A hacker was once a computer enthusiast, and the media made it into a name for criminals who break into other people's systems.

Decades ago, people started using baud when they meant BPS. Not many technical people back then, but it wasn't possible to correct the few who made the mistake. Even one top member of the CCC (Chaos Computer Club) said it's just “baud” now, no matter the real meaning.
(baud = symbols per second. A symbol can transport multiple bits, so a V.32 modem with 9600 bps worked at 2400 baud, 4 bits per symbol.)

GIF is an image format. Multiple frames stored in such a file can get played like a video. But today every video without sound gets called a GIF.

AI is an old term. But today most people say AI but only mean genAI.

It's even more absurd: There are gamers who demand computer games without AI. WTF?

AI was always part of computer games. Even the early computerized board games. I remember Half-Life fans loving the enemy AI. And I think one of the games in the Wolfenstein franchise had enemies that found cover when shot at. That's normal, old AI. Not genAI.

If AI is really lost, how do we discuss the thing that was once considered AI?

top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 47 points 4 weeks ago*

It's certainly been tarnished by LLM-bros coopting the term for marketing/grifting purposes

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    The term "artificial intelligence" was first used in the 50s, so video game AI wasn't the original meaning either. Arguably neither video game AI nor machine learning AI are proper AI, but the term has always been very malleable. I don't think the other meanings are lost. If you say "the enemies in this game have bad AI", people aren't going to think that you mean LLMs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Here is a video about a combat robot team using various algorithms to assist with driving. It includes the following:

    • a robot team trying to explain how their neat driving assist technology works
    • regular people mixing up ai and genai in the video
    • commentors in the video doing the same thing
    • a big company mixing up ai and genai just to spread more conflict / drama

    I don't think the other meanings are lost. If you say "the enemies in this game have bad AI", people aren't going to think that you mean LLMs.

    The ai techbros won. We're already here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 weeks ago

    Lost as in the definition has changed and it isn't going back so just get used to it, yes. That's how language works.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    “Crypto” is the big one for me, always was cryptography but yah, that one has been taken over by the shitcoins now…sigh.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago

    I work in crypto. No, not "cryptocurrency".

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago*

    That's the fun part - you don't! In the absolutist landscape of social media it's impossible to discuss subjects where every comment is reduced to which of two polar opposite sides you are on. Either you hate capitalism or hate socialism. Either you are pro-AI and all the evils anyone has ever associated with it, or you're a tech-bro who wants to ruin the environment building datacenters. Many subjects in online discussions have reached the "Why bother?" stage.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 4 weeks ago (28 children)

    "Lost?"

    None of those terms have been lost. They've just come to have a wider definition than before. Language evolves over time as people are exposed to new ideas, words, or terms. As non-technical people begin using the terms, the meaning has an understood meaning to the public that most people use (e.g. AI/genAI), and a technical definition that is still understood by those it is relevant to. It just requires context.

    Yes, words have meaning- but words also change over time as the public understanding shifts. Just like the word "literally." It used to mean something that is/should be interpreted exactly as it is said/written/shown. Now "literally" also means "figuratively," even within the dictionary.

    So, no. It isn't lost, you just need to give context about what form of "AI" you are referring to.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 4 weeks ago (21 children)

    Now “literally” also means “figuratively,” even within the dictionary.

    That's literally true... Like in the literal sense... STOP WINKING AT ME!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    "Literally" is used as a superlative. The "literally means figuratively" thing tends to refer exaggerations. "I'm literally dying" or "That's literally hotter than the sun".

    It's a stand in for "really" which has a double meaning

    • Adverb form of "real"
    • Expressive form, to convey intensity

    But yes, we never "lost" the word. Some online grammar pedants simply refused to accept it as a homonym.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Because both meanings are opposites, literally is a more specialized form of homonym called a contronym. Unlike a contronym such as clip where it’s to tell whether the speaker is talking about clipping things together or clipping stuff off of something based on their use in a sentence, literally and figuratively fit into any sentence the same way. In any case where the speaker’s words could be interpreted ambiguously to be literal or figurative and they add literally to clarify they can’t because someone could mistake their literal literally meaning to be a figurative one.

    That means the literal use of literally is functionally lost, and for what? So folks have another way to exaggerate? I don’t care if a language evolves, but if it’s going to I think it should evolve in such a way that expressing certain ideas isn’t lost, especially if there isn’t anything real to be gained. I literally don’t understand why people are so gun-ho to defend using literally figuratively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Because both meanings are opposites

    "really" -> "extremely" is not the opposite of "really" -> "factually".

    the literal use of literally is functionally lost

    It isn't functionally lost any more than "really" has become functionally lost. It's contingent on context.

    "It's really hot outside" and "He's really the murderer" have two very coherent and distinct interpretations.

    In the same vein, "It's literally as hot as the sun out here" and "This Christian extremists are taking the Bible too literally" have distinct and non-interchangeable meanings.

    But the term has (ahem) LITERALLY been used as an intensifier since 1769. You're far too late to the party on this debate. It's LITERALLY been settled for centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it? Unless you mean figuratively? Good to know people two and a half centuries ago could write poorly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it?

    Same way people can wave a Confederate Flag 150 years after the war is over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago

    I didn't realize people had been shot for not using literally figuratively. Plus one could argue that people waving the Confederate flag 150 years later means the war wasn't fully finished, but I'm not here to debate politics.

    I don't understand why you compare "literally" to "really". They're two different words that are used differently. I really don't have any problem with using really as an intensifier because it aligns just fine with using it to indicate fact. "It's really hot outside" -> "The heat outside is real." "He's really the murderer" -> "His being the murderer is real."

    But using literally in your example adds absolutely nothing to the sentence. "It's literally as hot as the sun out here" and "It's as hot as the sun out here" convey the exact same meaning, except one has an extra word that degrades other uses of it. If your sentence could replace the word "literally" with the word "figuratively" and you would intend the same meaning, you should either use "figuratively" or nothing there at all. That way when the word literally is used there can be no doubt that you mean "in the literal sense."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago* (14 children)

    Irregardless isn't even setting off spell checkers. "Without having lack of regard", fucking what?

    Our language is evolving into useless shit, and I despise people who do not respect language and definitions. "Oh, language is evolving!"

    Yeah, velociraptors evolved into chickens: how did that shit work out? /being facetious, before someone with poor language skills happens to be a paleontologist snaps back

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    You're fighting the tide. There's never been a point in time where language had fixed, immutable definitions. It's always been transient, no matter what you learned, and it's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just how communication and culture work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    I am pretty sure we came up with DEFINITIONS. Now what does that word mean?

    I having been fighting a tide of idiocy my entire life, but it doesn't mean I will drown in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Definitions are found, not made. ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Objects are found. We define objects. Then we make words. This seems so simple and people seem to want to make it complex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Eh, I've been learning about linguistics and it's changed my view on the topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

    I study linguistics, and ironically, I have no idea what you mean.

    The hilarious part was I was recently dating a linguistics TA working towards her masters. The entire draw between us was linguistics.

    This is so hilarious to me.

    Icing on the cake, my ex-fiancé had her masters in communication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Very interesting! Goes to show no subject of study is monolithic in belief! Well, as an unlearned person, here's where the topic intersected with linguistics for me: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2pX2MC8vjKOeepdvCrQ07h

    The podcast is Lingthusiam.

    Long story short it's back to the changing nature of definitions based on how people use the word. Hence, my saying they are found, as they can be found to have evolved. Have a great one!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I worked in all those areas as well as networking. And it only put me in management, which I fucking hate.

    Plus side: only have to deal with the CEO. Downside: anytime I try to do what I enjoy doing, I have to delegate the task or at least be training.

    So much bullshit of checking on what my team is doing, acting as a liaison and paralegal to work with various vendors, etc.

    But hey: I am no longer customer facing and I choose my hours. As long as the projects stay on track, cool.

    And I am a pretty good boss to work for. I keep us way ahead of schedule, and when my team says they have nothing to do, I cause a network issue that kills the cameras and tell them to watch a movie.

    When the CEO bitches about the network issue, I remind him of how he wouldn't buy the equipment I recommended and that we should have ran fiber to my team's building.

    Sounds like I am shitty to the company from an HR standard, but if I need something in a pinch, my team will pop in with 200% energy and focus. They like coming to work and don't dread when I come around.

    It was funny when new hires come on and I find they are doomscrolling tiktok on their phones. Man, are we reaching the projected goal date? Then I give no fucks.

    As for metrics, because I used to work for a fortune 500 company, I just did what I did then: learn the API, write a script system that opens tickets with plenty of randomized jargon, and close them after a few hours. Dude is just looking at big picture shit anyhow.

    I always wanted to work for me, but I think I am a unicorn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Did you reply to the wrong comment? Just figured this sounds like it was meant for another thread and don't want that convo interrupted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I'm gonna reuse an old comment here

    "literally" being used to mean "figuratively" dates back to 3 years after the word "literally" began meaning "actually". If this is a hill to die on, you need to use "literally" exclusively to mean "as written in the texts". Common usage of "literally" to mean "actually" and "figuratively" both date to the 1590s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 10 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    Context is rarely given.

    And the real meaning is important when the actual work has to be done.

    “Allow users to upload and play GIFs.” And now I'm reading old specs from 1987 or try to use an existing GIF library. The boss is angry because he can't upload his silent movie.

    “This site needs AI.” And now I'm happily pruning some trees for the perfect minimax implementation. The manager asks me how many tokens it will need, and I say 0. They become suspicious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago

    Context doesnt have to be given, it exists regardless of instructions ; it's your responsibility to infer and understand it, or ask questions if you feel like you're missing important info

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    If context isn't given, in a professional setting- then that is a failing on the person communicating. Again, your examples are cleared up with context. The meaning isn't gone, there is just more than one definition to those words now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    But there is a general definition. That's the point isn't it? Its a bit on the reader to get with that.

    For example, if I say something about corn you should know what im talking about immediately. I shouldn't have to specify the yellow vegetable also called maize just because a thousand years ago the word meant something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago

    no one says Baud, that one is up for grabs

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 weeks ago

    ‘AI’ has been a marketing term since it was conjured in 1956, nothing of value has been lost in it being assimilated by a grift.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Now think about "theory": the popular meaning¹ and the original meaning, the one used in science².

    ¹ "it's just an idea"
    ² "it is proven beyond doubt with the current knowledge"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Many people who know the difference between theory and hypothesis say hypothesis when they mean hypothesis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago*

    Lol, no they don't. Because outside of a scientific setting- the words are synonyms. Listed as such within any modern dictionary or thesaurus. Just because YOU have a narrow understanding of a word, doesn't make its use outside of that scope wrong.

    "the·o·ry /ˈTHirē/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories

    a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

    "hy·poth·e·sis /hīˈpäTHəsəs/ noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

    a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I read this as the name Al. Fonts are tricky.

    But yes, my hermes agent is named AI Gore.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    I'm doing my part by only calling it machine learning or LLMs. I do my best to avoid calling it AI

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    "Hacker" and "AI" are words made mostly useless by widespread misunderstandings about what they mean. "Baud" and "GIF" are words made more useful by people not caring about the technical details of what they used to mean.

    That does not make it impossible to say things about hackers or AI. If you've got something substantial to say on either topic it's not that hard to make it clear in context that you're using the word in an unusually correct way.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    The hill I'm willing to die on is that "cyber" is short for cybersex, not cybersecurity or cyberspace as appropriated by the military.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 weeks ago

    The short answer is probably yes.

    Maybe it's a quote I read somewhere, but basically everybody agrees that language changes over time, but nobody wants to admit that it changes during their lifetime. I think the only thing to do, rather than campaign for or against one form or another, is to do what you've already been doing and make yourself understood given the context of the situation.

    In terms of technical accuracy, new variables have been introduced that are--through no fault of your own--making you less understandable. I think, though, that it still falls to you to make yourself understood, either by brute force and using your definitions regardless, or by being more descriptive.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Don’t worry: it will be “Super Intelligence“ now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    There's a German (kids') story about someone who was renaming everything. He called the table a chair. But he then had to give the chair a new name.

    Trump forgot to give the former superintelligence a new name.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    I remember how everyone talked about how the first Half-Life game implemented AI so well. The enemies were actually cunning, especially by the standards of the time; One enemy grunt would chase you into cover and have another grunt throw a grenade, while a third one circled around.

    If a game today was released with a rumor of having "great AI implementation", a lot of people would understandably steer clear.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

    Yes, we have.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

    I'm still trying to figure out when "bucket list" came to mean a todo list with a deadline rather than a list of things to do before you die.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

    That’s not at all what a bucket list is

    edit: unclear, my meaning was “a random todo list with a date is not a ‘bucket list’” - to me a bucket list is a list of things to do before you die

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    I had this happen with 3D (as in computer graphics, 3D animation...) when films started releasing in stereo. Fortunately it's mostly a thing of the past now

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    My personal pet peeve on this stuff is the word algorithm. Talk about a word that means something completely different to technical folks than non-technical.

    The definition of algorithm is any well defined step by step procedure to solve a problem. To the nontechnical it means specifically an algorithm used by social media to rank and recommend things. Makes reading about social media incredibly eye rolling

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Take advantage of yet another communication hook that the old internet gave us: word tagging.

    You can for example request comments on 90s!AI or you can ask someone to convert a image!GIF for you.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Sorry, I wasn't online before 1988.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Haha. Language, culture and society, golly all I can say is, sometimes it do be like that...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Baud comes from Baudot code. The things I learned getting a HAM license.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I miss leetspeak personally

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago

    I always preface it with Generative AI if I am going to use it

    I work in the games industry and AI is already widely in use for NPC behaviour

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago

    Ideally, AI is the larger umbrella term for just about anything. It should not be the term used when speaking critically of a specific kind of AI: NPC AI, TTS (text to speech), STT (speech to text), ML models for vision, GenAI (LLMs, image generators, audio generators, video generators) etc.

    When speaking critically, most people do mean "GenAI" and that should be the distinction.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Just say I'm getting old and can't cope next time

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    It's even more absurd: There are gamers who demand computer games without AI. WTF?

    They don't want genAI slop for visuals, writing, and other creative things in games. They are using AI in the context of those things and even give examples about how AI upscaling of textures in game design looks shitty and don't want voice actors to be replaced with fake voices. They still want human creative involvement front and center because all the llm/genai image stuff is just ripping off existing stuff in the worst ways.

    They aren't talking about pathing or gameplay ai that has been around forever because the term AI has been coopted by genAI and that is what they are referring to.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Didn't baud = bps since we send 8bit "words" so for all of intents and purposes (except 40 year old gear) it's kind of correct?

    Who uses baud nowadays though?!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago
    [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    How do we discuss anything when different people mean different things but use the same words? We all have weird perceptions of scale. Ask an american how far away 'far away' is. Then ask a European. Ask someone how they define 'smart.' Then ask someone who fits the first one's definition. You can get probably a dozen definitions each for words like 'friend,' 'trans,' 'fascist,' 'appropriate for children,' or just 'child.' Some people are dedicated to precision of language but society is full of people who say 'It was bluh,' because they either cannot, or just as often will not, put in the mental effort to find the words to express what they mean. Add in how most people don't have the time/bandwidth to learn what AI is, (or LLM, or genAI, or agentic, or neural networks, or conditionals, or statistical modeling, or anything else) but still want to feel like they do, so they map 'AI' onto some pre-existing concept in their head so they don't have to learn a new word.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

    This reminds me of the same naming treatment that telephones got, once something else got called a phone

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Well, the term hack has been around a lot longer than computers. Its past meaning is just no longer valid. I was watching the old tv show The Odd Couple, Felix's daughter said she just wanted to hack around, Felix had to ask what she meant. While she really couldnt explain, "you know dad, just, like, hack around", which in this sense seems to mean doing nothing in particular. Saying "I couldn't hack it" has a double meaning these days.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    to be fair hackers could be all kinds of electronics and tech and depending what they are doing could also be called crackers or phreakers or such.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It might change with the next AI winter.

    Also, the old "AI" was already a bit of a stretch from "artificial intelligence".

    In the meantime, I'll probably refer to the old AI as "enemy controller", at least in the code.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    When I started learning the programming language Common Lisp, I thought there was only one AI winter. That's all the Lisp bros were talking about and how awesome the Lisp machine was.

    But recently I'm wishing for a new one and looked it up on Wikipedia: there were already several AI winters.

    The next one will be the AI winter for the next decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    I just act like Randal when someone says I "can't say that" or use "that word" anymore.

    1000004717

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›