> the third camp: impact is not related to merit, and AI is impactful
I suppose I'm in Camp Zero: If you want me to invest, tell me exactly what it does and what you think it can do.
If you have created a better probabalistic language generator, you may have created some business value. But calling it "A.I." and implying that it is "A.G.I." is the kind of deceit practised in a typical economic bubble.
Following your logic, we could order the terms thus: A.G.I. > A.I. > M.L.
No marketing team has yet had the audacity to claim that A.G.I. == M.L. but I am alas not aware of any robust long-term protection against marketing audacity. ^_^
A.I. remains a theoretical hypothesis, and that is not an opinion regardless of the marketing tactics and money thrown at the question. As for probablistic text generation, generating dubious text at scale isn't intelligence.
It's good enough for chat-bots but will not do for any task requiring serious responsibility.
It may nonetheless prove to be a viable business... or short-term pump-and-dump. ^_^
I suppose I'm in Camp Zero: If you want me to invest, tell me exactly what it does and what you think it can do.
If you have created a better probabalistic language generator, you may have created some business value. But calling it "A.I." and implying that it is "A.G.I." is the kind of deceit practised in a typical economic bubble.