[ppaattrriicckk]

Sure, or you know... Rather than ranting on twitter, one could look up "Large Language Model" (LLM), "Deep Learning", "Machine Learning" as well as "Artificial Intelligence" on Wikipedia, and realize that historically the following has been the norm in terminology for decades:

Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Deep Learning > LLMs

I.e. LLMs are indeed a subset of what is classically considered Artificial Intelligence. Just as well as route planning in Google Maps or getting beat by a non-machine-learning chess algorithm.

EDIT: Regarding "for decades" doesn't apply to LLMs, of course :-) and barely to deep learning. But for the time they've been around, this inequality holds

[gmac]

Having been the norm for decades in that research area doesn't make the term significantly less misleading for everyday usage, though, right?

[ppaattrriicckk]

Yeah, nah, I beg to differ: Just because the broader population might not (yet!) have an intuitive understanding of the field, and its shortcomings, I don't think we should rename decades of academic consensus. I have more faith in entire fields of research, at least.

I can't make up a good counterexample, so here's a so-so one: Fusion vs. fission power.

I've extremely rarely encountered the term "fission" outside of talks about fission power. Yet, I don't think we should call Fusion Power "Star-like energy generation" and Fission Power "never practically encountered power generation, but somewhat like star-like, except the opposite underlying mechanism"