Isn't it also OK to call the same thing by different names, depending on context? If I'm talking with a fellow programmer, I can use "LLM" and they probably know what I mean. If I'm talking with a non-technical person, "AI" will most likely be good enough. If I'm talking with a hermit, "Machine" or "Robot" might be even better to use.
This article makes a strong point for calling it LLM instead.<p>"AI" is too broadly used. The string of if-then that powers the opponents in a video game is already called "AI". Hell, I refer to the automatic opponents in <i>board games</i> "AI". If we got AGI, I think we should call it something else than "artificial intelligence", which has always meant more "fake" than "human-made".
> We need an agreed term for this class of technology, in order to have conversations about it. I think it’s time to accept that “AI” is good enough, and is already widely understood.<p>Machine learning
the term is old relative to the subject and the participants. it is misused, misunderstood, misheard, misrepresented, etc. it is loaded, tainted, so much so that someone is going to pop up and derail things.<p>the author even took the time to acknowledge that there were several valid complaints. before decreeing them unhelpful.<p>is this not a tremendous amount of effort spent on insisting words be used?<p>it’s ok to call it something else.
The problem is that current hype around the term, plus the plausible results created by LLMs, means people (the general public, non-tech people in business, politicians and regulators) are being mislead into exaggerated expectations. Exaggerated fears too.