I think we keep making the same language mistake with AI. https://preview.redd.it/kz0udw9t27rg1.png?width=2752&format=png&auto=webp&s=d901ebe86f2ee6962e1d18288244f6032ec61423 We use “AI” as if it were the name of the thing, but “artificial intelligence” sounds more like the name of a capability than the name of the whole thing that carries it. A few examples:
- Anthropic is the maker, not Claude
- Claude is a product name
- LLM is a model class
- model names one layer
- AI gets stretched across the field, the capability, the model, the product, and the deployed system people actually use That’s why discussions get slippery so fast. One word is doing too many jobs. I’m not arguing sentience or personhood. I’m making a narrower language point: Naming the parts is not the same as naming the whole. So here’s the pressure test: What do we call the integrated whole system in use, without collapsing it into “model,” “LLM,” “product,” or “AI”? My placeholder word is noet. Not because I think it’s perfect, but because it lets us ask the question cleanly.
- AI = the capability
- LLM = one model class
- ChatGPT / Claude = instance or product names
- noet = the whole integrated system that carries the capability in use LLM is a species label, not the genus. Product names can name the instances. They do not name the kind. Maybe “noet” is bad. Fine. Kill the word if you want. But then what is the better genus term? submitted by /u/keonakoum
Originally posted by u/keonakoum on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.