly defined term unfortunately, largely because intelligence isn't a well defined term either. In my undergrad we defined an AI system as a programmed system that has the capacity to do tasks that are considered to require intelligence. Obviously, this definition gets flaky since not everyone agrees on what tasks would be considered to require intelligence. This also has the problem where when the field solves a problem, people (including those in the field) tend to think "well, if we could solve it, surely it couldn't have really required intelligence" and then move the goal posts. We've seen that already with games like Chess and Go, as well as CV tasks like image recognition and object detection at super-human accuracy.

Its more like intelligience is very poorly defined so a less controversial statement is thar General Artificial Intelligience doesn't exist.

Also Generative AI such as LLMs are very very far from it, and machine learning in general haven't yielded much result in the persuit of sophonce and sapience.

Although they technically can pass a turing test as long as the turing test has a very short time limit.

that heavily depends on how you define "intelligence". if you insist on "think, reason and behave like a human", then no, we don't have "Artificial Intelligence" yet (although there are plenty of people that would argue that we do). on the other hand if you consider the ability to play chess or go intelligence, the answer is different.

It very much depends on what you consider AI, or even what you consider intelligence. I personally consider LLMs AI because it's artificial.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to everything that's happened since the industrial revolution but that's not how it's going to work

Sure, Eli Whitney.

How about the machines automate the complicated jobs to make as many menial jobs for me as possible? Computers these days are all lazy. They could optimize scheduling so the neighbors and I all get time together and time apart for a hundred hours of kicking dirt down at the office each year, instead they hang around doing vapes and abstract paintings of hands.

The problem with AI isn't the tech itself. It's what capitalism is doing with it. Alongside what you say, using AI to achieve fully automated luxury gay space communism would be wonderful.

I would love AI. Still waiting for it. Probably 50 years away (if human society lasts that long).

What I hate is the term being yet another scientific term to get stolen and watered down by brainless capitalists so they can scam money out of other brainless capitalists.

For me, it's because AI is referring to a LLM, which is not AI. Also, these LLMs use a crap load of energy to do things that we can currently do ourselves for much less energy.

But actual AI? Yes, please!

they will automate all menial jobs, fire %90 of the workers and ask remaining %10 to oversee the AI automated tasks while also doing all other tasks which can not be automated. all so that shareholders can add some more billions on top of their existing stack of billions.

The problem is that it will be the rich that are the owners of the AI that stole your job so suddenly we peasants are no longer needed. We won't be free, we will be broth.

Had me in the first half, not gonna lie