Russ Allbery dijo [Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 04:27:45PM -0800]:
AI is a marketing term that is essentially devoid of meaning at this point
(in my opinion, somewhat intentionally so on the part of the companies
that most use the term). I have seen completely traditional software
programs written entirely by humans typing into a text editor using
well-known CS algorithms that involve no iterative training whatsoever
called AI. In philosophical discussions, particularly on-line, it's become
common for "AI" to be so amorphously and sloppily defined that it could
encompass every physical object in the universe. I've seen people,
apparently seriously, define humans as AI, ecosystems as AI, and even the
physical universe as AI.
Thanks, Russ, I completely agree with this — and I agree this is premature
even as an explorative proposal.
Artificial Intelligence is an _excellent_ marketing phrase coined _seventy
years ago_. It was never correctly defined. I took one of the definitions I
have most enjoyed from Luger and Stubblefield's 1997 book introduction;
excuse me for any mistakes, as I translated it to Spanish for a book
chapter I wrote, and I'm translating it back to English:
(...AI can be defined as) the branch of computer science that seeks to
automatize intelligent behavior, but we would backpedal immediately,
given the ambiguity of characterizing what “intelligent behavior” means
— even of what “intelligence” means. (... we thus propose the
definition as) AI is the collection of problems and methodologies
studied by AI researchers.
This seemingly circular definition is justified because it emphasizes in
giving AI a _human-centered approach_, as it should be given to any
scientific discipline.
