Comment Re: I agree with the change... (Score 1) 104
AI is technically accurate. ML is literally the core component of the 1955 conjecture that defined AI. LLMs are a display of intelligence as a result of ML, also directly part of the original conjecture.
Sorry, no.
LLMs do one thing that was considered probably to be one of many attributes of what the proposal authors conjectured might be required to qualify for their definition of "artificial intelligence". But they do none of the other things: they do not form abstractions or concepts, they do not self-improve, they do not display human-like creativity. They only generate a statistically-probable stream of output tokens rendered as human vocabulary. If that counts as "a display of intelligence" to you, then I worry about what you think intelligence requires. Was ELIZA "a display of intelligence"?
The original proposal also did not define the modern understanding of "machine learning" as part of its outline of "artificial intelligence". The closest it got was this: "...admitting a new word and some rules whereby sentences containing it imply and are implied by others." But in the very next sentence the authors note "This idea has never been very precisely formulated nor have examples been worked out." What is commonly understood as ML by practitioners encompasses a universe of much-better-defined techniques than the first sentence quoted above, including some that don't fit that sentence at all. What was done with Cyc, feeding it carefully-crafted rules of language and logic, would fit into the above definition, but is not ML, and a lot of ML activities like visual object recognition wouldn't fit the above definition because they have nothing to do with language per se.