[beeboobaa]

AI has always meant Artificial Intelligence. Intelligent and capable of learning, like a person.

LLMs are not AI.

[outworlder]

> LLMs are not AI.

Neither are neural networks, by that definition. Or 'machine learning' in general. They all have been called "AI" at different points in time. Even expert systems – that are glorified IF statements – they were supposed to replace doctors.

[Jensson]

People thought those techniques would ultimately become something intelligent, so AI, but they fizzled out. That isn't the doubters moving the goalposts, that is the optimists moving the goal posts always thinking what we have now is the golden ticket to truly intelligent systems.

[beeboobaa]

Correct, we don't have AI yet.

[readthenotes1]

Some people are incapable of learning. Therefore, LLMs are AI?

As far as I recall, the turing test was developed long ago to give a practical answer to what was and was not practically artificial intelligence because the debate over the definition is much older than we are

[beeboobaa]

Everyone is capable of learning else they'd have died as a toddler, or any time since when they tried to cross the road.

[kristov]

I think the Turing test is subjective, because the result depends on who was giving the test and for how long.